F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[LancerMc]

As we're all aware the F/A-22 Raptor program has dodged bullet after bullet in recent years, but with President Bush's rather adamant calling for a production run of only 180 aircraft instead of the 386 requested by the USAF what will happen with program? No doubt the aircraft capabilities have surpassed all current fighter aircraft, especially in cost!!!! The Raptor is soon to be coming online at Langley A.F.B., but with the new squadron sizes only being 18 aircraft will the USAF be able to cope with these smaller numbers.

If the U.S. plans to have the best airforce in the world, it must procure more aircraft. True cost may come down, with interest from a few countries interested in buying or producing their own (Most notably Japan). The USAF needs to stop underestimating certain aircraft and airforces. With the Elmendorf's F-15's recent trouncing at Cope India by Mirage 2000's and Su-30MKI's, has proven a valuable lesson. Some USAF leader's complain the Indian's out number the American F-15's, and thats true but that is how the U.S. doctrine in air combat works (The U.S. is always to be out numbered). Do not forget the great flying skills of the Indian pilots as well. New technology is always changing the air-to-air fight. What about MiG's new ALL AXIS thrust vectoring nozzle on the MiG-29/35. It will also likely offered to India when it looks for its new 125 light combat aircraft.

So should the U.S. release some of the technology to export aircraft to key allies to drive down production costs in the hope them buying the Raptor? Should the American taxpayer just bite the bullet and buy the amount the USAF wants? (The choice I would prefer.) How will the Raptor cope with new technology and threats?

I look forward to hearing everyone's comments.

 

[Snayke]

Aren't the F-22s supposed to replace the F-15s? If so, how many F-15s are there compared to what F-22s will be produced?

 

[Dr Phobus]

Hello

USAF has/had about 700-800 F-15 A-C's,. plus the strike eagle (E) varients. I agree more Raptor's need to be built, and how, well, cut the number's of JSF. The airforce have stated they do not need 1700 plus being built for them, of course are they saying this hoping money;s well be tranferred to more Raptors rather than the present JSF numbers, who knows? Also, in the world of PGM's SBD, JDAM etc are so many warplanes needed ? Especially the USAF that have an abundence of PGM's ?

However, we (US govenment) should listen them (the USAF) but cutting the JSF numbers may well mean increasing the JSF's unit cost and that is something politically/industrally that is very sensitive. This for me is the issue, no more Raptors because JSF number are required to ensure low unit cost and thus export success. This issue is also confounded by the plain fact the american's are no willing to put even more money into defence spending.


:fly

 

[PhillTaj]

Hello

USAF has/had about 700-800 F-15 A-C's,. plus the strike eagle (E) varients. I agree more Raptor's need to be built, and how, well, cut the number's of JSF. The airforce have stated they do not need 1700 plus being built for them, of course are they saying this hoping money;s well be tranferred to more Raptors rather than the present JSF numbers, who knows? Also, in the world of PGM's SBD, JDAM etc are so many warplanes needed ? Especially the USAF that have an abundence of PGM's ?

However, we (US govenment) should listen them (the USAF) but cutting the JSF numbers may well mean increasing the JSF's unit cost and that is something politically/industrally that is very sensitive. This for me is the issue, no more Raptors because JSF number are required to ensure low unit cost and thus export success. This issue is also confounded by the plain fact the american's are no willing to put even more money into defence spending.


:fly

America, LMAO, puts more than enough in defense spending.

However, it has too many pork barrel Defense projects. As old Rummy said, something is wrong with the system.

Project costs ALWAYS spiral out of control. I remember reading somewhere that European actors can produce an asset for about 30 percent of what the same asset would cost in the US procurement system.

And for the record, the JSF is intended as an air to ground fighter. If the USAF wants to maintain total air dominance, it better jack up its f-22 buy. Hell, cut the F-35 down to just the B and C version and buy a large number of FB-22's.

 

[Dr Phobus]

My point about the size of the defence buget is that they will face real short falls in purchasing new systems because of the cost of the "wars". The DDX may well be 1-2 units only, rather than 8-12 orginally forcast eariler this year.

But few people seem to disagree that F/A-22 numbers will not rise without a cut in JSF number which i agrue is the best way to proceed.

:gun :gun :gun :gun

 

[PhillTaj]

My point about the size of the defence buget is that they will face real short falls in purchasing new systems because of the cost of the "wars". The DDX may well be 1-2 units only, rather than 8-12 orginally forcast eariler this year.

But few people seem to disagree that F/A-22 numbers will not rise without a cut in JSF number which i agrue is the best way to proceed.

