quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
I don't know...a pencil sharpener is pretty darn useful. And you could field millions of them for the cost of one F-22.

I'll have to disagree there.

Plus, a single pencil sharpener could take out an F-22. We know what FOD can do to a turbine engine.

LOL - I can see it now. A pencil launcher.

Exactly.

Just throw a cloud of them up in front of the F-22. Bang! Bang! Uh, oh...time to get out.

(We'll see how long this goes before some F-22 fanboy spouts up saying a pencil sharpener couldn't win. 'It's got a laser that protects it from pencil sharpeners' or 'The pencil sharpener wouldn't be able to catch it if the F-22 was in supercruise.')

thread starter, i agree, but unfortunately this is ubi you're dealing with. their idea of realism is like a baby's to an adult's. they've repeatedly marked arcade products as realistic. i mean official info that states it clearly yet they have not shown any interest in actual simulations and have displayed general lack of concern with the voices that by all means need to be heard. marketting to the 15 year old console crowd is getting old. you'd think they have enough money from past scams to stop their mad quest for money

I think if planes like the raptor and the jsf will be stealthy,the Russian planes like the mig35 and su35bm should be more manouvrable and be able to use their tvc engines.

quote:

Originally posted by grigori9:
I think if planes like the raptor and the jsf will be stealthy,the Russian planes like the mig35 and su35bm should be more manouvrable and be able to use their tvc engines.

Interesting, so the Raptor's TVC engines are a non factor?

The SU-35BM is a example of the Soviets changing their tune. They removed the canards to reduce the RCS.

Imagine that..

quote:

Interesting post. You say you work for the USAF? Explain.

You contradict yourself. You say you believe the USAF/Manufacturers claims about the B-2 and the F-117 when it comes to stealth aspects, but when it comes to the F-22, you "take it with a grain of salt".

Proven data? I could supply links to whats available, but you know as well as I do that all that does is prove I can back my points by facts available. I could say the same for you, could I not??

Plus, I encourage you to use common sense. Something developed in the 70's and 80's will not be as advanced as something created in the 90's and the 00's. That's a simple concept.

Do some research on the electronics suite in the F-22. It blurs the line between a traditional radar and electronic warfare. In particular what the AN/APG-77 and AN/ALR-94 are capable of. Amazing stuff.

You are wrong. The F-22's paint is very advanced and was actually used to paint the F-117 in trials to extend the types usefullness and move the type to day operations.. Check out the the Dragon test team Det 1 53 TEG. Plus, you have to know that black is not the best color for night-time operations. It's a shade of purple. The Germans during WW2 were the first to field test this I believe.

Size? You act as if you are comparing a bus (F-22) to a car (F-117). Based on that logic, the B-2 is in a world of hurt.

The infra-red spectrum? All I can do is laugh. The problem with that theory is that in order to use that technology, you have to be close, around 20km if I am not mistaken. MANPADS? Are you serious? These systems have a 10 mile ranges at around 20000 ft. Do you actually think a Raptor driver will be that, for lack of a better term, stupid? The Raptor is all about BVR, and will have already killed you if depend on IR or Manpad systems. I can't believe you actually used this.

The Raptor has shaped inlets in the intakes and square nozzles to desperse radar as well. It also employs a new design technology called planform alignment.

I am aware of what the B-2 and F-117 have in order to reduce their signature across the all spectrums. But I still don't understand why you cling to older technology like it's the johnny cure all. You hold on to what you have been told, learned, read, etc. when it come to the older gen stealth platforms, but won't embrace what the F-22 and it's new tech brings to the table.

The F-117 Nighthawk was retired this April. The F-22 will be doing it's job. Care to comment on that??

Supercruise has no point? Are you kidding me? If the F-22 is assigned a Strike package, supercruise will be used on it's way to delivering an SDB or JDAM on a ground target. Supercruise allows the F-22 to move in TWICE as fast the F-117 to a ground target and deliver its munitions. You also have to respect the fact of what airspeed does to weapons delivery. A stealth aircraft going Mach speeds being used a deep strike platform is fielded capability war planners 10 to 20 years ago could only dream of.

The Raptor gives you Mach 1.5+ WITHOUT afterburner augmentation. Mach 1.5 without afterburner plumes. Imagine that.

If the F-22 needs to escape or lets say, actually engage enemy aircraft, the afterburners are there as well as the thrust vectoring. Something the Nighthawk could never do. If the Raptor is "seen" on any of the spectrums, good luck locking on to it.

