Q. Can the Raptor see the enemy first, outnumber it, outmaneuver it, and kill it quickly?

Q. How does the Raptor stack up against the F-16?

Q. Why did Congress cap production of the Raptor at half the number sought by the Air Force?

This report first appeared in the Panama City News Herald.

By Ed Offley
eoffley@pcnh.com

It was the most impressive fighter aircraft seen to date.

Designed around a breakthrough technology, it was heavily armed with the latest air-to-air weapons and was capable of flying faster than its enemies and destroying previously invulnerable enemy aircraft.

One British pilot called it “the most formidable fighter” that the world had seen to date. Its pilots said it was a delight to fly.

Yet military historians today say the German Messerschmidt 262 fighter had little effect on the air war over Europe during World War II, and two military aviation experts last week warned that the U.S. Air Force has likely set itself up to repeat the harsh lesson of the Me-262 “Stormbird” in a future conflict against an adversary with a modern air force.

Simply put, said Pierre Sprey and James P. Stevenson, the F-22 Raptor is shaping up to be the Sturmvogel of the 21st century: a dazzling piece of technology that fatally ignores some of the unbending realities of aerial combat.

On surface, the Raptor debate ended six months ago. After years of controversy, the Air Force and Defense Department reached a final agreement on the Raptor program, with DoD and Congress approving full production of the stealth fighter while capping the program at 183 aircraft, a 50-percent reduction of the 381 planes that the service had long said it needed at a minimum.

(For Tyndall Air Force Base, where the Raptor pilot training program is located, this has meant a reduction in training squadrons from two to one, with 29 of the sleek fighters to be used in preparing pilots for combat units.)

But to Sprey, a founding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” group that during the 1960s and 1970s ramrodded the F-15, F-16 and A-10 programs into being despite fierce internal opposition, and military author Stevenson, who has written extensively on the Navy’s F/A-18 and A-12 fighters, the Air Force has created a major crisis in its future combat capability by sticking to the Raptor program.

The two analysts presented their stark findings to a symposium at the nonprofit Center for Defense Information on Friday in Washington, D.C. The two analysts provided their findings to The News Herald, and Sprey elaborated on the issues in a telephone interview.

Sprey said his briefing focused on the time-tested factors that define an effective fighter plane: (1) See the enemy first; (2) outnumber the enemy; (3) outmaneuver the enemy to fire, and (4) kill the enemy quickly.

“The Raptor is a horrible failure on almost every one of those criteria,” Sprey said.

The stellar attribute of the F-22 — its invisibility on enemy radar due to a computer-aided stealth design — is a “myth,” Sprey said. That is because in order to locate the enemy beyond visual range, the Raptor (like every other fighter) must turn on its own radar, immediately betraying its location.

Nor is the aircraft design effective simply because its advocates insist so, Sprey said. The 1980s-era F-117 stealth fighter was supposed to be invisible too, but post-Gulf War studies showed that the aircraft had been spotted by Iraq’s ground-based radars, he said.

And in the 77-day aerial campaign against Serbia in 1999, the adversary’s “1950s-era radar” managed to locate and shoot down two F-117s, Stevenson pointed out in his presentation. The situation is actually worse today, he said, because many nations have acquired advanced missiles that can home in on radar emissions.

“Who do you want in a dark alley?” Stevenson asked. “The cop with the flashlight, or the crook with a gun that fires light-homing bullets?”

Because the Raptor ultimately ballooned into a weapon that costs $361 million per copy, even Congress could not stomach the total program cost exceeding $65 billion, Sprey said. As a result, the Air Force is now committed to fielding a fighter program that lacks sufficient numbers to prevail in a major conflict, however effective the individual aircraft may be.

“Hitler had 70 Me-262s in combat,” Sprey said. “They were crushed by the force of 2,000 inferior P-51s that the United States had in the air.”

Early reports from mock deployments of the Raptor also show a major shortfall in the fighter’s sustainability in combat, Sprey said.

“The F-16 costs one-tenth of the F-22 and flies three times as often due to the issues of stealth, complexity and maintenance affecting the Raptor,” Sprey said. Sustainability and the number of aircraft available to fight on any given day, he added, are “vastly more important” than the quality of the F-22. “You have to have numerical superiority to win.”