:gun :gun :gun :gun

Heck, I've heard Economists state that the Iraq and Afghan Wars may actually cause the world to enter a worldwide recession worse than the Great Depression

But anyways, I just dont see how the USAF is going to get good use out of just 180 airframes....

 

[LancerMc]

It is true that many modern PGM are able to carried in larger and larger number. I agree with the fact why should the USAF buy a 1700 JSF's, when we allready have aircraft that drop can large amount of PGM's. The B-1B was recently cleared to deploy the JDAM-32 (500lb), The B-1 will then be capable of deploying 80 JDAM's in one mission! The B-2 is also capable of launching a large number of JDAM's. As much the JSF is needed to replace legacy aircraft production should be cut to buy more F-22's. We already have aircraft capable of launching large numbers of PGM's.

 

[Whiskyjack]

It is true that many modern PGM are able to carried in larger and larger number. I agree with the fact why should the USAF buy a 1700 JSF's, when we allready have aircraft that drop can large amount of PGM's. The B-1B was recently cleared to deploy the JDAM-32 (500lb), The B-1 will then be capable of deploying 80 JDAM's in one mission! The B-2 is also capable of launching a large number of JDAM's. As much the JSF is needed to replace legacy aircraft production should be cut to buy more F-22's. We already have aircraft capable of launching large numbers of PGM's.

Lets remember that is the JSF is cut then costs will rise there as well. This has ripple effects as countries such as Australia, Britain, Turkey etc... are faced with an increase in the cost of the JSF and look elsewhere, not to mention it may delay the JSF into production as concerns are worked out on numbers and costs.

 

[Dr Phobus]

Indeed, this point is already made. Of course, I doubt JSF will have all the markets is desires. Looks like Demark will buy the Gripen (based more on cost than ability I am sure). Price increase in an interesting issue, after all, what else are they going to buy ? And please, no idealists, there will be no russian or chinese figthers in the NATO/EU. The Typhoon, Rafale are never going to be affordable, the Gripen is too lightweight. So, increase in price, at least a conversative increase will have no significant determental effect no number of customers, but maybe the number of units purchased.

I often wonder just how good the JSF is at Air to Air ?


:gun :gun

 

[LancerMc]

I believe Pratty & Whitney tested a stealthly all axis vectoring nozzle on the F-16. Why can it be adapted to F-35 to give it a boost in air to air combat? I would believe the F-35 would fair quite well, since in essence it is a smaller version of F/A-22. I don't think it would be quite on the level of the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Flankers in the air-to-air arena.

With future combat aircraft programs becoming more cost prohibative, what will NATO allies have a choice in buying? You can go cheap in a new model F-16 or Gripen, a medium road with the JSF, or the high road with the Eurofighter, Rafale, or F-15E. I also believe you may see a few Russian aircraft in NATO's future, with the Flanker design you can never count the Russians out of the fight.

 

[PhillTaj]

I believe Pratty & Whitney tested a stealthly all axis vectoring nozzle on the F-16. Why can it be adapted to F-35 to give it a boost in air to air combat? I would believe the F-35 would fair quite well, since in essence it is a smaller version of F/A-22. I don't think it would be quite on the level of the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Flankers in the air-to-air arena.

With future combat aircraft programs becoming more cost prohibative, what will NATO allies have a choice in buying? You can go cheap in a new model F-16 or Gripen, a medium road with the JSF, or the high road with the Eurofighter, Rafale, or F-15E. I also believe you may see a few Russian aircraft in NATO's future, with the Flanker design you can never count the Russians out of the fight.

From what I've heard, the F-35 radar is not exactly tailored for air-air, and that yes, a Typhoon would prolly have it beat.

 

[Dr Phobus]

I too am surprized that there is no TV engine nozzle on the conventionsal JSF, I agree JSF is more a middle rate figther.
As for the Flankers in NATO ranks, no way.

The SAF F-16's lost 10 out of 10 air to air combats with the Flanker, The americans F-15's struggled against the IAF and the french struggled significantly in there 2000-9's when they took on Flanker. My point is that F-16 like aircraft are not matching the raw performance of Flanker family. Why the eagle did so badly, i have not a clue

Back to the JSF, still lack of information, no one will doubt radar, ecm, eccm, stealth and AAM weapons will be top of the range.

However, i asked for opinions on the JSF. I am trying to gather information and opinion..

:fly

 

[Aussie Digger]

I too am surprized that there is no TV engine nozzle on the conventionsal JSF, I agree JSF is more a middle rate figther.
As for the Flankers in NATO ranks, no way.

