WT Forums

doesn't anyone see that the moment we stop trying to improve we regress?

“I actual did voted for it, before I voted against it.”-John Kerry
“I actual did put out the fire, before I started it.”-A firefighter now in jail

Aren't juxtaposing the phrases "NY Times" and "anti-F-22 article" redundant?

This publication thrives on "pussifying" our military.<img src=newicons/madani.gif border=0 align=middle>

The NY Times is so predictable. They can't change their tactics. Notice that they always attack the system that is currently in production, while promoting something else that is "obviously" better and "just around the corner". That is make them seem reasonable. We are all for national defense, we just differ on how to do it. When substantial resources must be committed on the alternatives, they will attack them too. It doesn't matter whether the system is a weapon, a vehicle, a trainer...or body armour, if it's DOD supported, the're against it. They want the money for some other unspecified purpose. It is also standard proceedure for project killers to quote the cost of early production airplanes by dividing the entire budget spent, including R&D, by total airframes bought. It maximizes sticker shock that way. The actual cost to build the next jet is obviously a small fraction of that. Ho-Humm. If the media would just do their homework there are plenty of real foul-ups to discuss, but they have their play book to follow. Gag.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
doesn't anyone see that the moment we stop trying to improve we regress?

“I actual did voted for it, before I voted against it.”-John Kerry
“I actual did put out the fire, before I started it.”-A firefighter now in jail

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It's called the super hornet

"The worst football halftime show is still better than a soccer game." - Ron "Tater Salad" White.

IMHO the crappter needs to die. The R&D is great but usable airframes would be much better. If I buy a new Car I shouldn't have to then turn around and give it back to the dealer again and again to fix it. There are 03 F-15's out there and 01 Crappters.

Guess witch ones are meeting their sorties. It would be a waste to end up with yet another airframe that will not be able to replace current aging fleets. We are not going to get enough, I think its time to cut our losses. We are still realing from losing some of our premier fighters to be replaced with fewer incapable aircraft. Lets not set ourselves up for that again.



Edited by - JMF422nd on Nov 08 2004 6:10 PM

Edited by - JMF422nd on Nov 08 2004 6:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
IMHO the crappter needs to die. The R&D is great but usable airframes would be much better. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If you are sitting on inside information that the F-22 doesn't work and can't be fixed, I think you ought to to tell someone who can do something. May I suggest the NY Times. You better do it fast because they are going to make important decisions soon.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

The Raptor is here to stay.

"Molon labe".
Leonidas, King of Sparta,
Thermopylae, 480 B.C.

I remember when the F-15's were new and having HUGE engine problems. The F-4 guys were saying the same damn thing "get rid of it we dont dont need it". Amazing how things come full circle. I agree...the F-22 is here to stay.

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

The Eagles are graveyard bound, and when all is said and done i predict that you'll see a HELL of a lot more than 277 Raptors in USAF service.

I predict the eventual number to be 500 or more.

And NO, an F-18E/F CANNOT do what an F-15C can do, and it's not even close.

"Molon labe".
Leonidas, King of Sparta,
Thermopylae, 480 B.C.

Airforce just bought 100 More F15C's

Their is a ramp of '03 15C's at Nellis, Another Agressor squadron is standing up for them now.

The early Block 80's 15s are getting converted to Bombers. So we will have 15s for another 20 Years....

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Edited by - mrmudd on Nov 09 2004 1:33 PM

"But how could they get more than 277 airframes down the road when they could not do so now? I think it would be cheapest to buy the numbers up front would it not?"

Of course it would be cheaper, but that's not how the Gov't works. After the F-22 is in service and it's apparent it is THE world beater aircraft we'll buy more at the end of the first run. It's ineviteble.

"And as far as comparing an F/A-18E to an F-15C, I'd like to see the comparison between the two using todays and tommorows mission parameters. Sure, the USAF could redefine those parameters as they went along, lowering the standards as the Super Hornet fails to achieve each preset goal, but despite a top speed and high altitude advantage, the F-15C really has nothing else over a modern F/A-18E and so one really must ask the question, with F-22's available would that extra top speed and altitude really be all that important?"

One word: Range.

The F-15C is one of the longest range fighters in the world, even today. The F-18E/F is one of the shortest ranged contemporary heavy fighters in the world.

"They can both sling a lot of external fuel tanks (although the F-15C can carry more fuel internally,) but the SH would still have more room for more AMRAAM's and it's more capable AESA APG-79 radar is far greater than even the few F-15C's that have the APG-63v3 AESA or whatever it is."

They can always just hang the APG-79 in the nose of the Eagle, or the even better APG-77 for that matter. And an F-15C can carry a hell of a lot of AMRAAMs and unlike the F-18 still retain excellent supersonic performance.