On the last two points, maneuverability and capability for a “quick kill,” the two analysts assert that the Raptor is inferior to the F-16 and several allied fighter designs in the crucible of “energy-maneuverability.”

“Some (experts) assert that in the next air war,” all of the radars will be off and the air war will merge to air combat maneuvering,” Stevenson observed.

The Raptor’s performance in that mode will be “disastrous,” Sprey added.

“The only thing that will bail the U.S. Air Force out of this mess is the fact that they still have a lot of F-16s in service,” Sprey said, “The day they send the F-16s to the ‘boneyard’ is the day the service becomes a non-Air Force.”

Comments

Submit a comment - Jump to bottom of list

Yeah, and so is the Naval version out? Posted by Bill Rhodes - photojournalist 04/17/2006, 08:23 PM Naval Aviation hated this plane since it was first drawn.

The Myth of Stealth Posted by A.A. Cunningham - rF consultant 04/18/2006, 10:28 AM Those of us in the EW community new from the very outset that the F-117 was detectable by low band search radars; as is the B-2, as is the F-22, as is the F-35. Looking at the data obtained during susceptibility and emissions testing of the Nighthawk confirms it. Stealth technology and design decreases detectability but doesn't make one invisible. Every measure that is taken is met with a countermeasure so the battle is an ongoing chess match. Effective tactics and the use of SEAD platforms can help keep the enemy guessing. The loss of the single F-117 in the Balkans, not two as Stevenson claims, showed what happens when people get complacent, lazy and arrogant when planning ops.

Radar problem mythical as well. Posted by Evan Henley - 04/19/2006, 09:13 PM The idea that the radar will automatically give them away is true - On older radar designs. But the F-22 uses a special kind of radar, called an Active Electronically Scanned Array. The B-2 Spirit also uses this. This radar is designed so that it scans incredibly quickly and is very hard to intercept and observe. The F-22 uses the AN/APG-77, developed by Northrop and Raytheon. The B-2 Spirit uses the AN/APQ-181 from Raytheon, although it is currently being upgraded. For more information on this kind of radar, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_probability_of_in ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_electronically ...

Numbers Mean Nothing Posted by Jacob Sweat - 04/20/2006, 11:09 AM The comment that Mr. Sprey made about “You have to have numerical superiority to win.” is bull. The Soviet Union used quanity not quality, and while quanity is important, it is not the overriding factor. That has been shown during the conflicts over Israel. The Arab countries surrounding Israel used Soviet doctrine that many losses in man and material are acceptable in the battleplan, so long as the objective is completed. It is also shown that the USA ran the USSR into the ground because the USSR built so much of everything into a force that acted as a tidal wave, simply smothering enemy with numbers, taking the loss of say 10 friendly tanks for every enemy tank they destoryed. This doctrine DID NOT work in the war with Afganistan. The small numbers of Afgans fighting compared with the large numbers of Russians showed that. The Russians almost had it when they introduced the helicopter into the theater, because it was flexible compared to the heavy battalions of tanks. The Raptor is flexible and much harder to shoot down.

Total Waste! Posted by Bryan Tate - 04/20/2006, 11:34 PM Call me naive, but what competent airforce will this thing be fighting? Not going to help our soldiers fight the next Fallujah, because that is what and how we will be fighting for the next 30 years, not China. Useless againgst 4GW and post-conflict stability. How about hundreds of armed UAV Predators instead? Cool technology, but the Cold War ended, and all that is left for us to fight are millions of crazy jihadists in Africa and the Middle East.

