F/A-22 Drops First bombs x 9

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I'd rather get another 100 Raptors then some interm BS bomber.

B-2 = Not enough of them and cost too much money

B-1B = Only a tiny bit stealthy

B-52 = Too old and not at all stealthy

Theres a common misconception, you know its actually ignorance, that people seem to think that the Raptor is not needed because theres no Cold War. They seem to think theres no longer a threat, as if every country on earth loves everybody else and is all peaceful. This same mentality led us to the second world war, oh dont worry about germany, we dont need to upgrade our planes and military, as germany is secretly building the most advanced systems and military war machines ever devised.

Gut Check People: If Hitler wasnt such an impatient moron, if he would have waited 3-4 yrs before invading poland or anybody else, he would have had nuclear weapons and its a 100% certainty that every single person lucky to be alive would be under a german kingdom. If you dont believe this, you know nothing about history.

This pacifist attitude is a joke, and the military of the US will no longer allow the morons to tell them not to invest in the absolute best technology for our soldiers. Do you people think for one second that other countries wouldnt love to attack and kill us if we weakened miltarily. North Korea and Iran and many many others would love to nuc the US. Every system we have, militarily and economically is absolutely necessary. Wake up and get a clue. OTHER PEOPLE WANT YOU DEAD!!!!

Train

Originally posted by BigTrain
Theres a common misconception, you know its actually ignorance, that people seem to think that the Raptor is not needed because theres no Cold War. They seem to think theres no longer a threat, as if every country on earth loves everybody else and is all peaceful. This same mentality led us to the second world war, oh dont worry about germany, we dont need to upgrade our planes and military, as germany is secretly building the most advanced systems and military war machines ever devised.

Gut Check People: If Hitler wasnt such an impatient moron, if he would have waited 3-4 yrs before invading poland or anybody else, he would have had nuclear weapons and its a 100% certainty that every single person lucky to be alive would be under a german kingdom. If you dont believe this, you know nothing about history.

Your second paragraph explains why the Raptor is a waste of money. If Hitler had waited 3-4 years and developed Nuclear weapons in that time, instead of relying on conventional warfare as he did, he would have relied on Nuclear weapons just as we did against Japan.

Similarly, all our current genuine threat-nations are all nuclear powers and, as you suggested, will use nuclear weapons, not conventional weapons.

Before we dropped the bombs on japan and ended the war, the Japanese had all kinds of advanced jet fighters and bombers in development.

Now you understand why the F-22 will have nothing to do with our success if we ever engage in direct conflict with Nuclear powers like Russia or China. No one will risk losing due to conventional warfare when they have the nuclear option.

In fact, because we only have a fixed about of money to spend on such things, the money spent on the F-22 can be a serious liability in case of such a war. We are much better off spending that money on a functioning and multiple redundant missile shield defense system and we should do it fast.

Originally posted by orca71
Your second paragraph explains why the Raptor is a waste of money. If Hitler had waited 3-4 years and developed Nuclear weapons in that time, instead of relying on conventional warfare as he did, he would have relied on Nuclear weapons just as we did against Japan.

Similarly, all our current genuine threat-nations are all nuclear powers and, as you suggested, will use nuclear weapons, not conventional weapons.

Before we dropped the bombs on japan and ended the war, the Japanese had all kinds of advanced jet fighters and bombers in development.

Now you understand why the F-22 will have nothing to do with our success if we ever engage in direct conflict with Nuclear powers like Russia or China. No one will risk losing due to conventional warfare when they have the nuclear option.

In fact, because we only have a fixed about of money to spend on such things, the money spent on the F-22 can be a serious liability in case of such a war. We are much better off spending that money on a functioning and multiple redundant missile shield defense system and we should do it fast.

I could not dissagree more. You need completely dominant conventional forces because we can't politically use nuclear weapons against non nuclear powers.

We also need overpowering conventional forces as part of our escelation of force. It was explained a few posts back.

