If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   US Air Force: The stealthy, fifth-generation, $400 million F-22 Raptor is the undisputed king of the skies. German Luftwaffe: Ja, about that   (wired.com) divider line 46
    More: Interesting, Toronto Raptors, air forces, mock combat, U.S. Air Force  
•       •       •

22832 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2012 at 10:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-31 10:25:36 AM
6 votes:

DjangoStonereaver: I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time.
They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.


At least they remembered to put a cannon on this one.
2012-07-31 10:49:10 AM
5 votes:
In other words, in a real fight, all German planes would be destroyed before they ever even saw the Raptors.
2012-07-31 10:54:38 AM
3 votes:
From TFA:
In a 2008 study (big file!), the Air Force-funded think tank RAND warned against assuming long-range missiles will work. RAND looked at 588 air-to-air shoot-downs since the 1950s and counted just 24 that occurred with the attacker firing from beyond visual range. Historically, American long-range air-to-air missiles have been 90-percent less effective than predicted, RAND asserted.

Why, that's terrible! Wait... "Since the 1950s"? That's a big range... As it turns out, if you go to slide 24 of the linked study, it turns out that 4 of that 24 were pre-1991, along with 527 of the shoot-downs. Since 1991, it's 20 out of 61. So, take it with a grain of salt.
2012-07-31 09:50:21 AM
3 votes:
The big advantages the F-22 has over other aircraft is stealth, supercruise, and it's electronic warfare system....if you put it in a situation where it can't use any of those advantages, yeah, other aircraft have a shot.
2012-07-31 01:24:01 PM
2 votes:

Gleeman: Gdalescrboz: Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century

About that. F-15 part starts around 7:00, relevant BVR miss is around 8:00. Continues in Part 5 of 5.

Not saying the Eagle isn't a great fighter, but most of it's kills have been in visual range. The ROE usually requires visual ID in most situations.

BVR missiles are still very unreliable: (From Wiki)

USAF F-15Cs vs. IRAF MiG-25s
(which were evaded by the F-15s). The F-15Cs give chase, but were forced to give up when the MiGs outran them. A total of 10 missiles were fired at the MiGs.[2]


That example doesn't show that BVR missiles are unreliable. It shows what I said earlier regarding the importance of speed. The weapons didn't fail, the Foxbats just outran the shots. They lived because they refused to be drawn into a turning engagement and the Eagles couldn't catch them (the -25 is wicked fast).

In a shooting war, that's how a Raptor will fight. High altitude coming downhill at a very high rate of speed. Take the shot, fly through, come around and do it again. Just like the Flying Tigers of WWII except that engagements won't be spanning miles, they'll span hundreds of miles.

The opponent won't get a shot in because he's too busy evading the Raptor's shot. He won't be able to chase because the Raptor's running out at supersonic speed but using normal thrust. If he flees, the Raptor's going to simply run him out of fuel and then kill him.

One final note - the Meteor (when it actually enters service and if it lives up to its specs) isn't a super weapon. In fact, it's published range is very similar to the AIM-120C5 already in service and far less than the published range of the AIM-120D.
2012-07-31 11:19:43 AM
2 votes:
I wonder how much it would cost per unit for the Air Force to buy a few dozen 737s, equip them with AWAC-like radar, add a massive fire control system - and fill the belly with racks of AIM120s. Fly toward hostile air - detect enemy aircraft, unload a hundred AA missiles and leave. Land, reload, and repeat. If we are looking for a mobile AA missile launcher, there have GOT to be cheaper methods.
2012-07-31 11:11:01 AM
2 votes:
The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

The F-22 continues to kill and poison the pilots that fly it.

If an F-22 crashes, Fire Rescue has been told to not approach the burning plane under any circumstances, the burning fibres in the aircraft create fumes that are both toxic and caustic, so they will eat through any protection you may be wearing.

The EF-2000, Rafale, Gripen, F/A-18 Growth Hornet, SU-35, Mig-35, F-15SE Silent Eagle etc, are all better aircraft then the F-22 for their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and ease of maintenance relative to the expensive and maintenance intensive raptor.

The F-35 is the F-22 but worse in every possible area.

And the Marines had an F-18 shoot down the F-22 in a dogfight years ago. And not even a super bug, a classic bug. The Brits did it to the F-22 with the Eurofighter, the Indians did it with the SU-33 flanker. The F-22 is not some wonder weapon, it is a very expensive air dominance fighter that doesn't represent a significant leap over other weapons platforms.
2012-07-31 11:03:02 AM
2 votes:
Modern fighters are limited by the ability of humans to stay conscious and that is a hard limit on ALL close-up fighting by aircraft. So in short, almost any aircraft that has hit that limit - and it was hit by the previous generation - will perform about the same.

