The F-22’s new normal

The F-22’s new normal

The Air Force would like you to know that even though it does not have a permanent fix for its F-22 Raptors’ onboard oxygen systems, the super-jets are flying and training as normal for the high-end missions that are their métier.

Earlier this month, a batch of F-22s played in an exercise with “China” written all over it, escorting Air Force B-1 bombers on a “long-range strike” mission into “an anti-access target area,” the Air Force said. Everything apparently went fine and the units that participated were careful to take the appropriate precautions:

“The objective of this operation was to validate the long range strike capability of the B-1s as well as the F-22 and F-16s ability to escort them into an anti-access target area,” said Lt. Col. Joseph Kunkel, 90th Fighter Squadron commander, who sent five 90th FS pilots, a 302d FS pilot, 20 maintainers, a flight surgeon and a bio environmental engineer to Eielson AFB for the exercise.


Having experienced no reported unpleasantness, the F-22 crews were able to demonstrate the newest upgrades to their aircraft:

This was the first time the Raptors participated in this exercise which integrated with multiple platforms from different major commands. It was also the first time that increment 3.1, a recent F-22 hardware and software upgrade, was used in a large force employment exercise.

“Increment 3.1 gives the Raptor the means to find and engage targets on the ground. During this operation it was critical to follow-on forces completing their missions,” said Kunkel. “Our integration of 3.1 went extremely well. We were able to glean invaluable lessons from this exercise that we had not seen before and we completed increment 3.1 upgrades for two of the pilots.”

So there you have it — even as some of the F-22’s lingering technical problems remain unresolved, it’s also phasing in upgrades to take it to higher levels of performance.

For all the rumblings about “Air-Sea Battle” and the need to coordinate with other services to defeat “anti-access” challenges, this month’s exercise sounds like textbook, bluest-blue Air Force: Bombers need to punch through contested airspace to get their target. Commanders expect red air, so the B-1s take a fighter escort to clear the way. No sneaky stealth tactics, no trying to creep past enemy sensors — just classic “Twelve O’Clock High” heroics, updated for the 21st century.

The Air Force did not detail the results of the exercise, but we can presume the good guys won — the F-22 is said to be almost invincible in its pretend match-ups. When others are running the game, however, things aren’t that clear. Monday’s Air Force announcement brought to mind the RAND war game, quoted last year by CSBA’s experts, that found a big potential weakness in Air Force doctrines:

[Consider the] Taiwan Strait scenario in which the entire F-22 force operated from Guam in order to base outside the reach of Chinese ballistic missiles. Heavy F-22 attrition occurred due to the roughly nine-to-one numerical advantage Chinese Su-27 and Su-30 Flankers enjoyed over the Taiwan Strait operating from their nearby airfields.

Even though the analysis assumed that F-22s would be able to shoot down large numbers of opposing Chinese Flankers without losses even when heavily outnumbered, by the time the F-22s ran out of missiles and fuel there were enough unengaged Flankers still in the air over the strait to begin attacking U.S. air refueling tankers and E-8 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft. As a result, F-22s were lost not to enemy fighters but to fuel exhaustion because they were unable to rendezvous with tankers and get the fuel to make it back to Guam.

This could be one reason why the Air Force and Navy (and, theoretically, the other services) say they want to collaborate on new ways of doing things in Air-Sea Battle. Whether the Air Force writes new tactics to include its new bomber, or brings in the Navy to support engagements — maybe Aegis warships below could even the score against anti-air defenses or enemy interceptors — the Raptors’ new normal will probably change again.

Join the Conversation

Just when you thought the WW2 “Bomber” mentality was extinct in the USAF…

“Even though the analysis assumed that F-22s would be able to shoot down large numbers of opposing Chinese Flankers without losses even when heavily outnumbered, by the time the F-22s ran out of missiles and fuel there were enough unengaged Flankers still in the air over the strait to begin attacking U.S. air refueling tankers and E-8 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft.”

Well hopefully if this scenario ever plays out we’d be smart enough to defend Taiwan with more than just our F-22s. Almost seems pointless to wargame that particular scenario.

restart production of the F-22 and export it to our allies.

Future of defense may be hand-in-hand with our allies…strong allies. GB is strong, but where’s the $$$…I say develop more cooperative platform/systems programs with Japan and Germany. In the Pacific, Australia and potentially SK could be worthy F22 partners. Just thoughts.…

Think how bad the outcome would have been with the F-35 carrying only 4 AMRAAMS and lacking the F-22s true Gen 5 capabilities (supercruise, full stealth, super maneuverability). Now think about the lack of air dominance that we will have because we closed the F-22 line and don’t have a replacement for it in the works yet. Thanks SECDDEF Gates, you’ve left a gaping hole in our ability to command the skies and with the F-35 cost explosion, you never really saved us any money.

We should have made an weaker export version of the F-22 with a lot of the classified technology removed and sold it to Australia, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and maybe Japan. I would only sell them to Israel if Russia starts exporting the PAK-FA to their enemies in the region.

“even as some of the F-22’s lingering technical problems remain unresolved”

The the writer: So what aircraft in our inventory do not have lingering technical problems that remain unresolved? Cause I have yet to find one.

