US Stealth Air Fleet mostly grounded?

[Nicholas 5]

Depends where you look - wikipedia:

Eurofighter

Maximum speed: **At altitude: Mach 2 (2,495 km/h/1,550 mph)

F-22

Maximum speed: At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)

Figures like this are meaningless though. You need to judge aircraft on overall performance.

I have a physical book in my hand that I used to look up the information. Unless they published the wrong information or it's outdated. Wikipedia information could have been added by anyone.

I just looked at the publish date on the book and it says 2002, so maybe it is outdated. The military is constantly updating their arsenal of weapons so no one knows the true specifications.

Also, just a little tip: don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. The "source link" for the speed of the F-22 raptor leads to some magazine published in the U.K. as it's source.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Nicholas

[PELHAM 10]

No one knows the real values mate. They are classified. As I said, figures like this are meaningless because you need to judge aircraft on overall performance.

[dekster 1]

Real figures of these jets are kept a secret. (if you knew the exact cruising speed of a plane it would be easy to spot it and calculate the ETA and you'd have a benchmark to make a better aircraft)

I think many planes today and powerfull from the past like the f111 can do it with ease.

Even concorde, which was just a passenger airliner could supercruise. :D

[NoRailgunner 0]

Maybe the F22 will be the nextgen hangar queen? :D

The F-22 has its share of problems but it's an incredibly capable aircraft with more potential than currently recognized. Maybe it wouldn't have had so many troubles if the program wasn't constantly being messed with by Congress and the Pentagon throughout the 1990s.

So you basically saying that all the taxpayers have to pay for anykind + every military development/research or construction? Why not develop + build a money printing machine for those companies and lobbies??

The F-22 is the best air superiority fighter in the world by any measure.

How do you know? First hand experience? :cool:

Let the comparison + fight start who has the better/best airplane!!!Evar!1!11

"M16/M4 vs AK's" discussions are getting an old relic...

[Nicholas 5]

How do you know? First hand experience? :cool:

Let the comparison + fight start who has the better/best airplane!!!Evar!1!11

"M16/M4 vs AK's" discussions are getting an old relic...

How do you know that it is not? First hand experience? ;) :p

[reconteam 19]

So you basically saying that all the taxpayers have to pay for anykind + every military development/research or construction? Why not develop + build a money printing machine for those companies and lobbies??

I'm damn pleased when my tax dollars are going to new fighters, bombers, vehicles and ships overs any number of the nonsensical social programs I see going on. The military is one of the few areas (other than our history), where I can still have some pride in my country. Plus the defense industry is a very important industrial and technological base, one of the few areas where some manufacturing actually still occurs in this country.

Any procurement program works best when you don't keep changing the specifications, don't cut planned purchase numbers, and don't treat it as some sort of political football for 15+ years.

[NoRailgunner 0]

@Nicholas

Hehe where did I explicitily said that the F22 is the "best" or "not the best" fighter? :icon_smile:

@ReconTeam

please inform yourself a little bit more about your "pride" and how things really work. hint: money printing machine for military nonsensical programs/designs errm potential. ;)

[eble 3]

Funny how "Cold War relics" have fought all of our wars since the end of the Cold War. What a stupid insult.

I should clarify my statement, the F22 design was a cold war relic, the actual plane is pretty awesom, unfortunately the design/role no longer exists for this aircraft as originally planned.

The many billions of dollars are now spent making this design fit something no one at the time could comprehend.

In highsight the US airforce would have gone with drones, the writings on the wall, but back in the day this jet was conceived they couldn't see this far ahead.

Don't take it as a slight against the USA, your not the only country investing massively in Tech that is pretty useless.

On the plus side you've convinced the Indians/Chinese and Russians they must development stealth as well lol, it's like a new arms race get your oppenent spending big on something you've already done.

If the Iranians do kick up properly then maybe they can throw a few F22's at them to test them.

I've seen sources showing that F/A 18's can and have beaten F22 in mock fights, pictures with F22 on gun cam etc and a F/A18 Growler even with a F22 kill marker.

