http://images.military.com/Audio/FTED29.mp3

I am sorry for you, sad BillR, the administration faced the facts and took action, the USAF hardly opposes this and LockheedMartin agrees to it. Is more circumstantial evidence needed? Of course the Pentagon is not placing videos on Youtube with details on the Raptor’s shortcomings. You really expect so?

I fully agree with the vision that the Raptor is a superior platform. At this moment. Luckily the government is looking ahead and placing its bets on future tech like UCAV’s. Even if a new Cold War broke out, this new tech gives the US the edge. Chinese, Russians, Indians, are by far not as experienced with unmanned combat technology. So, skip the Raptor after 186 machines and make some stuff that really gives us the edge.

And Ben, something on the Cold War. That’s history. And the Chinese are not coming to take over the US. The US is their lifeline. They have no income without the US economy as a consumer. Now with the current econ crisis, the Chinese economy starts freezing. They will not attack. Never bite the hand that feeds you. The Chinese aren’t stupid! It’s better to divide and rule, than to quarrel on silly issues. And yes there will be some political issues, but hey, there will always be.

The Chinese, by the way, will win easier on economic and political grounds from the US than on military grounds. We will nuke every invader if needed. That’s enough to scare the hell out of them. They know.

Guys, there’s a difference between they way it is and they way you would like it to be. Don’t mix these up, that’s really sad.

This is exactly why obama Wants to Stop the F-22 production. He sees the USA as the problem. Eliminate the capability to operate in America’s interests– an obama eliminates the problem… us.

1) The F-15’s that were deployed there were equipped with the semi-active AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, and not the fire-and-forget AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. The AIM-7 is not suited in the one-versus-many scenarios that the F-15’s faced, whereas the AIM-120 was. The the IAF only needed one or two fighters to tie down each F-15, as each F-15 could only guide one AIM-7 at a time and then engage the next target. With their superior numbers, the IAF could get kills on the F-15 with even MiG-21’s. Had the F-15’s been sent with AIM-120’s with a typical loadout of 2 AIM-9’s and 6 AIM-120’s… a four-ship formation of F-15’s could fire off an AIM-120 at a formation of 24 IAF aircraft, turn tail and use their power to speed out of the combat area to rearm while the enemy aircraft are taking evasive action against the incoming AIM-120’s.

2) The E-3 Sentry was not an exclusive USAF asset at that exercise and was a shared asset between both the USAF and the IAF, thus giving the IAF an extra capability that they didn’t have at the time and degrading the USAF’s AWACS capability at the same time. the Cope India exercise had also served to train the IAF pilots to operate with AWACS capability.

3) The F-15’s sent weren’t equipped with the high-off boresight (HOBS) capability of the JHMCS/AIM-9X combination, giving up an important capability in the visual range arena. This can make up for a deficiency in maneuvering against their more agile rivals that do lack HOBS capability.

4) They also lacked AESA radars, which is soon to be the standard across the tactical fighter fleet in the USAF inventory. At the time, the USAF was the sole operator of AESA-equipped fighter aircraft, and is still one of the few operationally-capable. Besides highly refined and powerful tracking qualities, they also possess electronic warfare potential… that is, they could jam enemy radars while still being able to track and lock on to enemy aircraft at the same time. Newer AESA packages will include EW capabilities, (such as the soon to be introduced APG-63(V)3 for the F-15) and some will even include the capability to burn the electronic seekers of enemy missile’s in flight. Hence why the AESA-equipped F-15’s have the added mission of counter-tactical missiles. The F-22 has already demonstrated the capability to burn out the seekers of incoming missiles in flight. It’s a miniaturized cousin of the HPM (High Powered Microwave) system being developed for ground-based anti-missile defense.

So to boil it down, the F-15’s sent to represent the USAF had both hands and feet tied behind their backs.

You either accept the Air Force’s lopsided Raptor kill ratios or you don’t.

Please get real. Of course Lockheed Martin will not oppose.

The Raptor is built for absolute control over the skies. This is needed in US airspace. Elsewhere, we fight irregular or assymetrical wars. In these theaters, we do not need air superiority fighters because control over the skies is hardly challenged. Hence we need Raptors. The number of Raptors needed is calculated by taking these factors into consideration: the probability of invaders, the number of probable invaders, the capabilities of probable invaders, the outflow of Eagles and Vipers from the service, the inflow of F-35s in the service, and the inflow of unmanned air-to-air combat systems. Special attention to the last point. Anyone familiar with the X-47 Pegasus from NorthropGrumman? Or the X-45 from Boeing? And who knows what the Skunk Works holds. Given the timeline we’re on, the UCAV will enter service before the Raptor has its first mid-life update. That is about the same time the Eagle will leave the service.

