US Stealth Air Fleet mostly grounded?

[max power 21]

a dedicated A2A machine like the Raptor

It has ground attack capability. I'm not sure if that means the f22 is a dedicated air dominance machine or not, but it is able to carry precision air to ground weapons.

[slatts 1978]

its called preparation

i see the same common thought slipping back into peoples minds..that dogfighting is over

people said the same thing after WW2, korea and vietnam, but its not and never will be. the F-22 was built as the "ultimate fighter plane"(although you can make your mind up on that) that could take down planes before the enemy knows its there, but can also dogfight just in case. after all, it was meant to take on flankers which were born to dogfight

sure there might not be a need for raptors right now, but who knows in the near future

[rksl-rock 1300]

It has ground attack capability. I'm not sure if that means the f22 is a dedicated air dominance machine or not, but it is able to carry precision air to ground weapons.

Only in a very, very limited way. It can only carry up 1000lb JDAM internally or the new GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb. It has no Laser designation capability and is not compatible with any pod currently in service. Nor does it have the capability to datalink and share targets like other modern aircraft. It can - at this time - only use conventional radio. So it either has to have the targets pre-programmed or have the pilots manually input the coords. Or have a separate aircraft designating for them. Which, lets be honest, highlights its short comings as a multi/swing role platform.

As I've said several times before and several other people have also commented on. Its not a bad plane. Its just been designed to fulfil a role that isn't a major priority for the USAF at this time. It is designed as an Air Superiority platform for the Cold War type of scenario, defending the US and Allied Air Space against a more conventional enemy with a strong air force. Which in the current climate of asymmetrical warfare isnt a high priority.

Since the budget cuts the US Congress and the USAF have been trying to shovel more capabilities into the airframe and make it do things it was never really intended to do. As a result they are finding it harder to meet budgets and requirements because the money keeps draining away and the requirements keep changing. All you have to do is look at the Original requirements and compare it to the current ones. Then look at the projected vs actual in-service dates and capability upgrades. What was planned as a regular update cycle has now turned into a protracted and phased in-service development programme. And each time it fails a capability milestone the requirement has either been changed prior to it or re-written after it to deflect the blame.

The project has been mismanaged from a very early stage. Attempts to rescue it and add capability it was never really designed for have just pushed up the cost to the point where it's not economically viable to produce in large numbers with out export sales. Something that the US congress won't allow. I'm sure its a fine fighter. I'll go so far as to say I know it is. People I know very well work for Lockheed. I've even met a real live F-22 pilot and had a long talk with him in the company of Typhoon and Tornado pilots that have taken part in Red Flag exercises with and against F-22s. They all say the same. Despite it short comings it's a very good fighter. But it's not a very flexible (swing or multirole) platform when considered in terms of the current modern conflicts.

Edited January 31, 2012 by RKSL-Rock
clarification and some better grammar

[max power 21]

Edifying.

I read an article on an Australian appraisal of the F-35 and its capabilities an limitations. It seemed quite honest. One of the things they were discussing was the proposal of the RAAF to use the F-35 to replace its F-111s in the penetration bomber role. One of the aspects they were discussing is the F-35 may not live up to expectations because its stealth is not as 'disciplined' as the F-22s, and is meant primarily to work against shorter range, tactical air defence radars. They were supposing that the doctrine that the F-35s was designed for was for use after the strategic air defence capability was already destroyed by F-22s. It seems like the F-35 is not the only aircraft that the Australians have (or had) an undeservedly high appraisal of.

[spooky lynx 73]

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.

1) Marketing and advertisement. I've seen huge and colorful articles promoting Raptor long before it went to serial production.

2) It's a new aircraft so it's good to have some true info about it. Who knows when and where it will be used...

3) It's unfit because only few countries have fighters that may compete with F-22. Raptor requires complicated maintenance, so it can't be operated from all airbases. So who may be its counterpart? Looking at US enemies, it is quite enough to use current 4th gen fighters, they can do all the work of Raptor for less money. They are in large numbers, they are easier to maintain, they can operate from nearly every airbase, they are supported by AWACS and ECM aircrafts, they can use the same weapons as Raptor does. Maybe they are less stealthy but they can see their enemies at the same range through AWACS and J-STARS as F-22 does (don't even try to tell me that F-22 will be ever operated without AWACS support during any serious war).