The next generation of air superiority fighter will be unmanned.
2012-07-31 11:01:17 AM
2 votes:
There is a long history of old aircraft claiming they can compete with the higher-tech stuff based on pilot skill or whatever small advantages but in actual combat they have rarely won in the end. MiG-15 versus F-86, MiG-21 versus F-4, MiG-29 versus F-15, etc. It's true the lower-end aircraft have some advantages at times, especially in the early stages of a new design like the F-22 there are often critical flaws. However, it's not enough to overcome the overall better stuff, especially after it has been tuned.

Everyone wants an underdog to win, especially when they're the underdog.
2012-07-31 11:00:59 AM
2 votes:

ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?


Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.
2012-07-31 10:52:42 AM
2 votes:
You mean artificially taking away every advantage the F-22 was built for puts it on an even playing field!!?

Thanks Rick Romero.
2012-07-31 10:50:03 AM
2 votes:
People seem to think the F-22 has to fly right over a target to hit it. Thanks Hollywood.
2012-07-31 10:03:26 AM
2 votes:
I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time.
They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.
2012-07-31 04:15:59 PM
1 votes:

ha-ha-guy: Flint Ironstag: ha-ha-guy: Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.

And the Typhoons won't shoot down the huge, lumbering, slow, totally non-stealthy 707 that is transmitting a huge radar signature because.....?

As others have pointed out that we don't put our Command and Control Assets on the front lines, I will simple ask.

Are you really that farking retarded?


A radar platform, and I have been on an AWAC and flown the simulator BTW, has to be pretty close to the front line. Even at altitude the curvature of the Earth creates a huge blind spot that enemy aircraft can hide in. Having an AWAC well behind the front line greatly reduces its coverage and greatly increases the area an enemy aircraft can hide in ready to attack your forward aircraft, including the F-22 which won't want to turn on its radar because that's a huge beacon saying "Yohoo! I'm right here!" Not to mention that the radar signature from an AWAC can be detected from well outside the range where the AWAC can detect you.

And a Patriot missile unit is just as likely to take out a friendly Tornado. US forces have a rep for friendly fire. Giving them a weapon that can shoot at aircraft well BVR, where they can see if it is friend or foe, is pretty scary. The Vincennes shot down an Airbus in a climb thinking it was a fighter in a dive. God help their allies if they ever get involved in a war with F-22s flying around shooting at anything that comes into range...
2012-07-31 01:08:34 PM
1 votes:
I know its already been said, but from the article:

Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight.

The F-22 is not supposed to ever be in a dog fight. They kill your entire group long before you even have a clue that they're in the air, and they do it from very far away.

Its like complaining about a bolt action rifle being bad at winning fist fights. That just isnt the point of the device.
2012-07-31 01:02:49 PM
1 votes:
The F-22 is designed to do something that only 2 other aircraft ever fielded can do - survive in a high threat environment. The other 2 aircraft that have actually been deployed with this capability were the F-117 and B2. Pulling a high G turn to try to out maneuver a SAM is second seat to the SAM not being able to lock on to you.

Plus we have a very proficient AWACS platform we didn't have in 'Nam. Add the Lacrosse, FIA, and NGEO space based radar sat constellation to provide BVR targeting that we didn't have 20 years ago and the BVR game has changed significantly.

There's a reason the Russians and Chinese are spending so much money to try to build their own when they already have an arguably better dog fighter in the J-10 and MiG-35.
2012-07-31 12:39:36 PM
1 votes:
Realistically, though, the next major war is going to fought not by F-22s but by a hundred trillion drones.
2012-07-31 12:13:35 PM
1 votes:

ha-ha-guy: Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.


In a real war, the Typhoons are carrying MBDA Meteors and splash the E-3 long before they're in SAM range.

Actually, in a real war, we're part of NATO, so the Typhoons can escort the F-22s and watch their backs :P
2012-07-31 12:00:12 PM
1 votes:
Yea but heaven forbid we make sure kids in this country have decent farking healthcare...
2012-07-31 11:59:12 AM
1 votes:
New Chinese Doctrine: If the Raptor has ten air-to-air missiles, send up 20 MIGs.

/You KNOW they're thinking that right now
2012-07-31 11:57:31 AM
1 votes:
Well, sure. Makes sense if you take away all of the F-22's advantages.

This is an aircraft that is meant to cruise around at Mach 0.8-1.2, well above 65,000 feet, lock on to a target +250km away with it's APG77 radar, fire multiple AIM-120 missiles then turn and burn at Mach +2.0.

The ability to data-link to other friendly aircrafts' radars such as the F-15, F-16 and AWACS while the F-22's radar is off and use those radars to lock onto and fire missiles against enemy aircraft.

Let's not mention the electronic warfare suite the of F-22. One aspect of the the F-22's EWS is rumored to be able to act like an EMP to an enemy aircraft's, disabling the 'fly-by-wire' systems and radar systems. Another aspect is ability to scan and classify the frequencies of an enemy aircrafts' search radars (or the radars of launched missiles), then feed bad data back to the radar making the F-22 appear elsewhere in the sky.