The US has a very adequate nuclear deterent between it's SSBN fleet, it's ICBM arsenal, and it's strategic bomber fleet. This is fine against mainstay nuclear rivals such as Russia and China for now.

We are building a limited missle intercept system for nations such as NK and Iran. This will be fully functional by the end of the decade.

The USAF needs more Raptors more then any of our branches needs anything else. Air superiority is the basis for all modern conventional warfare, and 500 Raptors would insure that.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Thanks for the pics Intelgurl.


As for the idea that we'll never go to war with Russia or China- it is highly likely that you are correct, however it is not a certainty that we can afford to rely on.

Deterence is about escalation. Suppose that you and another person each had a gun on your hip, and you each reached for the last coke in the fridge at the same time, and he gets to it first.

Now are you going to pull your gun on him? Of course not. But if you did, and if you pulled your gun on him every time something little like that came up, sooner or later he'd just shoot you when he saw you coming.

Now on the other hand, what if when he got to it, you slapped his hand away and grabbed it. Is he going to pull his gun? Probably not for the same reason you wouldn't- but he may shove you down and try to take it.

Now when this escalates into a real fight, one of your probably will pull his gun, and when you do, it's going to be credible.

It's the same with nukes. Deterence begins with, "no, I'm serious, you aren't going to do X with your conventional weapons, because if you do I'll respond with Y." Your opponent says, "Then I'd have to do Z." And you say, "If you do Z we're going to war."
Take the Cuban missile crisis as a perfect example. It wasn't just "Pull your nukes out of Cuba or we'll level Moscow".
It was "If you don't take them out we're gonna hit them." "Well if you hit them we're going to Berlin." "If you go to Berlin, you're at war with NATO." "If we get the bad end of a war with NATO, we'll use tactical nukes." "If you use tactical nukes, we'll use strategic nukes."

Let's bring it back to the real world- what happens if America can't go to the wall with Russia and China in a conventional war?

2006: Republicans in congress cut military spending to push through an election year tax rebate. The Army revises its reorganization program and drops 1 active brigade and 2 reserve brigades. The Navy scraps the DD(X) and LCS projects in favor of a new class of Frigate. The airforce decides not to take an option on additional F/A-22 aircraft, but asks for an upgrade program to the F-16, and new production of the F-16 at a later date, to be determined.

2007: The United Russia party in the Duma makes a series of amendments to the constitution of the Russian Federation- Putin is allowed to run for a third successive term and proportional representation is eliminated. That parties already immense power is strengthened to near absolutism.

2008: Putin and his supporters win election overwhelmingly- Russia begins a drift back to the Soviet era. The democrats, to nobody's surprise win the US elections. The Democrats concentrate on domestic issues while pushing for multilateralism in foreign policy.
The ABM treaty is restored and America ceases development of a missile shield.

America pulls out of Iraq. Russia cracks down on the Chechens. Russian troops begin to carry out operations in South Ossetia, Georgia on a regular basis.

2009: The Russian-Indian PAK FA program begins production of a derivative of the MiG 1.44. In most respects it as seen as a worthy adversary for the Raptor. China places an order and begins work on a domestic version.

2010: Russia invades Georgia on charges that they are helping the Chechens. South Ossetia and Abkhazia petition for annexation and are accepted. The US cries foul at the invasion of a NATO Patnership For Peace signatory.

Russia cuts the Caspian Basin Oil Pipeline.
Azerbaijan requests NATO troops immediately.
Turkey and Israel demand that the pipeline be restored and plead with the US to back them in a threat of attack if it is not.

Russian MiG 1.44's stray into Turkish airspace and shoot down three Turkish fighters. The US interperets this as a warning- they are right. 20 F/A-22s are sent to Incirlik, Turkey.

China sends 50 of their domestic version of the MiG 1.44 to Iran along with several SS-22s. Iran cuts oil exports dramatically and threatens to blockade the strait of Tiran.