During a recent Red Flag exercise, a RAF pilot mentioned that even if you can see it, you can't lock on to it. Or we could take a look at at a recent Northern Edge exercise, in which the Raptor used it's high altitude (over 65,000 ft) and supercuising capabilities to routinely swat down everything in the air, all the while not being detected by "Red" planes, SAM, or AWACS.

Am I saying the Raptor is the best thing since a pencil sharpener?

Well, yes I am.

1. I am a USAF ATC, read my profile, yes?

2. B-2As and F-117As have proven combat effectiveness as seen in Panama, Desert Shield/Storm, Bosnia, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and untold classified operations that will never see the light of day. The Raptor has numerous failures in flight testing and some lop-sided wargames never really meant to expose any weakness of the platoform.

3. Yeah, you keep trying to tell me that the F/A-18E Super Hornet is better then the F-14D Super Tomcat and I'll just keep laughing, same thing with the F-35B Lightning II is better then the A-10C Thunderbolt II.

4. I know that, and it's still an emissions source, so by that extent it can still be tracked. (The difficulty and plausibility are moot.)

5. Yes, I know of the Grey Dragon modifications done to the the Nighthawk, before the USAF just axed the entire program and retired the F-117A.

6. The line of reasoning only follows as long as the design is the same, the B-2A is a flying wing, the F-22A and F-117A are not, so comparing them stealth wise on the same requirements are moot as a Flying Wing is naturally more stealthy.

7. That's what they said about Guns too, we see how that worked out.

8. All half baked solutions when compared to the Platypus nozzles of the the F-117A/B-2A and the turbine sinking of the B-2A and Dispersion Grill of the F-117A.

9. Because the F-22A isn't meant to replace the the F-117A in it's role, unless the DoD has been blowing smoke up my ass. But people are claiming it is and that's just downright dangerous.

10. Yeah, the Typhoon pilot's comment, I recall it, I can't really comment on it as I don't know the situation of the engagment and what was being done.

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
1. I am a USAF ATC, read my profile, yes?

2. B-2As and F-117As have proven combat effectiveness as seen in Panama, Desert Shield/Storm, Bosnia, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and untold classified operations that will never see the light of day. The Raptor has numerous failures in flight testing and some lop-sided wargames never really meant to expose any weakness of the platform.

3. Yeah, you keep trying to tell me that the F/A-18E Super Hornet is better then the F-14D Super Tomcat and I'll just keep laughing, same thing with the F-35B Lightning II is better then the A-10C Thunderbolt II.

1. Ah, so you try to kill pilots regularly. Ha ha! Just kidding...sort of.

2. I, too, have always taken the results of those wargames with a big grain of salt. Why would the USAF want to show it's big expensive toy losing? They want to show it kicking butt because they need to justify continuing to spend a ****-load of cash on it.

3. Amen, dude.

So the new rumor is that a pencil sharpener will be an unlockable aircraft?

Yeah, its small RCS makes it very difficult to detect. Also has a nearly nonexistent heat signature.

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:

1. I am a USAF ATC, read my profile, yes?

2. B-2As and F-117As have proven combat effectiveness as seen in Panama, Desert Shield/Storm, Bosnia, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and untold classified operations that will never see the light of day. The Raptor has numerous failures in flight testing and some lop-sided wargames never really meant to expose any weakness of the platoform.

3. Yeah, you keep trying to tell me that the F/A-18E Super Hornet is better then the F-14D Super Tomcat and I'll just keep laughing, same thing with the F-35B Lightning II is better then the A-10C Thunderbolt II.

4. I know that, and it's still an emissions source, so by that extent it can still be tracked. (The difficulty and plausibility are moot.)

5. Yes, I know of the Grey Dragon modifications done to the the Nighthawk, before the USAF just axed the entire program and retired the F-117A.

6. The line of reasoning only follows as long as the design is the same, the B-2A is a flying wing, the F-22A and F-117A are not, so comparing them stealth wise on the same requirements are moot as a Flying Wing is naturally more stealthy.

7. That's what they said about Guns too, we see how that worked out.

8. All half baked solutions when compared to the Platypus nozzles of the the F-117A/B-2A and the turbine sinking of the B-2A and Dispersion Grill of the F-117A.

9. Because the F-22A isn't meant to replace the the F-117A in it's role, unless the DoD has been blowing smoke up my ass. But people are claiming it is and that's just downright dangerous.

10. Yeah, the Typhoon pilot's comment, I recall it, I can't really comment on it as I don't know the situation of the engagment and what was being done.