Also, the article fails to mention that the F-22's computer is designed to link-up and control/guide the X-45C UCAV (in the process of end-point development). An F-22 could loiter undetected at 70,000 feet and let a flock of UCAVs battle it out with conventional fighters...or tie up convention fighters while the F-22 itself could hunt down and destroy enemy AWACS without giving it's position away.

Finally, the F-22 is a multi-role fighter, meaning that the aircraft has been upgraded in it's software and hardware to be able to attack ground targets as well. The Typhoon does not have this ability.

All in all, the article is disingenuous (with a slew of weasle-words) and sounds more like an ad by EADS.
2012-07-31 11:52:13 AM
1 votes:
So they put the Raptors in a specific scenario that the Typhoons could exploit the 22s weakness...and they were still only evenly matched. Had the F-22 not specifically allowed the Typhoon to visably aquire them, the Germans would have had no idea wtf was going on

Also,
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century
2012-07-31 11:47:07 AM
1 votes:
At the end of WWII, 1940 model Japanese Zeros could easily defeat Corsairs and Hellcats that were stupid enough to get into a slow turning fight with them.

The Raptor wasn't built to get into a slow, turning fight. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf war, Yugoslavia all proved the same thing.

Avionics are good, superior weapons are good, maneuverability is nice, but speed kills.

In every one of those conflicts, US aircraft achieved their massive success by exploiting boom and zoom tactics*. Scream in, take your shot, keep your energy up.

Don't get caught up in a furball if you can help it.

I'm not a bit shocked a Typhoon can kill a Raptor in a knife fight. What would shock me is if a Raptor driver decided to fore go his advantages in a real shooting situation.

*A notable exception was late war in Europe where German jets had a decided speed advantage. We shot them down by engaging them in slow turning fights - mostly as they took off or landed.
2012-07-31 11:43:45 AM
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.


Exactly. And we will do it again.

/glad they never got the Me262 up with their best pilots early in the war.
2012-07-31 11:33:26 AM
1 votes:
So if you take away all the F-22 advantages and severly restrict what the pilots can do because of the oxygen issues THEN the Typhoon is on a level playing field?

Well I for one am outraged!
2012-07-31 11:31:53 AM
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.


Which is kind of the opposite of what we are doing now. We're building airplanes that are too expensive to be able to be manufactured quickly enough to replace losses, and we're betting on the fact that we won't lose too many.
2012-07-31 11:27:24 AM
1 votes:

JeffDenver: LOL...the premise of this article is that the Typhoons can somehow magically teleport into dogfighting range. Modern air warfare is BVR now. They would never get close enough to dogfight.


You can't really do BVR without radar, and you can't really use RADAR while being stealthy. That is the big flaw in the F-22 stealth argument. Even at the insanely 'hypothetical' range of an AIM-120D (50~60 miles), with the closure range of modern aircraft, you are looking at dog fighting ranges in about 1.5 minutes, so closing the gap between aircraft is not a difficult task to accomplish. And that 1.5 minutes is assuming a subsonic intercept, in supersonic closing, the time drops to about 45 seconds to knife fight range.

There is a persistent myth that BVR is what all warfare is about when it comes to ATA tactics, but the reality is that the range will close, and you will be stuck in a turning engagement. Year after year of exercises and training missions have shown this, and yet some desk force general somewhere insists that dogfighting ended in 1945.
2012-07-31 11:26:05 AM
1 votes:
No Top Gun Quotes here? Son, I am dissapoint.

During the Korean War, the Navy kill ratio was twelve-to-one. We shot down twelve of their jets for every one of ours. In Vietnam, this ratio fell to three-to-one. Our pilots depended on missles. They lost their dogfighting skills.

Sound Familiar?
2012-07-31 11:22:59 AM
1 votes:

hp6sa: With all due respect to the study, analyzing tactics from the dogfights of the 1950's and 70's (i.e, Korean and Vietnam era) isn't nearly as applicable as the 90's. The Iraqi wars did feature a lot more long-range kills than in the past. If the US ever went up against China or Russia... it will be on the back of EWACS support, unlike four decades ago.

/which is not to say the F-22 is great, given all of the other problems.


Please, do tell me about its silent engines with cold burning fuel. Just because America is in-love with radar doesn't mean the rest of the world is. You know what, don't bother. Someday a dark-horse, outta left field technocrat dictator is going to teach us a bloody lesson and I wont be in the mood to say "I told you so."
2012-07-31 11:14:41 AM
1 votes:

Coming on a Bicycle: Yeah, but isn't that something you can also do with a helicopter and a couple of ground stations?


how well do those helicopters and ground stations do stealth and supercruise, btw?
2012-07-31 11:14:30 AM
1 votes:
It still is the king of the skies. Being able to dominate the airspace over a larger range than the enemy while maintaining stealth. Yeah, it totally sucks. Get back to me when the Grippen can find a way to get into range without getting blown out of the sky.