First of all the report suggest a sneak attack by PLA forces on Taiwan w/o US intelligence detecting a Red Chinese build up month before. I would bet In reality the US before a armed fight began would have FARPs and if not bases on Taiwan to house F-15 and F-22 fighters to protect allied ground troops from Commie air attack. Even if no fixed long term bases would be on Taiwan im sure they could handle Eagles and Raptors landing to refuel and either going back up to fight or fly to rearm at Guam. Im sure to the Philippines which would be a allies in the war would have airbases for US aircraft to rearm and refuel and Luzon is alot closer to Taiwan than Guam.

The oxygen system of F-22 probably need some insulations to separate the oxygen unit from cold temperature from high altitude. Probably the designers of F-22 should look into the design features of F-35 oxygen systems and adopt it to F-22 oxygen system design

Aegis as a Raptor wing-man is not “new”, the 5th (F-35) gen a/c should be able to survive long after their on-board ordinance is expended. Both the ISR and C&C aspect as the tip-of the-spear may require them to depend on “others” to carry additional war-loads. This is why it is critical for all (land, sea, air) parties to be able to distribute and communicate targeting and tactical data. By design the Raptor’s limited inter-communications leaves it in the “lone wolf” role untill Block 3.1 and Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) is implemented.

And this is a good example of why we should extend the production of F-22’s instead of pouring funds into the F-35 moneypit.

No way in hell would they ever base F-22s on Taiwan. They’d run the risk of airframes being left behind if it ever got overrun.

I’d really like to know why they’re having so much trouble. It’s not like they’ve never operated at high altitude before.

Too late now. IF they started the F-22 line back up they’d be $200 million a pop OTD. At the least. Just look at the 3-ring circus with the Burke Flight IIIs.

Yeah, my only counter to that is if the price tag for the F-35’s continue to rise, then the price of the F22 would have been better in the long run. But, personally I think we’ve come to far with the program to call it quits, and they wont either.

“An exercise with china written all over it” should read” with Iran written all over it.”

Smart man…by the time China is a problem it’ll be the F-24 and B-3 they’ll have to worry about

Spot on. The B1 is the weapons mule for the Raptors and wont be utilizing its own targeting systems. This change of tactic in the air is a major development in my opinion. I assume this is in the F35 or easily can be?

Might as well just give one to the Chinese if you export it. Hard to keep anything secret once you do that.

In other words despite all the media hype the F-22 is perfectly capable of flying WITHOUT incident.

It is true, however, that for as yet unknown reasons SOME F-22 units have been experiencing a higher than typical hypoxia-like incident rate. Investigators have sent months trying to duplicate a OBOGS failure without success.

Note that NO F-22 has been lost due to a hypoxia-like incident &/or OBOGS failure.

As to the RAND Taiwan war game…It was a LOGISTICS STUDY that did NOT attempt to accurately model air combat. It appears to have been meant to show that even as good as the F-22 is that 187 of them is not enough to stop a hypothetical Chinese mass attack on Taiwan.

Supercruise (cruising at >Mach 1.5 without afterburner) & super (aka post stall) maneuverability are NOT 5th generation fighter capabilities. Just because the F-22 has them does NOT mean any other fighter has to in order to be a 5th generation fighter. The F-22 DOES however have as good or better maneuverability as the F-16 & F/A-18 and more than likely the ability to cruise a low supersonic speed (<Mach 1.25) without afterburner. The F-35 DOES have ‘full stealth’. Again, just becasue it is not as stealthy as the F-22 does NOT mean it is not stealthy enough to defeat foreseeable future threats. AND by the time a significant number are actually in service the F-35 will have the ability to carry 6 internal AAMs (not to mention 10 or more externally if you need to turn it into a ‘missile truck’).

With that said, we STILL should be getting the 381 F-22s the USAF states it needs.

Why?

Why don’t they

Especially since the F-22’s OBOGS is based directly off of the same OBOGS that the F-16 has been using. The F-15E has been using a similar system, MSOGS, for quite a while as well. So the issue is F-22 specific.

While you claim the F-22’s per unit price out the door would be $200 million, it will go down over the production life. In the meantime, the F-35’s production costs has only been climbing and it’s barely entering the production stage for just the A-variant, while the C-variant is still off the horizon and the B-model looking to be still-born.

The last batch of F-22s cost around $140 million each. The price for another batch would go up because they’d have to put the factory back together. The guy in charge of the program said a year ago that (if the line hadn’t been shut down) he could build another 100 planes for $110 million each.

And the fella that put his F-22 in the dirt in Alaska?

$110 million each is closer to the price tag of a brand new Block 50 F-16 (to include engine and avionics suite).

Boys, its time to open the doors to the F22 line again. The 35 is a bust and everyone knows it. Canada finally but and end to this madness, when will the US see it.
I hope I get a second time to work on that bird project. — WILCO

So now that the USAF has found their aerial refueling tankers to be vulnerable, how long before they ask for funding development of a new stealth tanker? Or would they argue in favor of a fleet of new bombers to free up their existing fleet of B2s for conversion into tankers? Such notions might be bordering on the ridiculous, except it is the USAF, and simple solutions are not in their playbook.