America has a problem: we can't nuke anybody over an oil pipeline in Georgia, the UN Security Council can't help us because the enemy is Russia and China, we've only got 80 aircraft really equipped to deal with the threats that we face in the Gulf and the Caucuses if we decide to act, and since we can't gain air superiority we can't just make surgical strikes to slap the Russians on the wrist. Either we're going in or we're backing down. If we back down, we don't know what it might mean for our relations with Turkey, or for the future of Turkey for that matter.

America deploys a small force to protect Azerbaijan but let's the invasion of Georgia stand. The Russians build a base just North of Georgia's border with Armenia. Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia begins to heat up thanks to Russian covert provokation. Strategic think-tanks warn the president that his decision may lead to the complete isolation of Azerbaijan, which would force them to give in to the Russians and result in shared Russo-Iranian control of the entire Caspian.

America decides to retaliate cold-war style to ensure that Russia won't have Armenia cripple Azerbaijan. The Russians have to know that everytime they push we're going to push back somewhere else. Iran is out of the question since they've got the bomb at this point, so America decides to invade Uzbekistan, which in 2005 kicked America out of an airbase there, and install a puppet that will allow us to build an airbase on the Uzbek-Kazahk border, as a way of pressuring the Russians.

Russia moves its MiGs 1.44's into Kazakhstan and begins patrolling over Uzbekistan to ensure that we will not attack. America again ponders the possibility of a clash with Russia- the administration is assured that if we don't retaliate Russia will keep pushing.

America begins its air campaign against the Uzbeks, ignoring the Russian aircraft in hope that they're only bluffing. They aren't. Russia's new 5th generation fighter takes a heavy toll on the F-16s. Our F-22s respond and engage them with mixed results. The war is a stalemate before it's really even begun. America learns a valuable lesson: Letting the other nations catch up with us was a mistake. Letting them get ahead would be even worse. America immediately orders additional F-22s and begins developing the technology for a 6th generation fighter.

See what I'm getting at? If somebody else can equal or better us in quality and quantity, or god forbid actually get ahead of us, deterrence isn't perfect. We'll lose a step or two in foreign policy.

Thats an interesting scenario despite all the assumptions which would make for an interesting discussion, but I'll concentrate on the latter part that's most relevant to this thread.

The fact is we only have so much we can spend/borrow and the F-22 is so costly it seriously affects the numbers we can afford without becoming fully owned by Chinese banks from who we borrow to finance such programs, a course of action that creates an even greater and more insidious national threat.

This means that regardless of the scenario, we will still largely depend on the thousands of F-18s, F-15s, F-16s, etc.... This being so, it makes much more sense to spend a fraction of the F-22 budget to upgrade existing aircraft while investing heavily in the next generation of air superiority, stealth UCAVs.

BTW, one of the assumptions in the scenario you presented that I dont agree with is that the 5th generation russian fighter will take a heavy toll on our aircraft.

We learned from the Germans when they adopted the early East-German migs that even the older East German Mig-29s which didnt have any of the upgrades of later Mig-29s had superior flying qualities compared to our aircraft, particularly at the sub-mach speeds at which most air-combat occurs, yet we have a massively lop-sided record in our favor against all countries that flew Mig-29s such as Iraq.

The same was true in vietnam. Any vietnam war pilot will telll you the F-4 was inferior to the Migs in air-to-air combat yet the record was also heavily in our favor. Our pilot training and weapon systems were our advantage.

Of course, the ideal situation is to invest in the development and procurement of vast numbers of smart, stealthy UCAVs that can swamp any enemy air defense. This technology is developing very rapidly and will make the F-22 and russian 5th gen fighter obsolete overnight.

UCAVs are also a lot cheaper and with existing technology are not dependent on remote control, ie., they are self-guided and rely on a predertermined set of rules, a form of artificial intelligence.