The SAF F-16's lost 10 out of 10 air to air combats with the Flanker, The americans F-15's struggled against the IAF and the french struggled significantly in there 2000-9's when they took on Flanker. My point is that F-16 like aircraft are not matching the raw performance of Flanker family. Why the eagle did so badly, i have not a clue

Back to the JSF, still lack of information, no one will doubt radar, ecm, eccm, stealth and AAM weapons will be top of the range.

However, i asked for opinions on the JSF. I am trying to gather information and opinion..

:fly

Because the airex's were designed to allow the Indians to win. Simple as that. It was not a "free play" airex, it was an exercise to allow the Indians to practise their dogfighting capabilities. No BVR combat was conducted (something which USAF excels at, WVR combat is only a secondary consideration for the USAF).

Also USAF did not bring it's AESA radar equipped F-15's, let alone any of their support assets (besides refuellers) and even if they did the Indian's would still have "won", because that was the rules of the game. If you ask me the American's were very smart about this. THEY learnt about the greatest strenght of the Flanker aircraft, (it's dogfighting ability) without giving away any secrets of their own srengths AND the result allowed the USAF to urge for more Raptors because their F-15 had been "shown" to be inadequate!!!

Who really won?

Anyway getting to the JSF. What do you want to know? It's going to be a genuine 5th Generation air combat aircraft. It will have a high level of stealth capability and it's A2A combat capabilities will exceed that of the aircraft it is designed to replace: specifically F-16/F-18 series fighters.

It will possess the most advanced radar of any fighter aircraft in the world and will feature "low probability of intercept" as a standard feature. It will carry it's weapons internally most of the time and even on strike missions will carry 2 A2A missiles internally.

It's sensor suite (apart from the radar) will be more advanced than any other fighter and it will be able to integrate all this data better than most other fighters (thanks to it's "sensor fusion"). The JSF is going to possess an inherent Electronic Attack (ie: radar/sensor jamming capability) capability as well as an advanced electronic warfare self protection system that covers the full aircraft in a 360 degree pattern.

With it's stealth, advanced radar (based on F-22's radar) advanced IRST and IR/EO systems and the next generation Amraam missiles it will carry, the JSF should exceed any other fighter aircraft short of the F-22 in BVR combat. In WVR combat should it be necessary, the JSF is designed to have a respectable ability in this area and to exceed the capability of the F-16/F-18 in this field.

As a bomb truck/CAS aircraft the JSF should exceed the capabilities of any other tactical fighter, as this is it's main role. Other roles it wil likely undertake (though possibly not in USAF service) are as a SEAD aircraft (where it's stealth will be even more useful) as a long range strike aircraft (equipped with JASSM/JSOW weapons) and as a maritime strike aircraft (using Harpoon/SLAM-ER).

Overall it should be a good aircraft for most airforces. Provided it's development goes smoothly, of course...

 

[Dr Phobus]

Very comprehensive and thank you. So based on your view of JSF do you feel 180 Raptors is justified since the USAF are going to buy 1700 plus ?

Air-Copia series of exercises, your view on the USAF playing dumb, yes i have considered this. Maybe its true, if so, what did the IAF did out of it, and the same for the French air-force.

WVR is more a blurred issue especially with IR missiles having greater range,

Sensor fusion, advanced ECM/ECCM (related some AESA), ASEA radar, IRST, full ESM suit are all features of 4.5/5G NATO aircraft design and also an advanced version of the Gripen. I am not feeling the JSF will be radically different in relation the other western planes of its generation. I disagree with will be the second most capable figther. It will lack raw speed, supercruise and it looses a lot of inherent stealth features when in carries weapons on its wings, and its internal carriage is limited to 2 AAM.

However, i am not in the camp that feels the JSF will be fundamentally a bomb-truck, still i am enjoying the information i am obtaining.

:fly

 

[LancerMc]

To put WVR air-to-air on the backburner is a stupid idea. I hope the U.S. doesn't make another mistake by thinking air-to-air fighting will only likely occur in the BVR environment from now on. The U.S. made a similar mistake in Vietnam with taking guns out of its F-4 Phantoms, praising the advances of missile technology. American learned a hard lesson from that with the loss of to many pilots and aircraft, I hope a doctrine where the JSF won't have to enter WVF will not be used. The JSF needs to be produced with every available combat edge for the future. WVF is a dangerous are for Western Aircraft, espeically the U.S. which lags behind in the development of IR AAMs and helemt mounted sights. The JSF should have VT, because it will only have a limited missile inventory in combat. As more countries buy Flankers, the JSF will ever bit of edge it can get.