To make a historical comparison. The Hawker Sea Fury was a formidable fighter when it arrived in 1946. But never purchased in large numbers because the age of the jet fighter had begun. The Sea Fury had a 2,480hp piston engine. The aircraft reached 460mph! But all Sea Fury’s in the British inventory were only acquired to augment the slow and uncertain inflow of the first generation jet fighters, like the Gloster Meteor.

So, the Raptor has come on ‘the wrong’ moment in time. The new generation of combat aircraft already flies. Like the late 1940s, the performance of this fifth generation aircraft only exceeds the fourth generation on a few points. That leads us to question the performance of the Raptor. Of course this marvel of engineering has superb characteristics. But it only has an edge on some points, and only with a few percent. In practice, the Raptor may not be that far ahead as previously hoped and believed.

On the Raptor’s performance then. Although it will never be admitted by the department and the service, the F-22 is not a superior platform anymore. It still was superior when it was conceived in the late 1980s, and when ATF was chosen in 1991 it still was. Now its 2009,a dn the world has developed with the Raptor.

The USAF has evaluated the Raptor against British Typhoons, and it has become clear that the Raptor hardly has an edge over this older system. Since Raptor’s conception, the world has improved its radar systems, its guided weapons, its electronic sensors. The Typhoon showed to be unbeatable in the VR arena (close combat), and its performance in the BVR arena was surprisingly close to the F-22. The Typhoon could ‘see’ the Raptor, and its Meteor missile scared the hell out of the USAF.

British self esteem grew after these evaluations. The opposite can be said of the US. The British stuck to their primary weapons system, and with a reason.

Slowly more becomes known on this. Last week there was this movie where a T-38 Talon beat the F-22 in a dogfight! Yes, lets buy hundreds of these great Raptors. Guys, imagine the Talon. Its maiden flight was in 1959, when Eisenhower was still president. The F-5 was developed out of it. In the 1960s.
Oh well, perhaps the Raptor’s driver wasn’t paying attention… Which is regular in training missions with a 200 million bucks airplane…

And what is more, in today’s assymetrical wars, the Raptor is a useless piece of superior engineering and creativity. A USAF chief last week called for the purchase of a ‘light strike platform’, to be used in ‘the irregular war’. The proposed airframe: the propellor driven Hawker Beechcraft T-6A Texan. A derivative from the Swiss Pilatus PC-9, which by the way flew in 1984.

Let’s also not compare with the political and technological context of the Eagle’s and Viper’s heydays. Those days are gone. The US has lost all wars were the adversary was supported by the evil empire, the Soviet Union or China. Think of Korea and Vietnam. And so, the US will lose all future wars where the enemy is directly supported by Russia or China. So smaller, differently organized enemies will face the anger of the US. From time to time, every now and then. A ‘light strike platform’ is needed, the USAF said last week.

From a technological point of view, it must be said that the Raptor has lost its predominant place. It is beaten on agility and manoeuvrability by the Su-27 Flanker and its derivatives, most notably the Su-30.

In the US we believe that the Raptor is the ultimate air-to-air weapon available. But, we are only made to believe by our patriottic friends in Washington. It is the marketing of our state towards the population and the world. Just believe we’re the best. And then, in our own eyes, we are the best! In the meantime Typhoons, Sukhoi’s and Chinese stuff with complicated names already equals our Raptor. So, let us move on, cancel the F-22 programme and invest in the future, UCAVs.

Lockheed Martin will not oppose Gates’ decision. Of course they will not oppose. They are extremely happy that the F-22 programme lasted so long. LM has a lagging position on UCAVs, compared to Boeing and NorthropGrumman. Therefore they´re happy that it lasted so long. They´re also happy that they can continue with the F-35, and stay in business. And by the way, LM needs all its resources, all its engineering marvel and creativity, to make the F-35 as good as it should be. Guys, it’s ‘old’ technology pushed to its limits! It’s the Sea Fury of the 21st century…

Thanks Mr Gates!