Raptor Posted by Keith Cornelison - 05/08/2006, 07:15 PM I think Bryan Tate has an important point. I don't know much about aircraft or aerial combat but I do know that historicaly Army brass has always been prepared to fight the previous war. The cold war is over. Our military budget is higher than that of all other countries combined. We are preparing the fight the wrong war as our experience in Iraq seems to indicate.

bad analysis, bad comparison Posted by Mark Buehner - 05/26/2006, 05:53 PM The Me-262 comparison is just silly. Production problems and lack of fuel meant the Stormbird was never fielded in significant numbers to affect the course of the war. The argument being made would assume had the Nazis invested the jet money in conventional prop fighters they would have had better luck against the allies, there is no surity of this and precious little evidence(consider the ME-210 debacle). Does the US ever forsee relying on the Raptor alone to win against 30-1 odds? Are we intending to scrap the F-15 and abandon the JSF? As has been pointed out, the radar analysis fails to mention both the low probility of intercept radar innovation, as well as the tactics specifically developed to allow the F-22 to succeed. A deep strike raid against AWACS type aircraft doesnt need to be flown with the radar turned on until the last moment (if at all), for instance. The Raptor is specifically designed to 'kick in the door' by bypassing front line engagements and striking critical enemy components with speed and surprise. In this example, the Raptor can: see the enemy quickly via passively tracking enemy AWACS radar signals, outnumber it by bypassing its defenses via stealth and supercruise, outmanuever it easily, and kill it like clubbing a baby seal. The same can be done against critical ground installations.

Brilliant Engineering, Bad Mission Posted by Kalen Meine - 07/20/2007, 04:05 AM The low probability of intercept radar isn't magic. You can buy a textbook on designing systems to intercept radars like this. It's not that hard for modern electronics. Missiles like the R-77 have passive guidance options and the latest models were released after the radar specs were released. They likely already have guidance options (or warning receivers) that render the F-22's radar visible. The fire and forget ability of the AMRAAM, which would seemingly bridge the distance, only yields good kill probabilities when it receives midcourse guidance from the launch platform- meaning the radar is still on and painting the target. The AMRAAM radar is just too small to do all the work from standoff distance. If this is the case (as it was in the case of other superweapon combos, the F-4 and AIM-7 at the top of the list) then the fight collapses to visual range, at which point the much-vaunted stealth is useless, and it has inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, higher wing loading, lower fuel fraction, and lower A-to-A weapons load than many legacy systems (F-16C 50/52), and certainly the next generation Su-30, MiGs, JC-17s from China and Pakistan, and others- all airframes that cost 1/10 as much and can be fielded in equivalent numbers by much smaller countries. The comment has been made that number parity dogfights haven't been very common lately. But that's what the F-22 is built for. Against a handful of obsolete MiGs on takeoff (the more common engagement in recent battles) it is unjustifiable expensive, especially when the F-16 and Super Hornet have equivalent ordnance. In the few parity-esque air-to-air engagements possibly left(China over Taiwan, a North Korean collapse, Pakistan and India going hot) it might not be available in sufficient numbers, or have good enough within-visual-range characteristics to win the fight a smart opponent would wage. Now, some of the red air flights against F-15s have been promising. But F-15s routinely get splashed by aggressor F-16s during Red Flag, and war games around new weapons systems are often...dubious (as in Cope India, when F-15s didn't carry the AMRAAM against Indian Sukhois. Justification for the F-22, whose main weapon is the AMRAAM?) I could be wrong- it's a magnificent bird, and the gold-plated goodies might be enough to win the day. Just as likely, the future will be filled with brush wars, and the question will remain hypothetical. However, I worry... Generals prefer "new" more often than "good."

It's not just generals Posted by J Stanton - 08/09/2007, 08:48 PM The DoD purchasing process involves more than just generals. Lot of groups want new toys. There are DoD aerospace suppliers who need the work and their congressional supporters who not influence only how much is purchased but ultimately what is purchased. Witness the effort to have the Air Force buy and then lease a fleet of Boeing 767 tankers driven largely by Boeing and congressional interest, not USAF needs.