You are a sniper. You are heavily camo'ed on an open battlefield. You have the benefit of optics and a long range large caliber rifle.

Your enemy is carrying a standard military rifle.

You can see him from far away and he is in your range while you are not in his. He cannot see you, but he knows your general direction.

Who would win in that scenario?
2012-07-31 11:07:47 AM
1 votes:
In a real world scenario, if you get close enough to see a Raptor, you are either part of its ground crew, the pilot, or you are drifting in your chute after your ride got shot out from underneath you.

That said...

Cutting production was criminally stupid. They should have at least continued to produce them at a rate that justifies keeping the line open. In an actual shooting war against an air force more capable than the likes of the Iraqis, the Iranians, or vaunted Somali air corps (likely converted crop duster with a guy with an AK-47 sitting in the back seat), the Raptor will pick off the first wave of enemy, have to return to base to reload, and while that's going on the second wave (made up of far more capable aircraft) will pop on the scene, kill the drones the Americans use for recon and light attack, and make life miserable for the American ground forces.

You can't simply decide to produce a high tech aircraft from a cold start. We'll be scrambling through the boneyards in the desert looking to reactivate F-15s and F-16s in order to get enough planes in the air and then there is the small problem of not having nearly enough qualified fighter pilots. farked only begins to describe it.
2012-07-31 11:05:50 AM
1 votes:

oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.


We don't like war...unless we start it.
2012-07-31 11:04:39 AM
1 votes:

ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?


I'm not sure about your point, but here's something for you.
Link
2012-07-31 11:04:11 AM
1 votes:
Another way to take out the F-22? Take out the power at the base. Without the servers, the computer controlled aircraft forms can't be cleared and the jet won't start if there is a red X in the forms.
2012-07-31 11:01:32 AM
1 votes:

JackieRabbit: it's attitude control computers can recover it in seconds.


Check your apostrophe control computers.
2012-07-31 11:01:08 AM
1 votes:

natmar_76: Why did we pay all this money, then?!


img2.bdbphotos.com

Your president calls my father and says, "I've got unemployment in Texas, Kansas, Washington State". One phone call later and we're stealing out of our social programs to buy overpriced airplanes.
2012-07-31 11:00:47 AM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: In other words, in a real fight, all German planes would be destroyed before they ever even saw the Raptors.


Yeah, but isn't that something you can also do with a helicopter and a couple of ground stations?
2012-07-31 10:56:35 AM
1 votes:
i149.photobucket.com
Yeah - the CF-22 might be an oonse over-budget.
We asked the DSS to make out a cheque with the amount line left blank.

/Canuckian humour
//the extra `u' means extra yuks
2012-07-31 10:55:55 AM
1 votes:
With all due respect to the study, analyzing tactics from the dogfights of the 1950's and 70's (i.e, Korean and Vietnam era) isn't nearly as applicable as the 90's. The Iraqi wars did feature a lot more long-range kills than in the past. If the US ever went up against China or Russia... it will be on the back of EWACS support, unlike four decades ago.

/which is not to say the F-22 is great, given all of the other problems.
2012-07-31 10:55:03 AM
1 votes:
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Reminds me of doing torpedo exercises back in the '70s. The older officers would do a WW2 periscope approach to launch a Mark 48 torpedo that had an effective range of over 5 miles. It could out-run just about anything in the water and could re-attack if it missed the first time.
2012-07-31 10:53:43 AM
1 votes:
This doesn't surprise me. The Typhoon is specifically designed to perform tight, unusual maneuvers that would appear as the aircraft being out of control. In fact, it can be put in to situations where it is momentarily out of control and it's attitude control computers can recover it in seconds. You can't do that with an F-22. But then, the F-22 would probably never need to engage in close combat. It is designed to take a target out well before engaging.
2012-07-31 10:50:39 AM
1 votes:
Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.
2012-07-31 10:48:02 AM
1 votes:
The F22 was designed on a premise, destroy the target before reaching visual range, that has never been tested in war and wasn't backed up with much independent research. It isn't surprising they lost in close range dog fights since they were never designed to win them

The DoD argues that missile technology has improved so much since the 1960s there is no reason to get close during air battles. Until there is a war with an opponent who can actually challenge the US for air dominance no one will know if their multibillion dollar gamble paid off.
2012-07-31 10:46:17 AM
1 votes:
You mean it's not invincible and it doesn't have the secret of life and it won't teach us the secret of eternal youth?

Why did we pay all this money, then?!
2012-07-31 06:47:14 AM
1 votes:
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report