So going back to the scenario, when the air war begins, imagine the possibility of simultaneously deploying 50 stealth UCAVs with self-adjusting redundancy for precision bombing of airfields and radar installations as well as another 200 stealth UCAVs with air-to-air combat capability (so they are essentially missile-carriers designed to target and destroy any non-friendly aircraft) sent as escorts against the potential threat of Russia's 5th gen fighter, of which, in the scenario you described, at most a few dozen will be airborne at any one time. There is no response to such an over-whelming attack, the kind of which we cannot risk using conventional piloted aircraft due to SAM and enemy aircraft threats.

In fact, one of our biggest conventional threats of the future is in the continued development of UCAVs by other countries. I'd hate to send up 80 F-22s against 80 stealth UCAVs where every UCAV has multiple missiles and can jointly track and fire on multiple targets simultaneously by sharing precise target information.

The USAF needs more Raptors more then any of our branches needs anything else. Air superiority is the basis for all modern conventional warfare, and 500 Raptors would insure that.

500 raptors is a huge waste of money. We need to improve and accelerate our missile shield defense and rely on vast numbers of cheap, disposable, but smart UCAVs with high-performance/capability for air-superiority against non-nuclear enemies. If it would significantly increase yield, Id even forego some stealth features or complement stealth UCAVs with a backup wave of cheaper non-stealth UCAVs once the enemy is engaged. The way to victory is with the simultaneous deployment of over-whelming numbers of UCAVs.

Originally posted by orca71
500 raptors is a huge waste of money. We need to improve and accelerate our missile shield defense and rely on vast numbers of cheap, disposable, but smart UCAVs with high-performance/capability for air-superiority against non-nuclear enemies. If it would significantly increase yield, Id even forego some stealth features or complement stealth UCAVs with a backup wave of cheaper non-stealth UCAVs once the enemy is engaged. The way to victory is with the simultaneous deployment of over-whelming numbers of UCAVs.

500 Raptors is anything BUT a huge waste of money.

The price per airframe would be significantly reduced, and it would also make the AF need fewer F-35's while also improving their power.

Frankly UCAV technology is not at the point where the US should relly on them for airsuperiority. Your thoughts are more in line with what we will want/have in the 2050 time frame... Right now we are still working on the technology.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by orca71
500 raptors is a huge waste of money. We need to improve and accelerate our missile shield defense and rely on vast numbers of cheap, disposable, but smart UCAVs with high-performance/capability for air-superiority against non-nuclear enemies. If it would significantly increase yield, Id even forego some stealth features or complement stealth UCAVs with a backup wave of cheaper non-stealth UCAVs once the enemy is engaged. The way to victory is with the simultaneous deployment of over-whelming numbers of UCAVs.

500 Raptors is anything BUT a huge waste of money.

The price per airframe would be significantly reduced, and it would also make the AF need fewer F-35's while also improving their power.

Frankly UCAV technology is not at the point where the US should relly on them for airsuperiority. Your thoughts are more in line with what we will want/have in the 2050 time frame... Right now we are still working on the technology.

I agree that the F-22 is a much better investment than the F-35, which is about as impotent an aircraft as we have ever invested in (relative to current aircraft in our inventory) but even at an average cost of $100M each (extremely conservative estimate), 500 Raptors will be insufficient to maintain air-superiority in a highly realistic scenario where we have more than one concurrent conventional conflict. We need thousands of aircraft, not 500 to replace our existing capability.

Btw, you underestimate the UCAV technology we have today and is not reflected in the public displays by Boeing and other companies. I can tell you that the technology is in fact far beyond what anyone imagines and is already sufficient to handle all the basic functions of fighter aircraft except for a handful such as aerial refueling which is dependant on coordinated development.

heres a raptor dropping a 1000pound bomb, but this one was in california

www.af.mil...
too lazy to crop it

[edit on 25/10/05 by llama009]

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Darkpr0
That kind of attitude will turn everyone against you.