Whatever their solution, expect it to be far more grandiose than the development of a mission tanking capability.

They don’t know what’s wrong, but they know that incident is not related. Remarkable, isn’t it?

I think the Australians would be able to keep its secrets. The Japanese probably couldn’t its secrets and even the Brits probably couldn’t keep its technology from getting to its Euro partners, and once this info crossed the English Channel it would be in Beijing in days.
I wish the US would build 75 FB-22’s for ourselves and see if Australia wanted to buy 20 or so at a reduced price to give us an ally the ability to operate at our level in the Pacific region. And another 60 F22’s plus 30 for the Australians, would be nice too if we are going to engage in wishful thinking… http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​L​o​c​k​h​e​e​d​_​M​a​r​t​i​n​_​F​B-2

What is happening right now in Canada is that the money for buying the f-35 have been frozen, and the buying process is going to be made by a news secretariat under public works. Real costs have and are still being downplayed by the DND.

To be quite honest, if Canadian ever end up buying f-22 it would need to be a seriously rugged version, putting emphasis on low cost operation over high-end performance. I would love this idea, and it would be a real typhoon killer.

The USAF should scrap the F-22 and F-35, dust off the F-23 design and build it themselves.

The Knee jerk F-35 haters miss a few points here.

1. Why Are the practicing going into a high threat area with F-16s? This is obviously dissimilar air training with the F-16s standing in for F-35s. Remember they have the same maneuverability.

2. The F-35s price will go down if people stop playing with the production run. You cant cut over 100 jets from the buy and then expect the price to go lower on the next contract.

3. The claim that the F-35 can ONLY carry 4 internal AMRAAMs is a flat out lie. http://​www​.theblaze​.com/​s​t​o​r​i​e​s​/​t​h​e​-​a​d​v​a​n​c​e​d​-​f​-35

The total weapons load out is greater than the F-16. And even using an internal load its comparable with the F-16 6 AMRAAM versus 6 AMRAAM.

4. The combat radius of the F-35 (read internal fuel) is greater than the F-22 and the F-16.

F-22 wiki
Performance

Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h) [estimated][134]
Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,963 km/h)[134]
Range: >1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
Combat radius: 410 nmi (with 100 nmi in supercruise) [270] (471 mi, 759 km)

F-35 wiki

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[165] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (Tested to Mach 1.61)[267]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 584 nmi[348] (1,080 km) on internal fuel[349] * note 613 NM without 5% reserve*
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[350] (18,288 m) (Tested to 43,000 ft)[351]
Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft&sup2; (446 kg/m&sup2;)
Thrust/weight:

F-16 wiki

Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs

So lets stop this nonsense about how short legged the F-35 is. The plane has more range on internal fuel than a fully loaded with wing tanks F-16, but in a clean configuration.
In conclusion, the F-22 is a inferior loitering strike air craft, that cannot drop 2kLB weapons or land on a carrier.

1. The f-35 is meant to replace much more that the f-16, by memory it’s 6 or 7 different models.
2.True, but it apply for everything that is not handcrafted.
3.If you look carefully there were only two missile. And the main arguments is that it will lost its stealth advantage whenever these pods are used.
4.Yes the range is longer but at which cost? Its poor ballistic resistance is really a concern, it can start a fire. Unless you expect your enemy to use 2mm pinfire. :-)

For your conclusion, the f-22 have never been designed for what the f-35 is designed for. And I believe that a different approach would have given more results for the same amount of money. Most of f-35 plus value come from its high-end electronics; as such I believe that the same electronics would be better implemented into plane like the f-15 and f-18, while lowering the count of order for the f-35. Isn’t alarming that the f-35’s viability rely upon an unilateral purchase? Just like the f-35 frame, any flexibility have been thinned to the maximum, because it would get so much more…

And btw, the note about the ‘613NM without 5%reserve’ seems to have been removed. Even the canadian army have been found putting some BS on wikipedia about the f-35. (more political than technical though) http://​www​.cbc​.ca/​n​e​w​s​/​p​o​l​i​t​i​c​s​/​s​t​o​r​y​/​2​0​1​0​/​0​7​/​29/

Anyway my main arguments being that the way it have been calculated is not disclosed. Compare it to the eurofighter:
Performance
Maximum speed: **At altitude: Mach 2 (2,495 km/h/1,550 mph)[233][234][235]
At sea level: Mach 1.2[230] (1,470 km/h/910 mph)[236]
Supercruise: Mach 1.1–1.5[237]
Range: 2,900 km (1,800 mi)
Combat radius:
Ground attack, lo-lo-lo: 601 km (325 nmi)
Ground attack, hi-lo-hi: 1,389 km (750 nmi)
Air defence with 3-hr combat air patrol: 185 km (100 nmi)
Air defence with 10-min. loiter: 1,389 km (750 nmi) [231][238]
Ferry range: 3,790 km (2,350 mi)
Service ceiling: 16,765 m[239] (55,003 ft)
Absolute ceiling: 19,812 m[239] (65,000 ft)
Rate of climb: >315 m/s[240][241] (62,000 ft/min[242])

And funny thing being that the link about f-35’s range say that it could be up to 613nm into optimal condition. So how could we be sure of the kind of improvement it is when there are so little details? Here is the quote from link [348].