Stealth is an old Technology Posted by Mama_luka_bubate 06/13/2008, 01:10 PM What the radar could not see is what the new EDACs could see. It sees plastics, enamel coating, and even paper. It sees the emf trailing and it sees what is invincible to any radar system. I guess that has been seen in any horizon

Posted by Dave 06/16/2008, 05:45 PM Funny that Mr Sprey was one of the chief designers of the F15, the plane that the Raptor was slated to replace. Full disclosure sure would have been nice. Google it. The Raptor has already proven itself to be a HUGE advantage with any force its flying with and a PITA against agressors. Between its tech marvels and the seat time that USAF pilots are given, this plane will be a formidable force for the next 15+ years. If stealth is old hat as you claim how come the Russians and Indians are building PAK-FA and the Chinese have a J-XX program in the works? For something that is old tech seems that the worlds powers sure are spending alot of GDP capital on it. Wouldnt money be better spent on your imaginary radar? The fact is the only radar that is POSSIBLY capable of seeing the Raptor is being developed by Raytheon and Lockhead. Think they will build a radar that can detect their F22 and the F35? I think not. Even if someone had a capable radar, are they going to be deployed everywhere? Fact: Raptor is here today, your "fantasy radar" isnt. Its still drawing board tech. Lets not forget the quote from the RAF pilot who said that he could physically see the F22 through the canopy but his weapons systems couldnt lock onto it. Or that EVERY pilot that goes up against a Raptor says its the most frustrating thing ever to fly against. So many of the Raptor's capabilities arent even public knowledge yet. It has a new claimed speed record of over Mach 2 w/ afterburners and supercruises 1.7, above Lockhead's original claim. Every new plane and new technology has had its detractors. The now legendary F14 Tomcat crashed 9 days after its first flight and had engines that were prone to stalling. Yet its one of the best planes to ever be built. History of the Raptor has yet to be written and history will be more than generous to the Raptor as she earns her wings and reputation. Detractors were all over the Raptor before she even took off for the first time. Most of them dont know didly about the Raptor but because its not "their" plane it must suck.

Posted by Edward 06/17/2008, 11:24 PM No one here knows how the F-22 will truly perform if it ever goes up against an adversary with advanced equipment. I think the radar technology that can neutralize a stealth plane's advantage does exist now. For example, both the US and Russia have ground radars that can track "space junk". That is debris left over from numerous space missions, and can even "see" something as little as a bolt, flying at 17,500 mph, and over 300 miles above the surface of the Earth! They MUST have this capability! There is no choice because if a launch of a manned space craft happens to fly into the flight path of an object even that small, it would be like getting hit with an RPG! So it's ignorant to assume that technology to detect "low observability" aircraft isn't available NOW! One more thing, a modern MiG-29 OVT, or an SU-30 MK doesn't need radar to lock it's weapons on an aircraft like the F-22. They have advanced optic electronics like the "Optical Locater Station" or "OLS", which can not only detect potential targets at distances of 45 to 90 km, but also are linked to the fire/control system, and therefore perform a lock on it's target. Of course the radar from it's host is still needed but only right before the missile, such as an R-77 switches it's own homing radar at which time it's too late for the target to evade it effectively. Closer range combat would favor the MiG or the SU even more so, as their optic systems, missiles like the R-73, and these aircraft's phenomenal agility will all come to it's own. All this said, I believe the F-22 is a wonderful engineering feat, but I rather just admire them than actually learn that other fellow human beings were hurt or killed due to an attack from these combat jets.

Raptor Mythology Posted by John 12/19/2008, 01:39 AM The F-22 Raptor is overrated. There is absolutely no technology that can promise the Raptor its alleged capabilities. There is no technology that can ensure that it can sight an aircraft first and shoot it down first. Its stealth technology does not make it invisible, there are already radars that can detect it. Its thrust vectoring capability has already been superseded in aircraft such as the Su-30MKI. Modern aircraft should not rely solely on air-air missiles. The Vietnam Air War proved that cannons are invaluable in close combat dogfights, hence providing a need for great maneuverability that the Raptor lacks. Another of the Raptor's feats is that there are so few of them; 183 are not going to be enough to gain air supremacy over nations such as Russia or China. Another myth about the Raptor, is that it will always be the best. History shows that nations develop new ways to counter threats. For example, in Vietnam, the Vietnamese MiG-17s and MiG-21s (but not the MiG-19) were probably superior, initially to the US F-4's, F-105 and F-5's, but the US improved the capabilities of their aircraft, arming them with better air-air missiles and using new tactics. This vastly improved their performance, although it did not prove them superior or have any effect on the war. In war with the Raptor, if it really was stealth and had its other alleged capabilities, opposing nations could develop a new radar to detect it, or improve their own aircraft or develop new aircraft to deal with the Raptor. The US Air Force should really look at building on its current fleet. Perhaps newer F-15 Super Eagles could be deployed alongside F-16 Super Falcons. Although US/German tests showed the F-15 and F-16's were inferior to the MiG-29 and Su-27 (which is superior to the MiG-29) (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29#MiG-29_in_German_service) the current fleet of F-15's and F-16's could simply be upgraded to deal with these aircraft. In summary, the F-22 is overrated and lacks the means to gain air supremacy in a modern air war. The US needs to learn from history and simply build on its current fleet.