Yet in the press is the F22 is like 220 - 0 in mock fights, I guess we can expect a lot of 'mechanical failures' in any future conflicts, I think thats the term they use.

[PELHAM 10]

How do you know? First hand experience? :cool:

I have been interested in aviation for decades. While many get distracted with silly details like "this jets faster than that jet so blow it out yer ass" type details, I tend to look a little deeper.

Weapons system

Avionics

Radar

Numbers in service

Pilot training

Cockpit workload

Effectiveness in a strike package

Power projection

Readiness and effective flight hours vs maintenance

If you look at the overall performance of the F-22, sorry shows over, it can't be beaten. Also Eble is factually incorrect. If you look at the general disposition of Russia, China and North Korea the F-22s mission still exists. It is specifically designed to counter these threats. The cold war never did end world wide. It lessened a little in continental Europe and Putin started it all up again.

Edited January 29, 2012 by PELHAM

[max power 21]

To all the F22 haters, what other aircraft can super cruise?

Lots of aircraft can. Even the English Electric Lighting, designed in the 50s, can supercruise. I'm not saying it's not an amazing technical achievement but it's hardly... hardly exclusive to the F22. Even the Concorde could supercruise, and routinely did so all the way across the Atlantic.

[reconteam 19]

@Nicholas

please inform yourself a little bit more about your "pride" and how things really work. hint: money printing machine for military nonsensical programs/designs errm potential. ;)

It would be nonsensical to not develop and field new systems. We've been flying the F-15 since the '70s and you object to replacing it "only" 40 years later? Even if we got all of the F-22s we needed the F-15E would be around well into the 2020s.

UCAVs can provide an excellent supplement to manned aircraft, but the technology is not there to replace them. Even if it was, would you risk the loss of control if the enemy was able to jam communications to said UCAVs? They'd be stuck operating autonomously, which isn't very good in terms of flexibility.

The parameters for something to be considered "supercruise" varies. Technically it is cruising at supersonic speeds without afterburner. A number of older aircraft could do this, including the F-14D. However what's the difference between Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.0? Not all that much. As a result Lockheed only officially considers it supercruise if it is above Mach 1.4 or something, other companies probably have their own parameters.

[max power 21]

I'd imagine that lockheed's parameters are based on an aircraft's ability to bypass the extremely high drag transonic zone. I wonder if being able to do that without reheat is part of those parameters, or just get there by any means possible and then cruise at that speed.

[Star Four One 10]

A. its grounded

B. its an air superiority fighter

C. the taliban dont have migs/flanker

That wasn't a question deserving of a direct answer. ;)

Lots of aircraft can. Even the English Electric Lighting, designed in the 50s, can supercruise. I'm not saying it's not an amazing technical achievement but it's hardly... hardly exclusive to the F22. Even the Concorde could supercruise, and routinely did so all the way across the Atlantic.

Most engine blocks can't sustain supercruise. The PW 119 was designed with supercruise in mind. I'm sure we dont have to beat a dead horse over that one. ;)

I've seen sources showing that F/A 18's can and have beaten F22 in mock fights, pictures with F22 on gun cam etc and a F/A18 Growler even with a F22 kill marker.

ROE's in restricted DACT scenario's. The Hornet you saw that gunned the Raptor did so after the terminate call.

The T-38 was in the same postion. You don't send a Raptor into a training exercise with full fangs out. Thats a waste of training time and money. We already know the end results.

However what's the difference between Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.0? Not all that much.

Every bit of speed is essential in a combat enviroment. Could mean you have to delay a missile launch because your not in weapon parameters.

[dm 9]

ROE's in restricted DACT scenario's. The Hornet you saw that gunned the Raptor did so after the terminate call.

The T-38 was in the same postion.

Lols "my favourite plane got beat, it was clearly because of the RoE/the other plane was cheating/they dont train "fully" when fighting dissimilar types"

lol, lol and lol

[Star Four One 10]

Lols "my favourite plane got beat, it was clearly because of the RoE/the other plane was cheating/they dont train "fully" when fighting dissimilar types"

lol, lol and lol

Love the Armchair generals on these forums. DM, from your experience and expertise , what happened?