“To extend the F-35A’s combat radius, the JROC agreed to a less-demanding flight profile that assumes near-ideal cruise altitude and airspeed, factors that permit more efficient fuel consumption. This would allow the estimate to be extended to 613 nautical miles, according to sources familiar with the revised requirement.”

By 2. I was meaning almost everything, whether it’s handcrafted or not is irrelevant.

Here’s an interesting excerpt by Rebecca Grant when she was at the Mitchell Institute (http://​www​.afa​.org/​M​i​t​c​h​e​l​l​/​R​e​p​o​r​t​s​/​0​9​0​8​a​i​r​_​d​o​m​i​n​a​n​c​e​.​pdf) :
Senior OSD officials have
testified that the F-35 will be adequate to fill out the Air Force
force structure.
From its earliest inception, the F-35 program was designed
on the assumption that there would be a robust number of
F-22s in the force. For that reason, it was possible to take out
many air dominance capabilities from the design of the F-35
and save money. F-35 stakeholders accepted the premise that
F-35 would not be the top-line air dominance fighter for air-toair
and specialized attack of SAMs.
Specific areas of difference included:
Signature. The all-aspect signature of the F-35 in key bands
against certain threats is not as survivable as the F-22.
Speed.

Part 2
The F-22 is faster in the flight envelope with a toprated
speed of Mach 2. Its speed increases its survivability and
its weapons effects by a factor of 3 over the F-35.
Supercruise. The F-22 has the ability to achieve mid-Mach 1
speeds in military power without afterburner. This major technology
stretch requirement was specifically written into the ATF
requirements document and became a major discriminator in
the competition in 1991.
Altitude. The F-22 is designed to operate in combat profiles
at 50,000 feet where the F-35 combat operational altitude is
30,000 feet. This generates a considerable advantage in survivability
and in weapons release speed and range over the F-35.
Weapons Carriage. The F-22 can carry four air-to-air weapons
with full air-to-ground payload, whereas the F-35 carries
only two AIM-120s under those circumstances. The F-35 carries
only half the air-to-air missiles leaving it more vulnerable to
fourth generation enemy fighters, which may carry more missiles
than the F-35.

Part 3
Tactics. F-22 tactically employs at nearly twice the altitude
and at 50 percent greater airspeed than the F-35A. This gives
air-to-air missiles a 40 percent greater employment range and
increased lethality. It also substantially reduces the F-22’s vulnerability.
Radar Battlespace Coverage. The F-22 can control more than
twice the battlespace of the F-35 and therefore establish air
dominance more quickly. The F-22 AESA radar also has more
transmit and receive elements than the F-35’s radar, thereby upping
the power brought to bear.
Maneuverability. Pure air-to-air features show a striking difference.
Only the F-22 features vectored thrust, giving it twice
the maneuverability of an F-35. In addition, the F-22 can turn at
twice the rate of an F-35.

Many of these attributes could make a vital difference in
a near-peer battlespace. Simply put, there are mission profiles
which the F-35 is not designed to carry out under any circumstances.
There is no way to “buy” the Air Force’s way out of a
failure to complete F-22 production.

And China will own Lockheed so it’ll be all ok.

I think what pfcem is trying to say is that NO F-22 has EVER been lost.
Once you scrape the wreckage off the mountain it always makes its way home.

Indeed it assumed that the F-22 weapons had 100% success rate and that stealth of 100% successful so that every single Chinese missile failed. And after that exchange was over the Chinese still won the battle.

If it was seriously rugged it wouldn’t be a F-22 that aircraft is a maintenance nightmare.

Part 4
Saying that F-35 can hang 10 AMRAAMS while also saying you need an F-35 with internal carriage to survive is just double speak. Either you need internal carriage and are limited to 4 AMRAAMs (sure there is a quickie study for 6 but it is not in the design to-date and they’ll be lucky to ever finish SDD) or you don’t need F-35 at all. You can’t have it both ways.

If we are serious about pivoting towards Asia we will need something better than F-35. Something that can carry more than 2 Mk series bombs per sortie, something that has more range, something more survivable than a a single engine aircraft with export firendly stealth (AFA said that F-22 would be the only aircraft capable of penetrating China’s airspace when the F-22 termination was pending).

Part 5
So F-35 will not be up to the air dominance task, will be poorly suited to the attack role against a near peer and will be overkill for an irregular warfare scenario and it is still too expensive to fill the force structure and always will be. With IOC slipping year for year now, it may never become operational either. We really need an A-12 like capability for attack and F-22 or better for air dominance.

Plans for 6 internal air-to-air missiles are integrated into the block schedule. It not just a quick study. The F-22’s air-to-ground payload is less than the F-35 BTW.