"The F/A-18E would give the F-15C community a true "F/A" multi-role capability,"

The F-15C already has an attack capability, and it has since day 1.

"better than even the alledged F/A-22."

If that wasn't so funny i'd be really offended by that comment...

"With a more advanced cockpit, the F/A-18E with JHMCS and AIM-9X, the F/A-18E would be a great way to fill the void left behind by the expensive F-22's when time is not to waste on waiting for JSF's to turn out and do so on time. Of course, they could just buy F-16E's as well and likely do the trick just as well."

Or they could just wait for the F-35, which is the plan. All accounts say that the F-35A and F-35C are damned fine aircraft, and both are WAY out of the F-18E/Fs performance envelope.


"Molon labe".
Leonidas, King of Sparta,
Thermopylae, 480 B.C.

"Your offended by the F/A-22? Me too. The plane sits too low to the ground to carry any serious amounts of ordinance and no matter how small you make the bombs, current gen aircraft will still be able to carry more of them."

Any bomb dropped from the F-22 will have about 30% longer range and about 30% greater penetration than vs. any other aircraft in service in the world today. It's attack capabilities are unmatched, period.

"What A/G capabilities is the "F/A" 22 really going to have, or better yet in what circumstances do they really think the F-22 will be wasted in A/G ops when Strike Eagles, B-whatevers, and numerous JSF's all flying around will be used first?"

First day of the war ops. For SEAD the F-22 will have no equal. For penetrating hostile airspace the F-22 will have no equal save the B-2 and F-117. For getting in AND out in the fastest time possible the F-22 will have no equal.

"So what you are telling me is that the USAF plans to send half of their F-15C pilots over to JSF's then? If the USAF has 800 F-15C's but only will be replacing them with 300 at best F-22's, does that mean they are going to be buying more JSF's then or are they going to have a big gap in total numbers and thus 400 or so less pilots?"

The USAF doesn't have 800 F-15Cs, they probably have about half that number. Something like 40% of them have already been cannibalized. And i already said i believe there will end up being 500 or so Raptors in service.

"I know we never needed to replace F-15C's one for one with F-22's, but I don't see the USAF buying 400 more JSF's and I don't quite see them doing without, so that only means something else will be done."

No it doesn't. The plan is sound, and the numbers work.



"Molon labe".
Leonidas, King of Sparta,
Thermopylae, 480 B.C.

"It's attack capabilities are unmatched, period."

"For SEAD the F-22 will have no equal."

Your overstating its capabilities as the aircraft sits now as regards either strike, attack or SEAD from what Ive read.

My understanding is it will take $50 million dollars extra for EACH aircraft to put a credible "A" in F/A-22.

Sniper got something concrete for me to read about its Air to Ground and SEAD capabilities. Maybe Ive been mislead or missed something entirely.

Thanks Rick.

But it is a fact that the USAF needs this aircraft and needed it yesterday at least as regards its aging inventory of F-15C aircraft.

If they only procure approx 220 (as has been said repeatedly they only have enough funding for)thats only enough to maintain SIX 24 plane squadrons under the most optimistic aircraft in-service/attrition scenarios. At a procurement level of 276 which is still possible that would be NINE 20 plane squadrons. The USAF has experimented with 20 plane squadrons though and found them inadequate. Maybe the F/A-22 operational realities will change their conclusions. But they need to buy approx 339 aircraft to maintain NINE squadrons of 24 aircraft.

Again under all these scenarios they are really pushing the envelope on having enough operational aircraft to fill out these squadrons.

But the most important thing is can (I havent heard) it do this.

http://www.dod.mil/photos/Nov2004/04102 ... S-007.html

LOL

And everyone thought I was joking when I said TANKING was the F/A-18E's main claim to fame. LOL






Edited by - rickusn on Nov 09 2004 10:56 PM

"Your overstating its capabilities as the aircraft sits now as regards either strike, attack or SEAD from what Ive read."

As it sits right now the F-22 can drop two 1,000lb JDAMs while supercruising at Mach 1.8. There is no other aircraft in the world that can do that. Released at Mach 1.8 the JDAM and the eventual SDB will have far more range and penetration when launched from an F-22 than from any other aircraft in the world. I've read this several times, and it's been stated here several times(and never challenged by the people here who have the knowledge to raise a BS flag). The same is true for missiles, which would include HARM(which i have no idea if it's cleared for, but it certainly could be, just a matter of $$$).

The F-22s avionics and threat evasion systems(and obviously it's very low RCS) allow it to fly right into the most highly defended airspace undetected. It needs no support package at all.
It's supercruise allows it to release it's weapons from a much greater range, and with much greater kinetic and kinematic effect. It's unmatched flight envelope will make it very hard to kill even if it is detected, and the two AIM-9X in the side bays will mean it's still a very potent target to tangle with even on a ground mission. If so inclined, the F-22 can disengage and escape at will from pretty much any fighter in the world.
It's also got a combat radius that is unprecedented for a tactical single seat fighter.