Why would the truth get everyone to turn against us?

The FACT is the Raptors will dominate any known aircraft. It isn't an attitude - it's the truth.

How is it the truth?

They have not gone up against every Air-Craft in the World, so at the moment it is just an opinion.

If you can display it as a truth, I'd do so now but since it hasn't gone up against every military in the World [in fact, any] or against any hostile radar system/anti-aircraft system or against other aircraft you can't.

Originally posted by orca71
The fact is we only have so much we can spend/borrow and the F-22 is so costly it seriously affects the numbers we can afford without becoming fully owned by Chinese banks from who we borrow to finance such programs, a course of action that creates an even greater and more insidious national threat.

All the more reason to target our spending to the things which help us the most. Do we really need a new infantry weapon that costs $10,000 a unit, can hit targets 3 times father away than the typical engagement requires, and has a really fancy grenade launcher that doesn't actually do all that much that a well trained grenadier on the M203 and a little but of intelligent manuevering by a squad leader can't already do?

Do we really need a ship like the DD(X)- which is basically the worlds most expensive pair of howitzers, especially at a time when scramjet missiles threaten to make large litoral vessels a thing of the past?

Do we need all of the foreign bases we are currently operating, particularly the ones in South Korea- the strategic armpit of Asia- where all they could ever possibly do is get nuked, or if war is not declared, at least ensure that a few US servicemen get syphillis every year?

the list goes on and on and on. You're exactly right- we can't spend our whole budget on defense. We may already be spending too much. We need to have enough though, and to accomplish both of those goals, we need a fiscally responsible pentagon.

BTW, one of the assumptions in the scenario you presented that I dont agree with is that the 5th generation russian fighter will take a heavy toll on our aircraft.

I grant that historically American pilots have a good track record when it comes to inventing tactics to take on better aircraft. I'm still bound to think that if the enemy sees you first and fires the first missiles, you're probably in trouble. If the Russian 5th generation fighter has the stealth characteristics it should, and we can't find a way to detect it and relay info both to our pilots and to our missiles, the plane produced by the PAK FA program will have a far better chance against us than your standard fare Russian hardware- most of which have instruments labeled in both Russian and Hebrew (a little joke that came out of the Six Day War).


get back to you on the rest later. I'm late for class. Thanks for the input

Orca71
I'd hate to send up 80 F-22s against 80 stealth UCAVs where every UCAV has multiple missiles and can jointly track and fire on multiple targets simultaneously by sharing precise target information.

I would put all my money on the F/A-22's...hands down.
ho, and you just described what the Raptor can do.

I agree with AMM. Your head is a little to high in the clouds. In a few years UCAV's will emerge, but they will be bombing roles only, not A2A.
What your thinking of I doubt will happen until around 2030.

orca
500 Raptors will be insufficient to maintain air-superiority in a highly realistic scenario where we have more than one concurrent conventional conflict. We need thousands of aircraft, not 500 to replace our existing capability.

The days of thousands of aircraft all in formation at once is dead and gone.

What sort of highly realistic scenerio are you refering to???
500 would be enough to maintain our Air Superiority.....Even on a multi-front war.

I think you have forgotton about ALL of the militaries other assets. It wouldn't be just the Raptor at the beginning of a war, there would be B-2's and F-117's as well as cruise missiles.

I'm not really big on the idea of air-to-air UCAV combat in most senses. As these things get smaller and stealthier, especially if we find a way to scale down the munitions and still have them pack a punch, the black projects guys are going to have to cook up a new and interesting way of downing aircraft rapidly, because when the aircraft becomes nearly as cheap as the missiles that are fired at it, defenses will not be economically capable of keeping pace with offensive forces. They'll have to find a way to interfere with even the most secure remote control systems, but that will leave pre-programed missions which can still have at least limited effectiveness. So I'm thinking either the advent of practical laser-based air defenses, EMP weapons, or some kind of hard-hitting wide-area directed energy weapon, or god knows what else will be necessary to keep air defenses up to snuff as UCAVs evolve.