The “war” with China has been under way for years, but is not (normally) a hot war. It is an economic and political war, being fought on Chinese ground at China’s pace. That country has stolen vast amounts of civilian and military technology, and bought more. It is indeed rapidly increasing it’s military, but there is no sign that it intends a near-term military confrontation with the U.S. Instead, the Chinese are looking ahead fifty years to a time when the U.S. is militarily and economically weak, at which time the Chinese will simply continue to buy and bribe and threaten into dominance. That is the Chinese war.
After twenty years of nearly continuous war, the U.S. military is exhausted: Army, Navy and Marine fighters and helicopters are at the end of their service lives, navy ships are beyond, and the tens of thousands of Army vehicles returning from the war all require expensive repairs. The evidence is clear that the U.S. military is stupendously mission overextended, yet Congress shows no sign of either reducing military commitments or replacing the thousands of helicopters, fighters and dozens upon dozens of navy ships the U.S. will require in the coming decades. Instead, the navy talks about buying a 30+ year old F/A-18 design to replace fighters already well past their lifespan, with probably another five years before it can retire them with the F-35.

Meanwhile, the navy is finishing up another super carrier, a $44+ billion dollar ship that can be taken out with a handful of missiles. These ships are amazing and during normal peacetime — what we have now — they are highly useful, but during war ( when they become active targets) i would not want to serve on one.

The coming decade is going to be chaotic, and if the U.S. is smart, it will cut back on its military commitments, rebuild its military and focus on what it wants to achieve 30 years from now. If this country wants to maintain it’s current position, it won’t long survive, not from a hot war, but from the collapse of its economy. It must decide that the true war is not being fought with radar and missiles, but with trade and smart, tough, honest politicians.

Oops, we’re in trouble.

BTW, it’s E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System. E-8 is JSTARS.

1.Your missing the point on the Typhoon versus F-35 argument. The Typhoon can go 750 Nms if you load it with wing tanks and make it a flying gas can. The F-35 does 613 Nm on internal fuel. + it keeps most of its envelope.

2. How many AMRAAMS can you put on a F-16 and still get a 700 Nm range?

3. When you load a F-16 with 2k LB weapons wing tanks, suddenly you go fro ma mach 2 fighter, to a barely 5g mach 1.2 fighter. Max speed means nothing if you cant go to combat in that configuration.

4. F-35 reaches Highest altitude yet. YOUR post about the max altitude is debunked. http://​www​.codeonemagazine​.com/​f​3​5​_​g​a​l​l​e​r​y​_​s​l​i​des

5. F-35 can track and Jam F-22 radar, Your post about the F-35 being a less than stellar a2a performer is debunked. http://​www​.aviationweek​.com/​a​w​/​g​e​n​e​r​i​c​/​s​t​o​r​y​.​jsp?…

Airborne detection of stealth aircraft may already be an operational capability. In a series of tests at Edwards AFB, Calif., in 2009, Lockheed Martin’s CATbird avionics testbed—a Boeing 737 that carries the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s entire avionics system—engaged a mixed force of F-22s and Boeing F-15s and was able to locate and jam F-22 radars, according to researchers. Raytheon’s family of X-band airborne AESA radar—in particular

6. The F-35 is very maneuverable able, subsonicly out accelerates a F-16,Block 50, post stall ability 50 degrees AOA. http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​9​6​K​x​6​b​7​o​KA8

7. In Air to air configuration ( READ 1/2 fuel less than 7k Lbs of gas compared to a F-16s 5k) The plane is a 1:1 air frame.

Nice fantasy trip. The F-35 has yet to prove any of that as a finished and tested go to war jet. So the idea that the F-35 has more range than an F-22 is only a theory. Even more of a theory when you calculate effective ground speed conversions of an F-22 cruising above 60k ft.

Keep up the F-35 Thana Marketing J.

::: crickets chirping:::

Thana Marketing and the F-35
http://​goo​.gl/​z​2​Oml

1.The f-35 is way more a flying gas tank than anything else..
2.How are you going to calculate it to make sure that the f-35 can do it? By only using the internal bay this time. Perhaps you would prefer to be there sooner instead?
3.Those for a fully loaded f-35 are not published. And since there have been only test with two inert missile, is the frame actually capable to handle the load? Don’t forget that modeling tool have failed. As such, I don’t take any of the expected performance vector for facts. And right now, the f-35 is only tested at subsonic speed as the furtive paint boil-up at supersonic speed. The max speed of only mach 1.6 was not expected either. Even the gripen can go mach 2.0, don’t think it was part of the design.
4.Who posted about max altitudes? And if you dared to read the link that you provided you will find out that the title ““Highest Altitude To Date is when compared to itself, the highest altitudes that the f-35 have been tested being 43,500ft, according to the link that you provided.
5.That doesn’t make the f-35 any more viable. I said it and I will say it again, there is no reason to keep f-35 electronics for itself; there is no reason that a f-15 with the same electronics could not do the same. Matter of facts, it have been demonstrated with a boeing 737. Once again, it prove my claim, that these planes are going to need upgrades all the times. It’s just funny that they were saying that no hardware upgrades required for the f-22 –its computer– when according to this article, it’s exactly what have happened. “.….…increment 3.1, a recent F-22 hardware and software upgrade”. But now the real concern being about what will happen when the enemy will do the same, and jam the f-35 radar? Most of the Occident will be screwed. That a risk with huge consequences that need to be addressed.

6.There is nothing about the f-16 vs f-35 here.