So, Raptor is too expensive for using it against taliban-style guerrillas and Iran-style countries and too small in quantity for being used against Russia or China. It's just 'look what we can produce' thing.

[reconteam 19]

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.

So are those pimping Eurofighter or Sukhois are like average Youtube atheists? Spamming BS wherever they go regardless of the subject?

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.

Once this inexcusable (somebody's head should roll) OBOGS issue gets sorted out, all Block 30 and Block 35 F-22As are combat capable and could be deployed. But what about Libya would have justified deploying the few Raptors the USAF managed to get?

The rest of the fleet should be brought up to the standard of later Blocks, but that involves money the USAF would have to fight for. Right now the USAF is more concerned about getting the F-35 and not getting gutted by our leadership.

Not everything has to be a multi-role design. The F-22A is almost a pure air-superiority fighter, but later blocks do have a limited strike capability, unlike the A-D models of the F-15.

It's tough to get a clear picture of the F-22's data-linking problems as plans for upgrades keep changing. From what I've read, the F-22 can receive data from the Link 16 system but can't transmit via it for stealth reasons. The F-22 was supposed to receive the next-generation MADL system used by the F-35, but plans for that got delayed/cancelled. It does have the functioning IFDL system but only other F-22s plus a handful of modified EQ-4B Global Hawks are compatible with that.

If I had my way, we would resume development and production of the F-22 alongside the F-35. Production would switch to an improved F-22C, introducing side AESA radar arrays, an IRST system, integration of more weapon systems, and the improved stealth coatings, avionics, and networking systems developed for the F-35.

Unfortunately, it seems like the F-22 will be remembered as a very promising aircraft that was cut off at the knees by post Cold War military "reform", development troubles, and some sheer incompetence. Now everything rests on the F-35.

[PELHAM 10]

1) Marketing and advertisement. I've seen huge and colorful articles promoting Raptor long before it went to serial production.

So half a dozen governments have fallen for a slick marketing campaign? Thanks for the info, I didn't realise they were that stupid.

2) It's a new aircraft so it's good to have some true info about it. Who knows when and where it will be used...

So you admit they see the F-22 as a threat?

3) It's unfit because only few countries have fighters that may compete with F-22.

So it's unfit for use because it's so much better than the rest? So a better aircraft would be one half as good then?

So, Raptor is too expensive for using it against taliban-style guerrillas and Iran-style countries and too small in quantity for being used against Russia or China. It's just 'look what we can produce' thing.

The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, why would it be used against the Taliban? It's not designed for that, it's designed to dominate and clear the air space. The US has around 195 F-22s, less than half the number of air superiority jets of Russia and China. Is it actually true that x1 F-22 = x1 Su-27(30,35)?

Raptor requires complicated maintenance, so it can't be operated from all airbases

Untrue - it requires standard maintenance and can operate from any airfield the F-15 currently does. What it does require is a complex month long maintenance program every 300hrs, largely on the stealth features which does require specialist facilities not available everywhere. So in theory, any air force wishing to take on the US would have to last 300hrs before the F-22's stealth characteristics start to degrade.

Edited January 31, 2012 by PELHAM

[spooky lynx 73]

So half a dozen governments have fallen for a slick marketing campaign? Thanks for the info, I didn't realise they were that stupid.

Yes, adult people sometimes act like kids. Didn't you know that?

So you admit they see the F-22 as a threat?

Sure. Every new fighter may be a potential threat.

So it's unfit for use because it's so much better than the rest? So a better aircraft would be one half as good then?

It's so much expensive and complicated than the rest. It suits neither for current possible wars with much weaker opponents nor for hypothetical WW3. Some years ago Tiger and Panther were very good tanks but their users lost to those who drove massive, simple and cheap T-34s and M4 Shermans. And Me-262 lost to P-51s, Spitfires and La-7s.