 

[Dr Phobus]

LancerMc, has another good point, we should not consider that BVR is the only way one will figther. Low level operation/CAS can often result in WVR combat, another example was the F-4 over vietnam was an example, and finally, RoE can also inhibit this factor.

Saying that, The Aim-9X does that TV i understand (can some one confirm this) and of course the USAF/USN will like most airforcers have widespread use of helmet mounted sights. Also, remember the Russians are not having much luck funding conintuious development or funding any new generation IRAAM's (presently the Archer family) so the west are/have caugth up.

Also with the development of DIRCM , if any one can fit it to a figther sized plane, the maricans can/will: but thats another story.

:xmas

 

[KGB]

Pardon my confusion; if the US prioritizes BVR air-air combat, why is the f14 and the AMRAAM being phased out of service?

 

[Aussie Digger]

LM are also designing external stores/pylons that are significantly more stealthy than those used today for F-22/F-35 series fighters. An F-35 in A2A mode will carry 6 AAM's internally, plus it has an internal gun (F-35A/C models do anyway). If more are needed, more will be carried externally.

IMO, the West has indeed caught up with Russian WVR AAM technology. AIM-9X, ASRAAM, Python 4/5, IRIS-T and MICA missiles are now considered at least equal, if not superior to most Russian equivalents.

Some Western WVR missiles (ASRAAM and Mica in particular) are also gaining such high range/performance levels that they are considered "dual use" WVR/BVR missiles.

Indeed on current RAAF F/A-18A/B HUG Hornet strike missions an A2A missile load of 2 ASRAAM's and 1 AMRAAM is considered sufficient for self defence purposes.

With JSF and it's stealth and EWSP/EA capabilities, 2 internal weapons might be enough to defend itself...

 

[LancerMc]

The Phoenix was fazed out because it rocket motor had extended past their useful self life. The realibity of the missile was now is question and they had to retire the missile from service.

The AMRAAM is not being phased out but the AIM-7 is. I wouldn't doubt either that early A models of AMRAAM's might be phased out for new versions that have better seekers and protection against ECM.

I know that LM has developed stealthy missile platforms, but the missiles themselves can give away detection information. As stated above the JSF will primarly be a bomb truck, so the likely hood a JSF caring 6 AAM is unlikey in combat.

True with more effective communications, radar, and ECM the JSF will be a difficult target to hit. With the most advance AESA radar, it will have a great advantage in the air. My concern is the missile themselves. In an article a few years ago, in Air Forces Monthly, a pilot for the Yugoslavian AF reported his experience of being shoot down over the country during the Kosovo crisis. He stated a large number of AMRAAM's missed his aircraft before one finally detonated close enough to shoot him down. I don't doubt the JSF will be a great fighter, but AAM realibity is always a question. The USAF in Vietnam is prime example of this problem. If the JSF will only be able to carry 2 AAM in combat in most situations it was designed for, will it have enough to defend itself.

One might say these missiles are realiable, but what if their deployed in an evironment full of Allied aircraft, enemy aircraft, and ECM. Their realibity can then come into question.

 

[Crusader2000]

LM are also designing external stores/pylons that are significantly more stealthy than those used today for F-22/F-35 series fighters. An F-35 in A2A mode will carry 6 AAM's internally, plus it has an internal gun (F-35A/C models do anyway). If more are needed, more will be carried externally.

IMO, the West has indeed caught up with Russian WVR AAM technology. AIM-9X, ASRAAM, Python 4/5, IRIS-T and MICA missiles are now considered at least equal, if not superior to most Russian equivalents.

Some Western WVR missiles (ASRAAM and Mica in particular) are also gaining such high range/performance levels that they are considered "dual use" WVR/BVR missiles.

Indeed on current RAAF F/A-18A/B HUG Hornet strike missions an A2A missile load of 2 ASRAAM's and 1 AMRAAM is considered sufficient for self defence purposes.

With JSF and it's stealth and EWSP/EA capabilities, 2 internal weapons might be enough to defend itself...

I read sometime ago that the JSF could carry 4-AMRAAM's and 2-Sidewinders internally? Yet, I have not been able to confirm this. Regardless, she could at very least carry 4-AMRAAM's internally and 2-Sidewinders on the wingtips. Also, while the JSF will be mainly used in the Strike Role. Some Countries will have no choice but to also use them for Air Defense.