What you are trying to achieve is nothing more than a spec-sheet war. You are comparing the f-35 (still an immaterial product) mostly against the f-16, while once again, it is meant to replace something like 6 or 7 different planes. You are looking at only few vector, regardless of the tradeoff behind. That can be catastrophic!

Right in the bullseye. :-D

In designing the F-22, alot of senerios or strategies was planned to handle a tad bit of a century of problems. With these secret strategies built into the F-22, it be pointless to export it, since Foreign countries would only get the air plane but not its true effective ability.

Its just preferable to fund and monitor our Allies developing their own stealth aircraft which in any of the previous wars, never has been fought solely by American air craft but with a mixture of foreign in specialized roles. Funding as in, understanding every bit of technology our Allies are developing to better understand what our advesaries will snoop within a matter of minutes.

Agreed. Few forget and realize how most of our fighters were copied by Russia within 6 years because we exported them to other countries, except the B-2, F-117 and now the F-22. What helped the B-2 and F-117 was that both were only allowed to be deployed from U.S. bases and NOT foreign deployment.

I do take in mind, that Russia didnt have the economical might to keep pace, but hey, they said the same about the T-50 and now they are producing it.

WHO DOES USAF WANT TO KILL? THEM OR US?

Sounds like the F-22 needs some retrograde upgrades like drop tanks for longer-range patrols and a cannon or two after its missiles have been expended. Can F-22s survive dog-fights?

pastorvon, you are a bit ignorant: 1) the F-22 is capable of carrying external fuel tanks, 2) it does carry an M61A2 Vulcan cannon mounted internally at the right wing root with a firing door to maximize stealth, and 3) it’s a lot more survivable in a guns-only dogfight compared to an F-15. Against an aircraft equipped with HMCS and armed with HOBS IR AAM’s, it’s at a disadvantage since the F-22 hasn’t been upgraded with HMCS to maximize use of the AIM-9X.

the 22 can have drop tanks they use them for long range op’s they do have a cannon and its really accurate but the problem is that, well it’s a money pit the maintenance cost for it is staggering just in the low observable aspect it’s crazy how long it is just to take a panel off the air force is also not telling anyone about the maintainer’s that are getting sick from the coatings one person in Langley died in his sleep no one knows what killed him. The oxygen well that is horrible that the air force is just installing a system that warns the pilots are going to be out of oxygen. There are reports that pilots are not reporting problems because of what happened last year if it happens again they will lose their flying status and that is a big no no. This aircraft cannot operate out of a sand environment look at any aircraft coming back from the desert they are tore up from the sand if the coatings is what keeps this jet flying it will have to be long range. All in all this aircraft has corrosion issues that will start becoming an issue sooner or later. I just hope they fix the problems but I don’t think this aircraft will last as long as the f-15.

Wasn’t the F-35 supposed to be a combination aircraft adaptable for all services? Air Force, Marines and Navy? ie,. supposed to have an airframe to be configured for carrier use with tail hook, heavier landing gear for catapaults and carrier landings, etc? I mean that was supposed to be the original design consideration wasn’t it?

it would seem to me that a small amount of bleed air from an engine to the OX system might be the answer. this worked for wheel well heating
.

This is exactly how the F-16’s OBOGS and F-15E’s MSOGS work. The F-22’s OBOGS is based off of the same system used for the F-16.

I am sure everyone here has by now heard news that many computer parts and electronic components coming out of China are either fake or very poor quality. I wonder how many of these parts are being used in our F-22s and F-35s, etc?
Bottom line here is that we desperately need to rebuild our manufactoring capabilities back here now! We should be building these components here, not in China, and don’t give me that it’s too expensive nonsense either. I will remind you all that one of the reasons things are so expensive these days is BECAUSE the dollar is just about worthless when its being printed like it’s going out of style. Yes I know there are other reasons as well, but fixing the dollar is a good place to start.
We need to rebuild our fleet as well. After 10 years and two wars, most of our aircraft are just plain worn out and need to be replaced. We need a heck of a lot more F-22s as well and they should be working on the next generation fighter now.

“I am sure everyone here has by now heard news that many computer parts and electronic components coming out of China are either fake or very poor quality. I wonder how many of these parts are being used in our F-22s and F-35s, etc?“
LM Expert here, for the F22 NO CHINA Parts installed. Over 50 odd manufacturers made this bird across the US.
bt
Raptors will lead whatever USAF big Birds attack vs whatever for. The end game will be Raptors WIN. Attackers LOSE.
Semper Fi

if you look up the real definition of a politician, then this is a sterling example of an oymoron: trade and smart, tough, honest politicians.
WHAT A JOKE!!! an honest politician like Clinton or Obama. Clinton after addressing the American electorate on T.V. “I never had sex with that woman.…..” impeached and reelected. Proof that the general public has the I.Q. of a rock Then an avowed socialist (Obama) elected after too many lies to recount, spending more than imaginable, and surviving by feeding the “rocks” with class warfare, and free lives with big government promising a good life from cradle to grave. “Give me, Give me Give me” the mantra of affirmative action dopes