raptor the primary fighter Posted by anthony 01/27/2009, 01:22 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) ... The F-22 Raptor is most likely the only 5th Gen air superiority fighter able to evade, and even target, the S-300 family of long-range SAMs, and it would be relied on in a modern air vs. ground conflict e.g. Iran, with recent deliveries of S-300PMU-2 batteries. The legacy 4th Gen fighters, i.e. F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon will be relegated to a secondary role in mopping up weakening enemy aerial opposition. It would be better if Raptors were built in larger numbers, say 550, 1000+ in there's WWIII. By the time the Su-50 PAK FA and J-XX enter service, there would be an advanced Block 50 & 60 variant equipped with electronic attack avionics, replacing the long-lost EF-111A Raven. Hope the USAF can count on this wonderfully magnificent fighter Lockheed Martin, Boeing and associated companies devoted tens of billions of dollars in developing it.

The lessons of Pearl Harbor Posted by Bill Hunt 02/13/2009, 05:45 PM It appears to me that we're tuning up to fight an enemy that doesn't exist with weapons that are outdated just like all those high tech battle ships at Pearl. Trouble is the correct weapon(s) won't be known until they're needed. Japan lost the war Dec 7, 1941 when they blew away the upper crust of the US Navy. And they knew it too because it settled the same argument that raged in their ranks being won by battle ship admirals -turned the war into an industrial contest the brighter Japanese knew they could not win given the results at Pearl Harbor. The problem with the ME-262 was Hitler and a mentality not all that different to battle ship admirals -all his airplanes had to be dive bombers first. He could have had a better jet air supremacy fighter the day he started the war but Heinkle wasn't a good Nazi and Messerschmidt was a good something, Nazi or kisser or both. There's probably a little politics involved with the Rapture too. My choice of weapons for today's kind of war is micro fighters -bird size remote control airplanes with cameras and a grenade size bomb. They can be produces by the millions for the cost of one Rapture. Filling the air in the hills and valleys of Afghanistan with them would strike terror into the hearts of the hand full of al qaida left. No safe passage by day and with a few equipped with night vision by night as well. Generals train their troops for trench warfare while admirals polish their battle ships and airmen continue the fight with the ME-262. They're all very impressive but can they find bin Laden or stop a determined idiot with a suitcase full of bad news sure he's on his way to heaven where Allah will reward his efforts with lots of eternal goodies?

new generation of warfare Posted by anthony 02/28/2009, 05:51 AM "Generals train their troops for trench warfare while admirals polish their battle ships and airmen continue the fight with the ME-262. They're all very impressive but can they find bin Laden or stop a determined idiot with a suitcase full of bad news sure he's on his way to heaven where Allah will reward his efforts with lots of eternal goodies?" In this generation of warfare, the perfect generals train their troops for maneuver warfare, the perfect admirals polish their jeep aircraft carriers and seaplane aviation while combat pilots start a new fight for air dominance with the F-22 Raptor, distributing Sukhoi parts on the way and protecting the other vital air assets e.g. legacy F-15, F-16, A-10 and others. The low-intensity conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are unrelated and irrelevant.