There are limited areas where I do not believe that will hold true. I believe that naval aviation will be a very serious problem for defense which probably will not be able to forsake defensive air screens, unless some other weapon of incredible range is devised for this defense. On the ground, you can place your defenses where ever you like, but at sea, your defenses are right with you, and if your range is less than the attackers range, you have a problem. The destroyer screens could carry defenses, but again there is a cost comparrison. A swarm of UCAVs drives down unit cost so far that you could letting them be slaughtered wholesale might be well worth it to make a hole a carrier's destroyer screen, or even just to sink the destroyer itself. This will likely be solved when stealth and submersible designs are the norm- probably still 2 generations away at present, especially where carriers are concerned.

The Raptor is a necessity at this point in time because UCAVs are not ready to take over and a decisive advantage must be maintained in the air, but it's not beyond the pale of reason that we may not see a 6th or 7th generation fighter with a pilot inside of it.

I'm no expert on this particular aspect of military affairs, this is just what my "common sense" tells me. Common sense is not always common and not always sensible though, so if I'm wrong feel free to educate me.

500 Raptors would be more than enough to ensue air superiority over any realistic war scenario.Nnot only is there no other fighter that can rival it’s capabilities, but even if there were there would be no where near 500 of them.

Now, Air Superiority or control of the skies is the most important aspect of a war. If you don't control the skies you can forget about ground forces. Dominance of the skies is the only spectrum in which the US is most challenged at the moment by other nations. Having that many Raptors would ensure we stay ahead of them.

Originally posted by orca71
I agree that the F-22 is a much better investment than the F-35, which is about as impotent an aircraft as we have ever invested in (relative to current aircraft in our inventory) but even at an average cost of $100M each (extremely conservative estimate), 500 Raptors will be insufficient to maintain air-superiority in a highly realistic scenario where we have more than one concurrent conventional conflict. We need thousands of aircraft, not 500 to replace our existing capability.

I have to dissagree witht he F-35 being impotent...

What you are basically getting with it is F-117 level stealth on an F-16. Thats a pretty good airplane to have laying around.

As for the # of aircraft, the point of the F/A-22 is that it can take on large numbers of other aircraft on it's own. The Raptor is worth at least 4 of any other aircraft. Thus it is more like having 2000. On top of that, the Raptors are simply the frontline fighter. The USAF is keeping the F-15 around as well. Basically in the initial stages of a conflict, the Raptors come in and deny the air to the enemy. The Eagles and Falcons/JSFs would be in support during this period while airstrikes using bombers and cruise missles destroy enemy air basis.

At that point the Raptors are not really needed as much.

Btw, you underestimate the UCAV technology we have today and is not reflected in the public displays by Boeing and other companies. I can tell you that the technology is in fact far beyond what anyone imagines and is already sufficient to handle all the basic functions of fighter aircraft except for a handful such as aerial refueling which is dependant on coordinated development.

Well I don't know what insider information you have, but from what my friend has told me (who happens to work at Phantom works on UAV development) he doesn't seem to share your opinion. His opinion is that at present they might be good in a patrol capacity, but there are simply to many variables and underdeveloped aspects to the technology to place our supreme confidence in it.

Originally posted by Odium
How is it the truth?

They have not gone up against every Air-Craft in the World, so at the moment it is just an opinion.

If you can display it as a truth, I'd do so now but since it hasn't gone up against every military in the World [in fact, any] or against any hostile radar system/anti-aircraft system or against other aircraft you can't.

The Raptor has been in exercises in 1v5 situations against F-15's, which are currently UNDEFEATED in air to air combat with over 100 kills.

The F-15's were all flown by Raptor pilots (thus, they know all of their weaknesses) and engagements lasted 2 minutes, where the Raptor would simply 'go down the line' and kill every enemy.