From AFA Daily Rpt (http://​www​.airforce​-magazine​.com/​P​a​g​e​s​/​H​o​m​e​P​a​g​e​.​a​spx) Longer Fifth Generation Horizon: The Air Force needs to “look hard at its timeline” for acquiring an all-fifth generation fighter fleet, and maybe accept a fourth generation-plus force for a longer period, said retired Gen. Ron Fogleman, former Chief of Staff, Wednesday. “We shouldn’t give up on being a fifth generation Air Force. I think we just need to change the horizon,” he said in an address sponsored by AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies in Arlington, Va. Fogleman said he’s worried that the Air Force has essentially placed “all its eggs in one basket” by embracing the F-35 strike fighter “so completely.”

continued
He said: “I have no doubt that someday the F-35 will be a marvelous airplane.” But “I don’t think our Air Force can wait” until then. He said he doesn’t think the Air Force will ever buy the F-35 in the numbers it has planned (the program of record is for 1,763). “That’s the first thing that nobody will admit, but it’s kind of a universal truth,” he said. “As soon as” F-35 unit reductions come, the aircraft’s “price is going to start going crazy,” asserted Fogleman.

continued
By the time it becomes obvious in about eight to 10 years that the F-35 plan won’t play out, “it will be too late,” and the production lines for “several pretty good legacy fighters”—the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18E/F—will be shuttered, he said. “They’ll go dead about the time that we wake up,” he said, noting that he’d “like to set an alarm that says we ought to wake up a little earlier.” The Super Hornet should be in the potential mix even though “heaven forbid, the Air Force would ever buy a Navy airplane,” said Fogleman.

Time to admit the truth people. Do it all means-far less ability, far increased cost, extreme R&D, less planes per mission/per tax dollar.

This when our adversaries are selling planes with better air-air capabilities than the F-35 or almost any western fighter but the raptor or Super hornet.

Stealth they say! AESA they scream! Cool. F-18 growlers can beat F-22 in dog fights..the raptors cant get a lock on you see. So hopefully our enemies dont know this.…..
Their is a saying around here. Assuming makes an ass out of you. Well in this case the assumption of superior knowledge, technology, numbers makes dead airmen, sailors, and marines.……and probably soldiers too.

A mix is needed. Very high tech, high performance aircraft like the raptor backed up with lower performance aircraft that can be mass produced and do their job well.

Guess what. A strike aircraft like the A-6 would outperform the F-35 in every way with modern technology applied. And wouldnt cost the same as a modern frigate.

500–600 F-22’s. 1200 long range strike aircraft like a modern A-6. They could refuel, do bombing missions carry AMRAMS.….….everything. A-10 for ground attack.…..

Not a complicated fleet but a more realistic one than the one the airforce is after.

Taiwan (and the northern part of the PI) is within the threat ring of a whole bunch of short and medium range Chinese missiles. That’s why the F22s were flying out of Guam in the RAND study.

You better have one helluva lot of bake sales to pay for that fleet…

I was deliberately so. My comments were based on what the article supplied. I am aware of the historical reluctance to demonstrate and reference full capabilities. The U-2s performance is an excellent example. We have never admitted that the U-2 was operational above 70K. I know from personal experience that the operational altitude of the U-2 is greater than 100k. [No, I did not fly one. But, I processed data from them.]

Well right now the DoD is planning on buying something like 3000 F-35’s at around 135mil to 200 mil for the naval and STVOL models. So yea pretty sure we can afford that small of a amount.

F-22 would probably be around 120 or less sense when built in those numbers.

I wanted to write exactly that … and more …we are within days of a meeting that will decide if that decision is a go.
I read somewhere that Iran was able to buy only a small fraction of all cereals that they intended to for the current year. Maybe some more sanctions in food would be worth trying before sending in the F’s and the B’s.

here here my good man

G’day Superraptor

Most definately, restart the F-22 production line and remove the ludicrous export ban to export this remarkable stealth fighters to the US Allies. We (Australian’s) deserve to have the F-22 as an F/A-18A/B Hornet replacement instead of the lemon F-35 and Super Hornets.

I’d say the F-15AU and F-22AU concepts will certainly provide a potent combination of flexibility and capability to suit Australia’s “long range” requirements.

I totally agree with you.

@ Jessmo

The Knee jerk pro– F-35 advocates miss a few points here.

1. Both the F-16 and F-35 do have the same manoeuvrability, but the F-35 doesn’t have thrust vectoring (to improve agility and defeating missiles tracking systems).

2. The turkey (F-35) doesn’t supercruise, which means it’ll burn up more fuel and has a terrible acceleration at Mach 1.6 (1,056 mph 1,700 km/h) compare to Mach 2+ fighters.

3. The F-35s price will never go down. LOL its $1.45 Trillion.

4. The Internal Weapon Carriage Hard Point Stations the F-35s carry is ONLY 4 internal AIM-120 AMRAAMs and it’s not a flat out lie. Also the F-35 doesn’t have Supersonic Weapons Delivery, its only bomber doors. The total weapons load out is very limited than the F-111, F-15 family, F-22, F-16 and other aircraft.

5. The combat radius of the F-35 is less than the F-111, F-15 family, F-22 and the F-16 (with external tanks). Yes the F-35A model does have 18,000 lbs, but the aircraft’s fuel flow is very inefficient and has no loiter time.