The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, why would it be used against the Taliban? It's not designed for that, it's designed to dominate and clear the air space. The US has around 195 F-22s, less than half the number of air superiority jets of Russia and China. Is it actually true that x1 F-22 = x1 Su-27(30,35)?

F-22 is multirole fighter with limited air-to-ground capability as I know. It's too expensive to clean Iranian airspace, it's too expensive to be used instead of current fighters in anti-guerrilla warfare and it's in limited numbers so it won't clean Chinese or Russian airspace. And I doubt that US can afford extra 200-300 Raptors in short terms in case of hypothetical war with the country like China or Russia without significant economical losses.

Untrue - it requires standard maintenance and can operate from any airfield the F-15 currently does. What it does require is a complex month long maintenance program every 300hrs, largely on the stealth features which does require specialist facilities not available everywhere. So in theory, any air force wishing to take on the US would have to last 300hrs before the F-22's stealth characteristics start to degrade.

Oh shi~

13 days of action and a month of maintenance then?! Isn't it awful?

[PELHAM 10]

Yes, adult people sometimes act like kids. Didn't you know that?

Sure. Every new fighter may be a potential threat.

It's so much expensive and complicated than the rest. It suits neither for current possible wars with much weaker opponents nor for hypothetical WW3. Some years ago Tiger and Panther were very good tanks but their users lost to those who drove massive, simple and cheap T-34s and M4 Shermans. And Me-262 lost to P-51s, Spitfires and La-7s.

F-22 is multirole fighter with limited air-to-ground capability as I know. It's too expensive to clean Iranian airspace, it's too expensive to be used instead of current fighters in anti-guerrilla warfare and it's in limited numbers so it won't clean Chinese or Russian airspace. And I doubt that US can afford extra 200-300 Raptors in short terms in case of hypothetical war with the country like China or Russia without significant economical losses.

Oh shi~

13 days of action and a month of maintenance then?! Isn't it awful?

Yep, I guess that proves you don't understand the subject.

[slatts 1978]

just be glad you have jet fighters, never mind stealth jet fighters

ireland is stuck with the pilatus

from vampires when they were still fresh from the DH factory to fouga's to pilatus'

[spooky lynx 73]

Yep, I guess that proves you don't understand the subject.

I guess that somebody thinks that Cold war is not over and it's necessary to build newer jets no matter of economy. At the same time disbanding 5 squadrons of really viable aircrafts because of bad financial situation. Well, it's their choice...

[PELHAM 10]

I guess that somebody thinks that Cold war is not over and it's necessary to build newer jets no matter of economy. At the same time disbanding 5 squadrons of really viable aircrafts because of bad financial situation. Well, it's their choice...

The cold war isn't over - just look at the situation in the UN Security council today over Syria....... If Russia and China continue to act against democracy and freedom it's worth keeping a big stick handy.

[eble 3]

The cold war isn't over - just look at the situation in the UN Security council today over Syria....... If Russia and China continue to act against democracy and freedom it's worth keeping a big stick handy.

Democracy and freedom are subjective are they freedom fighters or terrorists?

You won't see Nato or the US rushing to Help the Syrians anytime soon, the Security council won't pass the vote and you might even see Russia veto it

The US big stick isn't the F22's but more the 1000's of nukes that hang about the place.

You really see F22's going over Russia and China?

Maybe if the vote is passed and the US decides some military action is needed, we'll see S300's vs F22's we have heard all the talk, lets see what happens.

[spooky lynx 73]

The cold war isn't over - just look at the situation in the UN Security council today over Syria....... If Russia and China continue to act against democracy and freedom it's worth keeping a big stick handy.

Real big stick that saves lives of your soldiers is Warthogs, Harriers and F-15/16/18. They put the bombs on the heads of talibans, they did it in Iraq. Maybe they will do it in Iran.

[Prydain 1]

So are those pimping Eurofighter or Sukhois are like average Youtube atheists? Spamming BS wherever they go regardless of the subject?

Revealing.