It has a very small internal payload.....yes......no denying that. But it can get more out of that payload than anything else aloft, and it can take it places that most other planes can't, and it can get it there faster than ANY attack plane on Earth.

You add all that up, and to this grunt it seems like the F-22 will have no equal. Tell me where i'm wrong.







"Molon labe".
Leonidas, King of Sparta,
Thermopylae, 480 B.C.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Airforce just bought 100 More F15C's

Their is a ramp of '03 15C's at Nellis, Another Agressor squadron is standing up for them now.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Haven't F-15C's been out of production since 1986? Possibly that ramp of '03 jets is actually '83 jets after some cosmetic surgery and botox.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<i>At one time the A in F/A was all sales pitch, but things are happening to make it real. Here are some relevant press releases:</i>

11/09/04
Lorenzo Cortes
Defense Daily


ORLANDO, Fla.--One of Lockheed Martin's [LMT] main selling points for its Surveilling Miniature Attack Cruise Missile (SMACM) project is that it can fit four of the weapons on the BRU-61 rack EDO [EDO] is developing for Boeing's [BA] 250-pound Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) program--giving what the company believes is a potential spot on the F/A-22 fighter and future Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
"What we know fits is the Small Diameter Bomb rack; so that's the place to start," Ed Whalen, director of strike weapons, told Defense Daily last week during a briefing here. "We just showed that SMACM basically fits on that racks. It gives great capability."

SMACM is an evolution of Lockheed Martin's work on the Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS). SMACM is equipped with a tri-mode seeker that includes a laser radar seeker, weighs 140 pounds and would have an endurance of 250 nautical miles. "SMACM is something we're actively designing and we're going to fly it very soon," Whalen said.

Lockheed Martin touted the fact that it wasn't as large a weapon but could be powered. "It's not quite a 250-pound bomb, but it fits on the SDB rack, which is a BRU-61," Whalen also said.


<b>F/A-22 Drops JDAM Successfully</b> (Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2004)
[USAF News Release, Sept. 14, 2004]

Washingon - An F/A-22 Raptor flying at 30,000 feet dropped a satellite-guided 1,000 lb Joint Direct Attack Munition, successfully hitting its designated ground target on Sept. 2, 2004, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

This developmental test marked the first complete mission demonstration of the Raptor's air-to-ground attack capability.

"The F/A-22 will be able to conduct both air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks when it reaches Initial Operational Capability, currently planned for December 2005," said Major General Rick Lewis, Program Executive Officer for the F/A-22 Program.

The F/A-22's transformational combination of stealth, supercruise, advanced maneuverability, and integrated avionics provides increased first-look, first-kill capability against enemy aircraft and next generation surface to air missiles.


<b>Raptor Watch, Nov. 8, 2004</b>

Successful JDAM "Ripple Release"

During its first "Ripple Release" mission on October 26, Raptor 4016 launched two JDAMS (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) at two targets spaced several miles apart. JDAM impact on target was within lethal range.


<i>I can reassure you that the F-22 weapon bay doors can and do open at high Mach and high dynamic pressures and the stores are thrown out smartly.</i>

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

Thanks Stress. Thats the kind of info that helps immensely.


You made my point Sniper:

"just a matter of $$$"


Its interesting how the USAF goes about winning the hearts and minds of its skeptics and how the USN goes about it. Its no wonder the USAF PR efforts are the envy of the USN.

No comments on the USNs new "tanker"? Speaking of a dubious value PR effort by the USN.

"While I don't doubt what you say at all, I find it awfully interesting how the bay doors can even open up at mach 1.8 and than the aerodynmaic effect of a half ton JDAM leaving it's pocket."

The F-22 has been fully tested for weapons release at high supercruising speeds. It has launched AMRAAMs and AIM-9X's at Mach 1.6 <i>INVERTED</i> while pulling over 5Gs, lol.

Forget about CAS, the "A" has nothing to do with CAS. If you prefer, it should be an "S", because the F-22 has what it takes to be a great strike fighter, in many ways the greatest of all time.

F/S-22 just sounds stupid though.

Rick, it helps to have a BIG TIME product to sell when you're playing the PR game. The USAF is 'selling' the most advanced multirole fighter ever devised, and the USN was 'selling' a polished turd.

Look at the Burkes though. They're damned fine ships, and the USN doesn't seem to have to fight very hard to fund as many of them as the shipyards can turn out. By the time all is said and done we'll have what- 90 some Aegis warships?

I'd call that pretty succesful PR bro.

"Molon labe".
Leonidas, King of Sparta,
Thermopylae, 480 B.C.