@ Jessmo

The turkey (F-35 has less range on internal fuel than a fully loaded with wing tanks. Do you call this 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) a long range. The very clear answer is no. I’ll compare the specification comparisons to other aircraft and you’ll tell me is the F-35 the aircraft of choice. I reckon you should stop this nonsense about the F-35s have longer range than other aircraft pal.

@ Jessmo Here’s the performance comparisons

Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA Performance

Maxiumum Speed: Mach 2+ at altitude (1,500+ mph, 2,500+ km/h)
Cruise speed: 1,150–1,300 mph (1,850–2,100 km/h)
Ferry range: 3,417 mi (5,500 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: approx 1,000 mi (1,500 km)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)
Rate of climb: 70,000 ft/min (350 m/s)
Wing loading: 100 lb/ft&sup2; (450 kg/m&sup2;)
Thrust/weight: 1.19
Fuel load for the PAK-FA: 25,350 lb (11,500 kg)

@ Jessmo Continued performance comparisons

Sukhoi Su-35S Super Flanker-E Performance

Maxiumum Speed: Mach 2+ at altitude (1,500+ mph, 2,500+ km/h)
Cruise speed: 870 mph (1,400 km/h)
Ferry range: 2,796 mi (4,500 km) on internal fuel and with two drop tanks
Range at high altitude: 2,236 mi (3,600 km)
Combat radius: approx 1,000 mi (1,500 km)
Service ceiling: 59,055 ft (18,000 m)
Rate of climb: 55,120 ft/min (280 m/s)
Wing loading: 84.9 lb/ft&sup2; (408 kg/m&sup2;)
Thrust/weight: 1.1
Fuel load for the Su-35S: (internal) 25,350 lb (11,500 kg)
(With two 396 Imp Gal external tanks) 31,530 lb (14,300 kg)

@ Jessmo Continued performance comparisons

F-35A Lightning II JSF Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 (1,056 mph, 1,700 km/h) (Tested to Mach 1.61)
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 584 nmi (1,080 km) on internal fuel * note 613 NM without 5% reserve*
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (15,000 m) (Tested to 43,000 ft)
Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft&sup2; (446 kg/m&sup2;)
Thrust/weight: With full fuel: 0.87
With 50% fuel: 1.07
Fuel load for the F-35A: 18,500 lb (8,390 kg)

What ELP stated “The F-35 has yet to prove any of that as a finished and tested go to war jet. So the idea that the F-35 has more range than an F-22 is only a theory”.

@ Jessmo Continued performance comparisons

Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,650+ km/h)
Combat radius: 720 nmi (800+ mi for stealth A/A mission) 920 mi (1,480 kilometres))
Ferry range: 3,100 nmi (3,570 mi, 5,745 km) with conformal fuel tank and three external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,200 m)
Rate of climb: 50,000+ ft/min (254+ m/s)

You can’t really cite max speed stats… those are worthless stats, since those speeds were achieved using a slick configuration; no external stores or munitions, just the bare-bones jet and internal fuel. It changes drastically once you add stores, especially externally. Sure you can jettison external stores, but that may not be the tactically sound decision, and the pylons would still be there.

The top speeds matter even less when considering other factors like acceleration, or airframe/engine tolerances (especially in a combat configuration). That’s a more useful and practical stat for determining portions of combat capability. For example, what good is a Mach 3 top speed when it takes over half of your fuel load to achieve it? Or in the case of the MiG-31, potentially causing serious damage to the engine and airframe. And acceleration is definitely important. Again, no point in being able to achieve Mach 3 when it takes longer to get there than the time you have to intercept.

Thrust/weight ratio is another throw-away figure when you don’t have the aerodynamic coefficient (Cd) to compare against. A good thrust/weight ratio is off-set by poor aerodynamics. Once again, overall Cd changes when you introduce external stores. Take a look at the English Electric Lightning (circa 1959), it had a thrust/weight ratio of around 0.78 in a slick configuration and full fuel. But that jet was the first supercruise capable aircraft.

Wing loading does not take into account the absence/presence of canards, leading edge extensions (LEX), leading edge flaps (LEF), or thrust vectoring, and does not include stores. It’s an entirely useless stat for determining aircraft maneuverability.

So you quote ELP’s “F-35 is unproven!!!” comment and then rattle off Sukhoi’s numbers for the T-50 and SU-35S… Yeah they’re definitely combat proven…

Retired old fart. I am partial to the F-15 Eagle. Maintained it for 30 years at Robins. While at weight and balance school at Shaw,Sc. in 1990 I got to see our Eagles come off the assembly line and go to war. KInd of a baptism in fire, right? I can remember the growing pains of such great planes as the F-105 (thud), the F-100 Super Saber, the F-111 and the B1B. They all had to over come technical problems. Did the Eagle begin its tour of duty with the same problems? Dont think so. It went straight to war. If I am wrong please correct me. We had a saying about the F-16, (great aircraft by the way). What happens if you lose an engine? Same could be said for the F-35. As far as the F-22 problems with the O2– no biggie. The F-15 will have to retire soon. We better be on board with it. I am looking forward to a long useage life for the Raptor! Like Regan said peace through strength. Worked with the Soviet Union and it will work today.If you control the skies you are in the drivers seat.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.