Since I am objective, I don't mind saying that the F22 is, in video game form, a quite nice bit of kit but this is reality. The main complaint I have against the F22 is that $60-70billion isn't a small amount of money to throw away and I don't see how people can defend waste on such a large scale when, if spent on real equipment, could be saving lives.

Vanity projects might be good for the average 14 year old to spaff over but a 14 year old has not got the mental capacity to realise that with, the poverty and strife in the US, the wars and the strain on the public purse this project was a drain.

I don't really care why, I don't blame anyone and the aircraft looks nice but what would I really want? More aircraft in the air over Afghanistan, more equipment and more troops or less than 200 aircraft that are too costly to maintain and would be instantly shelved in any serious combat, for which they are built?

[PELHAM 10]

Democracy and freedom are subjective are they freedom fighters or terrorists?

You won't see Nato or the US rushing to Help the Syrians anytime soon, the Security council won't pass the vote and you might even see Russia veto it

The US big stick isn't the F22's but more the 1000's of nukes that hang about the place.

You really see F22's going over Russia and China?

Maybe if the vote is passed and the US decides some military action is needed, we'll see S300's vs F22's we have heard all the talk, lets see what happens.

1st Bashar al Assad is not a freedom fighter, he is a dictator who has killed thousands of civilians. The only reason more sanctions and more effective measures are not in place is because China and Russia continue to veto security council resolutions as Syria is an important weapons export customer. The F-22 is a big stick because it's preferable to use that instead of nuclear weapons. I don't see F-22s over Russia any time soon because Putin is just a small time crook with no expansionist policies and is content to continue his KGB ideology at the UN. Conflict with China over it's expansionist aims in the South China Sea is more likely.

Real big stick that saves lives of your soldiers is Warthogs, Harriers and F-15/16/18. They put the bombs on the heads of talibans, they did it in Iraq. Maybe they will do it in Iran.

I suggest you expand your knowledge on how aerial conflict works. Aircraft can't carry out bombing missions effectively until air superiority is achieved - that is what the F-22 is for. Throwing away strategic strength based on short term, short sightedness about current conflicts is rather dumb and leaves you open to future threats.

[NoRailgunner 0]

The $143 million price tag per aircraft, the current state of economy and changes in the military requirements for post Cold-War challenges, lead government officials to the decision to officially cease production of the F-22 in 2009. 187 F-22s were produced.

Money well spent or well burned? Lets see if the F-35 will make it through or if officials have to step in and cut the costs another time. Would be better if the decisions on spending money on military developments/producing is more cost-effective than prestige seeking.

[spooky lynx 73]

I suggest you expand your knowledge on how aerial conflict works. Aircraft can't carry out bombing missions effectively until air superiority is achieved - that is what the F-22 is for. Throwing away strategic strength based on short term, short sightedness about current conflicts is rather dumb and leaves you open to future threats.

Thank you captain obvious;) But please read my posts some more times and realise that air superiority over some third world country may be gained by any current USAF fighters. They are upgraded, they are manned by well-trained crews, they are in significant numbers and require less complicated mainetance. No need to use F-22 against few dozens of Iranian Tomcats and MiG-29s or against few Syrian MiG-29s and -23s. USAF can outnumber Venesuelan Su-30s too. And the main future threat is not military but economical collapse.

[reconteam 19]

Revealing.

Since I am objective, I don't mind saying that the F22 is, in video game form, a quite nice bit of kit but this is reality. The main complaint I have against the F22 is that $60-70billion isn't a small amount of money to throw away and I don't see how people can defend waste on such a large scale when, if spent on real equipment, could be saving lives.

Vanity projects might be good for the average 14 year old to spaff over but a 14 year old has not got the mental capacity to realise that with, the poverty and strife in the US, the wars and the strain on the public purse this project was a drain.

I don't really care why, I don't blame anyone and the aircraft looks nice but what would I really want? More aircraft in the air over Afghanistan, more equipment and more troops or less than 200 aircraft that are too costly to maintain and would be instantly shelved in any serious combat, for which they are built?

What is revealing? That I don't enjoy the tripe they spew? If I recall you're the one who began the Christian baiting.