1 - Actually, I don't read posters online profile. If I have a question, I will ask.

2 - Not going to dispute to actual combat effectivness of the platforms, for they have proved their merit, and am thankful the USAF possessed them during those conflicts. But this does not change the fact that aircraft get old, and need to be replaced. Of course, an exercise is just that, and exercise. But you, or any other individual would be a fool to dismiss their results. Now you hold to failed flight TESTING? That's a reach, and you know it. You act as if the F-117 and B-2 are perfect, and succeeded at everything they did during TESTING, and we both know that did not happen. Every new weapon technology has limiting factors and related setbacks.

3 - You remind me of my Uncle Wayne. He used to hold on to endearing last-gen military technology just like you. His SENTIMENTAL choice? The F-4 Phantom. He swore up and down that the F-15 would never live up to the F-4. You the know how the story ends the Eagle. Sound familiar??

4 - Moot? That's a cop out. The 117 made it's money on being difficult to detect. Being "difficult to detect" is the name of this game. Don't use it as an ace card in one paragraph, only to throw it away in another. Be consistent.

5 - So you understand that it wasn't just "Interceptor Grey" as you originally and erroneously stated, and was an experimental grey livery based on the paint the F-22 is coated with then? Good.

6 - Agreed. The B-2's design aids the the concealment of it's actual size, but keep in mind, this does not negate the fact that it's a big plane, which hurts it in the other spectrums, but with all that said, it will be around for the forseeable future. The F-117? Gone. It's facet tech of the of the Disco era 1970's is being replaced by the Planform Alignment of the F-22. Everything on that plane has a parallel angle. This design concept works wonders on concealing size. But hey, for the sake of YOUR defunct argument on how much smaller the 117 is over the 22, let's look at the physical sizes of each plane, respectively.
A - F-117 Length 69ft 9in Width 43ft 4in Heigth 12ft 9in Wing Area 780 sf.
B - F-22 Length 62ft 1in Width 44ft 6in Heigth 16ft 8 in Wing Area 840 sf.
Comparable aircraft size, with the F-22 offering planform alignment.

7 - Horrible analogy. Removing guns from fighter aircraft was the worst thing ever done. Tell me sir, what I have been speaking of that compares to this debacle?

8 - There you go again. Your willingness to EMBRACE one technology and IGNORE another technology once again proves your lack of consistency and constant contridictions in this discussion. What you stated in an impressive technology, and I won't dispute that. But all the while you ignored the SPEED issue. You are aware of what occurs to a weapons (such as a bomb or missle) range and speed when fired from a stealth platform cruising at lets say Mach 1.5 versus one fired from a stealth platform moving at 600mph, right? You understand what Speed brings to stealth platforms, do you not? Anyway,technology from the 70's and 80's EVOLVES to technology from the 90's and 00's. Why do you have such a difficult time excepting that?

9 - LOL. I believe you are correct. The F-22 is intended to replace the F-15. Funny thing is, the USAF has now retired the 117, and is now spending millions of dollars a year on the F-15 to give them AESA suites, JHMCS, new computers, link systems, etc. (We'll see if the fatigue issues becomes even a bigger one for the A-D models) USAF Cheif of Staff Gen. T. Michael Mosely stated in 2006 the Nighthawk would be kept in service until the the F-22 can accomplish with CERTAINTY what the 117 has done. It's 2008 and we know what has happened.

10 - Stephen Chappell was the RAAF pilot who stated "The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it though the canopy". I am not clear on the exact specifics (even though I know the F-22 was severely outnumbered and the red forces were able to respawn), but that very statement brings up the impressive capablities of the F-22.

I only have two issues, max:

First, regarding the Super Hornet/Tomcat and F-35/A-10 comparisons (which I don't think you actually made), I think in these two cases technology is trying to replace/make-up-for raw abilities. I think this is the wrong attitude to have. Technology should complement the raw abilities. I don't know all the details of the F-35, but I get the general impression that it is a stealthy F-16 with a few additional perks (VTOL). I don't see how it is going to be as effective as the A-10 in a ground-attack/tank-busting role. Sure, it can sneak up to people, but how much ordnance can it carry before sacrificing the stealth? And it sure doesn't have the A-10's gun. Although it is slower, I think the A-10 is a far better platform for that mission; it can loiter an awfully long time before it needs fuel, it can carry an ass-load of ordnance, and it has that awesome 30mm up front. I think it'd take at least two F-35's to take the place of one A-10 in combat.