On top of that, the US owns many Russian made aircraft, and has certainly taken their abilities into account.

Frankly, EVERY SINGLE AIRCRAFT COMPANY IN THE WORLD AGREES THAT THE RAPTOR IS BEST.

Originally posted by Murcielago
I would put all my money on the F/A-22's...hands down.

Why? Explain how 80 F-22s would down 80 UCAVs before they are all destroyed.

ho, and you just described what the Raptor can do.

The F-22's cannot coordinate attacks nearly as well as UCAVs, partly because it depends on the pilots to manage the information and react accordingly and partly because the F-22's onboard computers are outdated and slow.

I agree with AMM. Your head is a little to high in the clouds. In a few years UCAV's will emerge, but they will be bombing roles only, not A2A.
What your thinking of I doubt will happen until around 2030.

There's a lot more going on in the UCAV field than most people are aware of and its a lot further ahead than you think. If we had the budgetary commitment, fast air to air UCAVS could in production by 2008.

The days of thousands of aircraft all in formation at once is dead and gone.

There was never a time when thousands of aircraft flew in formation. As for hundreds of airborne UCAVs, they are much easier to coordinate, physically occupy far more airspace enabling far more powerful tactics in air to air combat, and are a much greater threat to any enemy aircraft than a few dozen conventional aircraft.

What sort of highly realistic scenerio are you refering to???
500 would be enough to maintain our Air Superiority.....Even on a multi-front war.

No it wont be. 500 aircraft isnt nearly enough to support all our international bases, support ongoing military operations, and provide reserve for potential future military operations that might be required, as well as defend the homeland. 500 might be sufficient to defend our territory from external threats but thats about it.

I think you have forgotton about ALL of the militaries other assets. It wouldn't be just the Raptor at the beginning of a war, there would be B-2's and F-117's as well as cruise missiles.

You are forgetting that fighter aircraft are there to support the bombers not the other way around. If there arent enough fighter aircraft, then the frequency of bombing raids will have to be reduced to ensure that each bombing raid has sufficient accompanying fighters.

Again, UCAVs are so capable now that the F-22 and 5th gen Russian fighter, whether it turns out to be from the Pak-fa program or some other, are soon to be obsolete.

If we had large numbers of UCAVs back in the days of Desert Storm, we could have foregone the helicopter raids on iraqi radar sites that preceded the F117 attacks on command and control sites (supported by F-15s) and instead used a combination of UCAV fighters, bombers, and targetting drones to get the job done quickly and efficiently with minimum cost and risk to life.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Odium
How is it the truth?

They have not gone up against every Air-Craft in the World, so at the moment it is just an opinion.

If you can display it as a truth, I'd do so now but since it hasn't gone up against every military in the World [in fact, any] or against any hostile radar system/anti-aircraft system or against other aircraft you can't.

The Raptor has been in exercises in 1v5 situations against F-15's, which are currently UNDEFEATED in air to air combat with over 100 kills.

The F-15's were all flown by Raptor pilots (thus, they know all of their weaknesses) and engagements lasted 2 minutes, where the Raptor would simply 'go down the line' and kill every enemy.

On top of that, the US owns many Russian made aircraft, and has certainly taken their abilities into account.

Frankly, EVERY SINGLE AIRCRAFT COMPANY IN THE WORLD AGREES THAT THE RAPTOR IS BEST.

It really is amazing but every time the cost of the F-22 increases, the number of enemy aircraft one F-22 can take down magically increases as well! These are age-old advertising tricks by our military and groups they hire or support.
BTW, we also heard that the patriot missile is 95% effective and that the missile shield works. The most recent of these hilarious claims is the blatantly contrived series of mock-fights with the indian military which was organized to provide evidence that we need the F-22.

The claims being made by the military and manufacturers about the advantages of the F-22's stealth capability in air-to-air combat suggest that even an F-117 with air-to-air missiles might be just as effective against 5 F-15s.