[max power 21]

Most engine blocks can't sustain supercruise. The PW 119 was designed with supercruise in mind. I'm sure we dont have to beat a dead horse over that one. ;)

The definition of 'supercruise' is to sustain supersonic flight without afterburner, so I guess next we have to discuss the definition of 'to sustain'.

[dm 9]

Love the Armchair generals on these forums.

One could equally say the same thing about the newfags

DM, from your experience and expertise , what happened?

Well my expertise is really more in the ground aspects these days, its been a long time since I've flown or even spoken to someone on a base, but the principals are the same:

Its a piece of equipment, which is fallable.

Made by people, which are fallable.

Piloted by a person, who, like the people that made it, is also fallable.

The F-22 is a very capable airframe, but its not unbeatable, simple as.

The idea that they wouldn't train "with full fangs out" is just ludicrous. Train like you fight, otherwise you really ARE wasting training time.

[Nicholas 5]

@Nicholas

please inform yourself a little bit more about your "pride" and how things really work. hint: money printing machine for military nonsensical programs/designs errm potential. :

Wow! It was only a joke! I guess you didn't get it from the ;) and :p. How did you bring "pride" into this?

No need to be a complete ass. Talk about sensitive! :eek:

Edited January 30, 2012 by Nicholas

[NoRailgunner 0]

@Nicholas I got it but ReconTeam wasn't able to quote correctly. Just read post #57 before you jump to a conclusion. :)

[spooky lynx 73]

USAF acts well because it has great cooperation between all its branches. And not because it has some stealthy uberwaffes in its inventory. I think many 4th gen foghters + AWACS + ECM + command & control planes and all them with well trained crews will crush some 5th gen stealths which are without proper support. So is there really anything to worry about?

[Prydain 1]

I love the F22 apologists, they are like the average youtube Christian. No matter what it is the best thing ever. I especially was intrigued by that Hayek/Mises apologist being in favour of an aircraft that is basically a costly failure of a public project.

The thing about the F22 is, it wouldn't be supportable in total war, it isn't fit for current wars and it is unlikely, or be able, to be deployed ever. For that money the US tax payer could have 60-70billions worth of equipment that would have been saving lives and contributing more to the efforts the US military is engaged in or, if the 14 year olds insist, buy one very big mobile gas-van that can fly to get the same results as they have now.

[PELHAM 10]

If that's true, why is it several nations are constantly lobbying the US to sell it to them? Why has Russia been probing US airspace since 2007 to trigger intercepts by the F-22 so they can take photos and analyse it's radar emissions? Why is it unfit for current and future wars, that simply isn't true? Are you also aware the F-22 has deployed overseas since 2007? Your second statement shows you have no understanding of strategic military thinking.

Edited January 30, 2012 by PELHAM

[max power 21]

it wouldn't be supportable in total war, it isn't fit for current wars and it is unlikely, or be able, to be deployed ever.

Yeah, I think that's going to need to be qualified. It's quite a bold statement with no support.

[NoRailgunner 0]

What is more cost effective (incl. training, maintenance etc) an air superiority fighter (eg F-22) or an multirole fighter (eg F-35)?

How many need to be build and fielded within the next 10 years?

When is the start/rollout date for the 6th gen fighters?

[rangerpl 13]

A multirole fighter like the F-35 makes more sense for a small country as it can perform a wide range of roles without the need to specialize. However, having a dedicated A2A machine like the Raptor means that you can gain control of the sky more easily.

I don't think we'll be seeing 6th Generation fighters for a looong long time. The other generations are the result of the NATO/WARPAC arms race as well as experience gained in proxy wars such as Vietnam and Korea.

Currently there is nothing Russia and China can put up that comes close to the Raptor (J-20 and PAK FA won't be entering service for a while). The US will develop new planes once it feels threatened again.