As to the SH/Tomcat issue, the Tomcat is/was a far superior plane. The SH has gotten better gadgets to make up for its lack of abilities. Had the money spent on the SH program and wasted on aborted R&D programs gone to the F-14D, we could be fielding a relatively young fleet of D's with the latest radars, sensors, EW gear, aerodynamic/engine improvements, JHMCS, and compatibility with all weapons in the current inventory. That F-14 would mop the floor with damn near anything out there - it would definitely blow the doors off a SH.

Second, comparing the F-22 to the F-117 isn't the same as the other two comparisons. The 22 is vastly more capable, however, I'm not sure it will have quite as much success with the air-to-mud mission. Gen. Mosely may have wanted "certainty" but the facts might be that he had to make compromises for the sake of funding. I can't say for certain that's the case, but I don't think the opposite can be argued without a doubt either. I think the USAF originally wanted the 22 for air-to-air only, but that wasn't in the budget. It's not meant for air-to-ground by design, but it has to have at least a limited capability to justify further funding. Since it is a secondary mission for the 22, I'm not sure if it will outperform the F-117 in this respect.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tomcatter61,

There are two problems i can see with the F22, first of all who was the plane intended to fight? It seems to me to be an overkill of a creation in the highest degree. All war efforts by the US over the past 30 odd years have involved countries with signifcantly lower millitary budgets than themselves, retiring the nighthawk is retarded, only two were ever shot down (i belive one was also only a bit of a pot shot), it is an adeuate aircraft for the role intended and it doesnt cost $200 million! Which leads nicely to my sencond point that for the same price you can purchase one F22 you can get around 5 eurofighters. 5 on 1 i know who my bets are with - one on one the F22 would easily win, but as soon as it engages the first eurofighter, it will be easily to track/lock on and destroy.

I'm not sure if the US just wanted to keep this technology to themselves, but you will see that they are the sole operators of the aircraft, unless it was not marketed to other countries (i find that a little odd, why wouldnt you want your allies to fly in the best to help you out?) then it just shows that other countries feel that it is too expensive for its use.

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
I only have two issues, max:

First, regarding the Super Hornet/Tomcat and F-35/A-10 comparisons (which I don't think you actually made), I think in these two cases technology is trying to replace/make-up-for raw abilities. I think this is the wrong attitude to have. Technology should complement the raw abilities. I don't know all the details of the F-35, but I get the general impression that it is a stealthy F-16 with a few additional perks (VTOL). I don't see how it is going to be as effective as the A-10 in a ground-attack/tank-busting role. Sure, it can sneak up to people, but how much ordnance can it carry before sacrificing the stealth? And it sure doesn't have the A-10's gun. Although it is slower, I think the A-10 is a far better platform for that mission; it can loiter an awfully long time before it needs fuel, it can carry an ass-load of ordnance, and it has that awesome 30mm up front. I think it'd take at least two F-35's to take the place of one A-10 in combat.

As to the SH/Tomcat issue, the Tomcat is/was a far superior plane. The SH has gotten better gadgets to make up for its lack of abilities. Had the money spent on the SH program and wasted on aborted R&D programs gone to the F-14D, we could be fielding a relatively young fleet of D's with the latest radars, sensors, EW gear, aerodynamic/engine improvements, JHMCS, and compatibility with all weapons in the current inventory. That F-14 would mop the floor with damn near anything out there - it would definitely blow the doors off a SH.

Second, comparing the F-22 to the F-117 isn't the same as the other two comparisons. The 22 is vastly more capable, however, I'm not sure it will have quite as much success with the air-to-mud mission. Gen. Mosely may have wanted "certainty" but the facts might be that he had to make compromises for the sake of funding. I can't say for certain that's the case, but I don't think the opposite can be argued without a doubt either. I think the USAF originally wanted the 22 for air-to-air only, but that wasn't in the budget. It's not meant for air-to-ground by design, but it has to have at least a limited capability to justify further funding. Since it is a secondary mission for the 22, I'm not sure if it will outperform the F-117 in this respect.

You are correct, I never compared the Tomcat to the Super Hornet, nor the Lighting to the Falcon or Thunderbolt.

But, for the sake of a good discussion, I'll throw my two cents in.