F 22 and F 35 a couple of dogs. Posted by tedbohne 04/22/2009, 08:13 PM Radar, part of the EM spectrum is not so easily fooled. the American public is. The B-2 is just the same. futuristic trash proven not to be airworthy the FIRST time Jack Northrup tried to shove "flying wings" up America's collect ass. Junk, all it is. Further, none of these aircraft has been tested in actual combat with say, the Russians? This is good since the Rand corporation in Operation PACIFIC VISION, discovered the F-35 easily overcome by the Sukoi 37. an the MiG either 35 or 37. Fighting the american aircraft was compared to clubbing baby seals. tedbohne tedbohne@yahoo.com

need clarification Posted by beach 04/23/2009, 02:21 PM The analogy of a criminal with light-seeking bullets was very descriptive. I'm not sure it's accurate though. I need some clarification on this plane's capabilities. My understanding was the F-22 could spot the enemy from very far away. Sticking with the flash light analogy, the cop can spot the criminal and fire on him before the criminal knows he's been spotted. Even if the criminal has light seeking bullets, he's already been fired upon. Furthermore, I've heard that the light seeking bullets don't have the range to reach the cop. What capabilities does this plane have? I know, I know, the info is probably classified. Still, give me the educated, agreed on guess.

Posted by Bruce 05/01/2009, 10:48 PM The analogy of the Raptor with the Me-262 Messersmicht is a flawed one. The Me-262 was produced by a nation that was *already* defeated and came very late in the war. Additionally, Germany had no resources (fuel and pilots) to keep it flying. Furthermore, the Me-262 could only target one enemy at a time while the Raptor can target many and interface with other Raptors as well as other mass weapons delivery systems. Finally, even P-51 Mustangs shot down many Me-262's while nothing can touch the Raptor. The analogy is a flawed one.

Sprey Posted by TG 06/15/2009, 02:41 AM For he who made the comment about Sprey being a chief developer for the F-15, insinuating his judgment cannot be biased, I think you could stand to learn a little more about the man than that. He was also one of the lead developers of the A-10, arguably one of the most effective aircraft ever built. Pierre Sprey is a brilliant man who, along with John Boyd and the rest of the Fighter Mafia, have dedicated much of their lives, and sacrificed careers battling corruption and fighting for reform within the Pentagon. Among their accomplishments are the F-15, F-16, A-10, exposing and the corruption of the Bradley FV development, and changed the way the Marine Corps fought wars. If you want to know more, here's some suggested reading for ya: http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Chang ... If we had more people like them working in the government and the DOD, this country would be in far better shape. But I digress... A lot of people have complained about the Me-262 comparison, but I think the point was missed. It had nothing to do with why the germans only had so few, or whether they would have been better off not trying to build them, it was just making the point that having a more advanced aircraft does not necessarily mean you will win the fight. For the cost of one F-22 you can have 10 F-16s. We're getting less bang for out buck with these gold-plated fighters. There's a lot of debate over this stealth technology. I doubt there's a lot of stealth experts on here (posting a link to a Wikipedia article hardly gives you credibility), and I certainly don't think I am either. But if this stealth technology doesn't crack up to be what they say it is, then all of this planes supposed greatness really comes crashing down. Not unlike the faith in missiles that caused the F-4 to not be equipped with a gun, which as we know turned out to be disastrous. These technologies could be great, when incorporated with what we already know about how to build a great fighter. Instead the Air Force, the Pentagon, and defense contractors insist on constantly gold-plating these things. Here's the more in-depth slides from Sprey and Stevensons studies. http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Stevenson%20F-22%20Brief.p ... http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Sprey%20Quarter%20Century. ...

F-14 Posted by TG 06/15/2009, 02:47 AM One last thing for Dave....on the F-14. One of the best aircraft ever built? Really?! Hardly. It was a huge, poor performing, aircraft. Not what you want for a air-to-air fighter. It was built mostly for the purpose of carrying the Phoenix missile, as well as to keep the Navy from having the F-111 forced on to them. It's a good example of the DoD's past obsession with swing-wing technology. Something which was a maintenance nightmare and proven a terrible idea on the other two carriers of that technology, the F-111 and the B-1. No offense, and maybe I'm wrong, but I think you saw Top Gun too many times. A deceptive movie which could lead someone to believe this lumbering truck of an airplane could perform like a sports car.

TG Posted by Typo 06/15/2009, 02:50 AM Just wanted to correct the first line from my previous post....I didn't recheck my typing very well: "For he who made the comment about Sprey being a chief developer for the F-15, insinuating his judgment cannot be biased..." Meant to say: "...insinuating he cannot be unbiased..."