Yes $60-70 billion is a large sum. Aerospace and defense are very expensive industries, but it is good for us to have these industries. As a nation we need to balance the money spent on current conflicts with money spent preparing for other conflicts we may face. It's true that A-10s and turboprop counter-insurgency attack aircraft could do much of the work in Afghanistan, but what about an enemy with an actual air force, with more than some MANPADS and light anti-aircraft guns. How much longer are we to rely on old F-15s and F-16s? Wear and tear means we have to replace these aircraft someday anyway.

These industrial capabilities take decades to establish and must be maintained. It isn't like it was back in WWII where you could crank out 10,000 F6F Hellcats in a few years. You can't stop and restart a program like the F-22 with the flip of a switch. Processes related to production begin years in advance.

There are many things we shouldn't spend so much money on, including these drawn out nation-building campaigns we have a habit of getting involved in. The F-22 however was something that deserved the funding despite the problems it faced. It was a program badly affected by the end of the Cold War and the politics of the past two decades, but it could and still can be extremely capable. The F-35 is even more critical due to the sheer number of aircraft it is supposed to replace.

Yes it is all costly, but I'd gladly see us spend a trillion if it got us F-22s, F-35s, B-3s, and whatever else to ensure we have incredible tactical and strategic airpower capabilites. Going into the future we should invest more in strategic airpower and seapower and less on so many bases overseas and such a large land force.

(A bit off-topic but I still wish we had a reason to produce some sort of F-23 derived aircraft.)

[Daniel 0]

And the main future threat is not military but economical collapse.

Economic collapse followed by... Germany in the late 1930s? It doesn't pay to be short sighted when you can't predict the future. Not that i'm an advocate of the F-22; all the big budget assets these days seem to be managed by idiots. [/offtopic]

[NoRailgunner 0]

It seems that some people would even agree and support military + politics with this agenda:

We must ensure to have incredible tactical and strategic capabilites against any of our possible or imaginary enemies! Plan for the worst, hope for the best!! Show some patriotism and spend $1000 each month to our superior military industry + their lobby!!!

:j:

[rangerpl 13]

F-35 is a lot more valuable than the F-22, I don't think there should be any doubt about that.

It will be exported, will be used by the navy for its carriers, will replace the aging F-16 fleet, and, most importantly, it is capable of a much greater range of capabilities than the Raptor.

[spooky lynx 73]

but what about an enemy with an actual air force, with more than some MANPADS and light anti-aircraft guns. How much longer are we to rely on old F-15s and F-16s?

Any other 'actual air force' except Russian, Chinese and Indian may be outnumbered by existing fleet of fighters. And, because of

It isn't like it was back in WWII where you could crank out 10,000 F6F Hellcats in a few years. You can't stop and restart a program like the F-22 with the flip of a switch. Processes related to production begin years in advance.

and restart or begin in a hurry F-35 program these planes won't suit potential WW3 with involvement of Russian, Chinese or Indian AF.

[Star Four One 10]

One could equally say the same thing about the newfags

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.

Your completely Clueless DM, (keep trolling, your good at it)

Theres only so many times you can shoot down F-X before it becomes a waste of JP8.

Here's a snippet from Dozer22 on Fencecheck about the Raptor "kill"...