1 - Couldn't agree more. The F-35 replacing the A-10 is like the missle replacing the onboard guns. The advent of the A-10C shows me that the USAF plans on keeping the type around abit longer. I am going to play an advocate for the USAF. I believe the USAF is placing an emphasis on stand off capabilities, which is something the F-35 will exceed at. To me, the F-35 is replacement for the F-16. Test pilots have been quoted as saying the F-35 is more maneuverable then the Viper, and we all know it will have a significant advantage in stealth, avionics, and other categories. The F-35 will should able to deal as much damage on the battlefield(minus that amazing cannon)as the A-10. It will carry internally (for stealth) 8 GBU-39 SDB's along with 2 Aim-120/Aim-9. It also has an addition 6 external weapons stations as well. Regardless, this plan IMO is NOT a replacement for the A-10.

2 - Another never ending debate in the minds of folks like us, but in reality, over. The Hornet vs. the Tomcat. Here is what happened. The plane went into service in 1974. That puts the Tomcat's service of our country at 30+ years. It was time for this legacy aircraft to say goodbye, and make way for the new technology. Plus, the Hornet has performed well.

3 - I agree. Money ALWAYS plays a huge part. But with that said, The F-22 will outperform the F-117 in strike missions. The F-117's facet stealth was an exposed luxury.
Remember this?


These images still piss me off. LOL
The world discovered how to engage facet type/sub-sonic stealth technology (was their luck involved, of course). Based on this reason alone, it was time to go, especially when the plane can offer nothing else. Like I stated to Silver Hawk, the F-22's speed as a stealth platform changes everything, that and the other paragraphs I have written! LOL

quote:

Originally posted by damien123_214:
There are two problems i can see with the F22, first of all who was the plane intended to fight? It seems to me to be an overkill of a creation in the highest degree. All war efforts by the US over the past 30 odd years have involved countries with signifcantly lower millitary budgets than themselves, retiring the nighthawk is retarded, only two were ever shot down (i belive one was also only a bit of a pot shot), it is an adeuate aircraft for the role intended and it doesnt cost $200 million! Which leads nicely to my sencond point that for the same price you can purchase one F22 you can get around 5 eurofighters. 5 on 1 i know who my bets are with - one on one the F22 would easily win, but as soon as it engages the first eurofighter, it will be easily to track/lock on and destroy.

I'm not sure if the US just wanted to keep this technology to themselves, but you will see that they are the sole operators of the aircraft, unless it was not marketed to other countries (i find that a little odd, why wouldnt you want your allies to fly in the best to help you out?) then it just shows that other countries feel that it is too expensive for its use.

1 - That sir, is a flawed logic. To base a potential future military conflict on the past makes you susceptible to a powerful adversary. The F-22 was designed to counter any current or planned threat with UNFAIR advantages. As an American, I like that simple fact. Our sons and daughters will defending our Nation with the best that money can buy. The F-117 has been shot down ONCE. See the above pictures. The wreckage, included the older stealth tech was placed in the hands of our former Cold War enemies in Russia. Bad news. Say hello to reverse engineering. The flyaway cost of a F-22 is about 140 million (not 200M). Plus, Raptor pilots routinely train against 4-1 (and greater) odds. My guess is, the F-22 would have 2 to 3 EF-2000's smoked before they knew the Raptor was out there. But, I don't think anyone see's these planes in a dogfight in the forseeable future.

2 - Thank God for a wise US Congress. It's not odd at all. Nothing wrong with a Nation's military keeping the Ace card for themselves. The F-22 is the pinnacle of American Aviation, and does not need to be in the hands of anybody else. Look at it this way: If more then one person knows a "secret", the odds of this "secret" becoming wide spread general knowledge becomes a probability, and gets worse when more and more people know about it.

quote:

Originally posted by maxpontiac:
Plus, the Hornet has performed well.

I'll go with "adequately." It's definitely doing the job we need it to right now. However, if the poop should really hit the fan, I'm a lot less comfortable relying on the SH to protect the CVBG.

In any event, I would not necessarily argue that the Tomcat should be brought back. Some advanced incarnation of it, perhaps, but I feel strongly that the Navy needs something more than the SH. Let's face it, SH is a band-aid for poor planning/use of funds, and an aging fleet of aircraft. It's not a stellar aircraft, it's just "good enough." The Navy is buying more of them, just to supplement the delayed entry of the JSF.

What the Navy ought to do, is forget about JSF, and use SH for the main air-to-mud missions, and invest in a better high-end strike fighter that could dominate the air-to-air missions, as well as provide an additional platform for air-to-mud. Then again, the Navy could have that now, if it hadn't been so wasteful. I digress.

In answer to your question, no I don't remember those photos per se, but I did just discover them recently. The point is well taken, though. I will, however, maintain a nominal amount of skepticism regarding the F-22.