Posted by jsc 07/11/2009, 12:18 AM I dont believe many people know what they are talking about on here. The f-22 can out perform any aircraft in the u.s. military today period, In speed (crucial to any fighter and or bomber performance) manueverability (also crutial to get in and out of targer areas) Stealth (they arent just sending aircraft out on straight line intercept routes from base) The american military collective ly is actually very smart! smarter than everyones little opinion ofn here combined! The opposite and very crucial part everyone is leaving out it that when you have a spactacular aircraft you develop spactacular tactics. Anyone ever heard of MIDS? Any one in here have actual experience withfighters or bombers or stealth or radar?

We need more than fighter planes Posted by CJ 08/30/2009, 05:16 PM We a need a more dedicated CAS aircraft in afganistan and Iraq. We could use a new CAS helicopter to replace the Kiowa. The army screwed it up when they put too much on the new airframe and overpriced it until they could not afford it. It went from a 15 million dollar prototype to a 90 million dollar prototype. In Iraq and afganistan a cessna caravan could be used for CAS because the enemy has no aircover. We can't even get that right and ground patrols go out all the time with little to no aircover. We could use small light ground vehicles that are easily transported by chinook helicopters and basicly carry a rider and a M2 or M19. To support the foot soldiers and outmanuver the Taliban with more firepower. Its a pity that the airforce can't stop using multi tools. They need fighters that fight and CAS that attacks. Totally different desighn features are required for those missions. Fighters shouldn't have a radar on board AWACS should. Fighters should use optical or infrared sensors to find targets, they are much lighter than radar, by 1000's of pounds and they are passive and undetectable. Same with CAS. AWACS should just direct them to where they need to be.

The F-22 and lessons forgotten Posted by Olaf Brescia 09/29/2009, 01:02 AM I could not agree more. Olaf Brescia http://theboresight.blogspot.com ... 'The Boresight' / Sacramento, CA

wow... Posted by Konrad Wiley 12/04/2009, 01:43 AM I've made a passion out of researching military aircraft design, and a lot of the claims on here are "new" to me. 1.F-14 "A deceptive movie which could lead someone to believe this lumbering truck of an airplane could perform like a sports car." The F-14 only failed to be a hero in the Gulf War because the Iraqis would run from the radar signature, having learned from fighting Iran how deadly F-14s were. The only combat F-14s ever really got in was a 2/0 victory. The F-14 was said to have been nearly as agile as an F-15 at low speeds! Considering this was before the design of the much touted MiG-29 and Su-27, it really was a first rate aircraft. 2.Stealth: It really does work. If the Iraqis were tracking F-117s (which use a completely different technology for stealth than B-2s and F-22s) please explain why they saw fit to let them fire at will without loss? The Serbian incident was due to caution not being used since all SAM tracking radars were assumed destroyed. In the workings right now is the ability to completely cloak an aircraft even in the visual spectrums, which would be currently undetectable. This should be ready about the time those massive immovable space radars are shrunk into an aircraft portable unit. 3.Manueverability: The F-22 has more manuevering capability than an F-16. Period. The fact that it isn't "official" doesn't change the aerodynamic facts. Look them up if you must! 30K pounds empty with 70K thrust from engines = F-22. 19K pounds empty with 28K thrust = F-16C. So much for that "thrust/weight ratio" argument. 4. Swing wings were a failure: ? Are you not aware that the B-1 is currently the only major bomber serving in Iraq because of its ability to loiter and dash? It missed killing Saddam Hussein in a restraunt by less than 5 minutes. If full dash speed had been made, he might have died by a 2000lb bomb. I also pointed out earlier the success of the F-14... Hitler's 262s were awesome. They failed because the creator and builder was already at war and losing. Currently the USA is not losing. Also please remember that just because you started hearing about the F-22 during the Iraq war, that doesn't mean that it's a "new" idea. They've been working on this thing LONG before Gulf War I. If you want peace with a major power, show them how much it would cost them to not have it. The reason the Soviets didn't nuke the US was because they knew they'd get wiped out in doing it. The war would have been pointless. Submit a comment - Jump to top of list