"The Hornet "snap" shot - good story. Happened here at Langley. It was a stock, combat configured F-22 flying a BFM (dogfighting) sortie against an airshow configured, i.e. squeeky clean, not combat configured or loaded, Super Hornet (not at all representative of how it performs with 8 pylons, an EA pod and 4-6 or missiles hanging off the rails and probably a fuel tank or two or their out of gas real quick...). It started from a 9000 foot line abreast 300 knot setup (which AF pilots never fly) where they turned into each other at the "fights on" call. It's not a scenario we fly because we never find ourselves in those parameters, we try to set up realistic parameters we expect to see in combat - otherwise the lessons learned aren't applicable and while it might be fun it's not a good use of scarce training time (I don't know if that's a setup the Navy flies or it might just have been a quick attempt to get a last engagement in if they were low on gas - I don't have that info). The Hornet pilot gave up everything he had to point at the Raptor and take a snap shot - it was NOT a tracking shot (stabilized and enough bullets to cause a kill), it was about 2 or 3 frames (many more required to cause a kill - OK - for you skeptics there's always the golden BB but let me finish first...). The AF pilot honored the training rules we're all supposed to abide by, they've been written in blood because pilots have been killed in these scenarios so our training rules look to prevent those scenarios by causing guys to quit manuevering for the shot to prevent a mid-air collision. With greater than a 135 aspect angle and inside of 9000 feet we're supposed to avoid pure or lead pursuit to avoid that head on collision, inside that range at our tactical speeds there's not enough time to react to prevent a collision once you realize it's going to happen. The Navy pilot completely blew off that rule, the AF pilot honored it, the Navy pilot pulled lead pursuit all the way into the high aspect (greater than the 135 degree gun shot rule) snap shot, the AF pilot lagged off to prevent the mid-air collision potential, the Navy pilot was still on the trigger inside the 1000 foot rule (we're supposed to avoid getting inside of 1000 feet from each other to also help prevent mid-air collisions), attempting to get the snap shot, he's inside the 1000 foot range with the trigger on, flies within about 200 feet of the Raptor (remember who's backed off to honor the training rules), and dang near kills himself and the Raptor pilot and causing what would have been one of the worst fighter to fighter disasters in recorded history. I've had that happen twice to me when I was flying the Eagle as a weapons officer (close enough to hear very loud engine noise and I figured I was dead both times, but God wasn't ready to take me yet), and both times I knocked off the fight, made the guy fly home, busted him on the ride and he had to explain to me and the boss why he was being stupid. That is the ONLY gun shot video I have ever heard of or seen from ANY Hornet engagement, ever. And it was a hugely B.S. and completely boneheaded act as you can see from the actual circumstances. In the real world - the Hornet never saw the Raptor and he was dead w/o ever knowing what hit him - that's the cold hard truth, like it or not - sorry if you're a Hornet fan but that's how all of our engagements with Hornets, Tomcats, Eagles, Vipers, etc. have gone. You would be amused if I had time to tell you how the hundreds of engagements went I've had with aircraft of all types, the biggest problem we have now is getting anyone to fly with us because they get no training, they never see us and they just die. Unless we promise to do some within visual range manuevering with them where we start and can see each other at the start, no one (Navy or AF) wants to fly vs. the Raptor anymore - that alone ought to tell you what the truth is."

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

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.

Didn't realize it opened up jobs, paved the way for new technology, kept bases and companies alive, keeping pilots alive... I can go on and on.. Mission rates are always climbing..

These aren't the last wars we will see, and as history has shown time and time again, we will see another one.

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

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.

If you note the intercept pics, Raptors run with bags for that particular reason.

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

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?

You can make all the hypothetical scenarios you want. But as a superpower, one would want to have field the best combat systems available to them.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Star Four One

[walker 0]

Hi all

In the only reported test of the F22 against the Eurofighter Typhoon, the F22 team ran away with their tails between their legs, trounced in both dogfight and Beyond Visual Range battle.

"internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW" - year 2006, issue 20, page 45. - ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917.

"more recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trails work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have peformed better than was expected. There was little suprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate "Within Visual Range" flight, but the aircraft did cause a suprise by getting a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long range. The F-22s cried off, claiming that they were "unstealthed" anyway, although the next day´s scheduled two vs. two BVR engagement was canceled, and "the USAF decided they didn´t want to play any more .

- When this incident was reported on a website frequented by front-line RAF aircrew a senior RAF officer urged an end to the converstaion on security grounds"

http://eucitizens.eu/Forum/index.php?topic=166.0

The story was also carried on the BBC:

...This is very stealthy but costs twice the price of the Eurofighter, and reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1818077.stm

Rumour has it Lockheed have put the Kybosh on tests of the F22 v the Typhoon. Which with the adition of its new BVR missile has become even more deadly against the F22.

There has not been a recorded test of the F22 against the Typhoon since.

Clearly the inference is that stealth no longer works.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 15, 2012 by walker
added conclusion