Fact is, the F-22 has never fired an actual missile in combat, and in real world combat, simply firing a missile is all it takes to announce to all the F-15s precisely what part of the sky is occupied by the F-22. At which point the F-22 pilot might as well eject.

Originally posted by orca71
No it wont be. 500 aircraft isnt nearly enough to support all our international bases, support ongoing military operations, and provide reserve for potential future military operations that might be required, as well as defend the homeland. 500 might be sufficient to defend our territory from external threats but thats about it.

The Raptor fulfills a certain niche role, it is not our whole airforce. A large number would be preferable so that it could fulfill it's role to the utmost in more than one theater of operations at once, however 500, granted an arbitrary number that may over or under shoot, would be formidable. F-14 through F-18 are perfectly fine for dealing with planes of their own generation and dealing with enemy air defense networks. We just need a strong component of the newest generation there to guard them- our older aircraft become analogous to tactical bombers and a suitable escort is required to secure them against more modern threats, which likely will be present in relatively small numbers at least to begin with.

My suggestion, simply enough, is not to have significantly fewer 5th generation fighters in a given theater than the enemy can deploy there, and develop contingency plans for getting the upper hand on older aircraft with newer ones.


I have had an idea though for getting around our limited number of Raptors. If some foe managed to invest in a significant number of 5th generation aircraft, I think the answer would probably be a combination of equipment and tactics. Aerial countermeasures to rob the effectiveness from the enemy's first look, first shot, first kill capability, combined with upgrades for whichever of our fighters lends itself to higher speeds, allowing our forces to let the enemy burn their missiles up, then be pursued, hopefully low on missiles and fuel, by our interceptors, which could chase them down and give them a lesson in gunnery.

Again- just left field ideas from a guy of limited air war knowledge.
Any feedback?

Originally posted by orca71
It really is amazing but every time the cost of the F-22 increases, the number of enemy aircraft one F-22 can take down magically increases as well! These are age-old advertising tricks by our military and groups they hire or support.
BTW, we also heard that the patriot missile is 95% effective and that the missile shield works. The most recent of these hilarious claims is the blatantly contrived series of mock-fights with the indian military which was organized to provide evidence that we need the F-22.

No, not really. The Raptor is basically limited by the number of missles it can carry in it's weapon bays. Frankly, I will take what actual fighter pilots say over what you say.

Again, everyone agrees on the Raptors supremecy but you - and that includes Russia. No aircraft currently in or planned for production can even HOPE to compete with the Raptor. It is simply to advanced.

The claims being made by the military and manufacturers about the advantages of the F-22's stealth capability in air-to-air combat suggest that even an F-117 with air-to-air missiles might be just as effective against 5 F-15s.

No, that is completely wrong. Please, find me the link that says that, because I have never read that in my life. On top of that, the F-117 can not hold as many weapons as the Raptor, is less stealthy then the Raptor, is not as fast as the Raptor, and does not have the electronics of the Raptor.

Fact is, the F-22 has never fired an actual missile in combat, and in real world combat, simply firing a missile is all it takes to announce to all the F-15s precisely what part of the sky is occupied by the F-22. At which point the F-22 pilot might as well eject.

This is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard spoken.

I guess every time every fighter is ever seen by another on radar, "they might as well eject"

PLease - you clearly don't know what you are talking about. How are you going to fire a weapon from MILES away at the Raptor and expect it to hit the Raptor in the 5 second or less window that it is exposed? You clearly haven't thought this through, or just don't have any concept of how air to air engagements work.

Hell, even if you know "what part of the sky" the Raptor was in, that doesn't mean it is still there, seeing as it can supercruise at Mach 1.5.

Bottom line:

EVERY ONE BUT YOU AGREES THAT THE RAPTOR IS BY FAR AND AWAY THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE SKY.

And that includes Russia and Europe.