F-22 and US-101 Cancelled

[ricoadf 0]

Nope. IRST systems, like the one on F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II work in a completely passive way - they just see any heat sources emited from other aircraft, called individual IR signatures.

Themselves they emit nothing. This is the same principle which etc etc etc

If you read what I said in the first place I didnt say passive I said IR Pointer, as in a FLIR pointing a laser at a target for a paveway, that does give off a signiture. Yes there are passive systems (which I did mention), but I was refering to the main GBU in use (the Paveway II) which requires a laser pointer.

Thankyou rock for pointing out the other flaws in his argument, I cant be bothered lol :rolleyes:

Edited April 20, 2009 by RicoADF

[An-225 0]

The Australian government denied the option for Raptor consideration because...put a John Howard accent on this part: "The uh, F-22, uh lacks the capability for sufficient maritime strike."

From the ordnance charts on the F-35, it cannot carry a single weapon suitable for anti-shipping. Why do we need a stealth fighter for anti-shipping?

Who will attack us? The New Zealanders? They have a Kiwi bird on the side of their aircraft, a flightless bird. A case of baaahhd logic if you ask me. We have Orions for maritime strike, far more capable than the JSF or Raptor.

The P-8 Poseidon would have been a far more capable plane then the F-35, and it would share parts with the BBJ in service for VIP transport in the RAAF.

[MehMan 0]

Its a cold war relic designed to be a Fighter in a world that needs Swing Role aircraft that's costs far too much and doesn't do enough for it price tag.

QFT.

Today's battlefield requires a multirole aircraft with a good turn-around rate and good air to ground capability. The F-22 is just out of place, expensive and by the time an enemy sprouts up that could challenge the might of the US Airforce it's going to be out of date.

[Saint Warrior 10]

As the F-22 begins its operational life, interest has turned to assessing just how well suited the stealthy Raptor is to its role as the premier air-to-air fighter, while taking a peek at some of the surprises for pilots and maintenance crews as they explore what the aircraft can do. As part of the research for this series of articles on the F-22, Michael Fabey flew in the back seat of an F-15D while the Eagle and Raptor pilots demonstrated their aircraft's capabilities in the air-to-air ranges at Tyndall AFB, Fla.

The F-22 is proving it's a dogfighter after all.

While it wasn't part of a hard-turning furball, an F-22-with its Amraams and Sidewinders expended-slipped into visual range behind an F-16 and undetected made a simulated kill with its cannon during the stealth fighter's first large-scale exercise and deployment outside the continental U.S.

Those and other revelations about the F-22's emerging capabilities are increasingly important as the first combat unit, the U.S. Air Force's 27th Fighter Sqdn., begins its initial Air Expeditionary Force deployment this month to an undisclosed site. And the first F-22 unit, the 94th Fighter Sqdn., will participate in Red Flag in February.

The gun kill is a capability Air Force planners hope their F-22s won't use. The fighter is designed to destroy a foe well beyond his visual and radar range. Within visual-range combat and, in particular, gun kills are anachronisms. In amazing 144 kills to no losses during the first week of the joint-service Northern Edge exercise in Alaska last summer, only three air-to-air "kills" were in the visual arena-two involving AIM-9 Sidewinders and one the F-22's cannon.

The 27th Fighter Sqdn. aircraft-on deployment from Langley AFB, Va.-didn't get to show off their J-Turn and Cobra maneuvers or their high-angle-of-attack, high-off-boresight (which actually will arrive with the AIM-9X) and unique nose-pointing capabilities. The reason, those involved say, was because the victims of the three encounters, flying conventional fighters, never had a clue they were being stalked by F-22s until they were "killed."

Raptor pilots agree that their preferred location for the fighter while in the battlespace is at high altitude, well above the other fighters, where they can adopt a fuel-efficient cruise, sweeping both the air and ground with radar and electronic surveillance for targets. From a superior altitude, the F-22 used sustained supercruise to range across hundreds of miles of airspace before an enemy fighter could threaten friendly high-value surveillance, command-and-control and tanker aircraft.

Perhaps the most important revelation by the 27th Fighter Sqdn. was demonstrating the F-22's ability to use its sensors to identify and target enemy aircraft for conventional fighters by providing information so they could engage the enemy sooner than they could on their own. Because of the advanced situational awareness they afford, F-22s would stick around after using up their weapons to continue providing targets and IDs to the conventional fighters.

"We always left F-22s on station to help, but we didn't designate any one aircraft to provide data," says Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, the unit's commander. "It was critical that every F-22 out there provided all the data he had."

With its high-resolution radar, the F-22 can guarantee target altitudes to within a couple of hundred feet. Its ability to identify an aircraft is "sometimes many times quicker than the AWACS," he says. "It was a combination of high-resolution sensors and being closer to the targets."

The F-22's radar range is described only as being more than 100 mi. However, it's thought to be closer to 125-150 mi., which is much farther than the standard F-15's 56-mi. radar range. New, active electronically scanned radar technology--optimized for digital throughput - is expected to soon push next-generation radar ranges, in narrow beams, out to 250 mi. or more.

The ability to close on the enemy without being targeted also allowed the F-22s to operate in threat areas where conventional fighters could not survive. This enabled the Raptor to engage targets at a greater distance from the aircraft and homeland they were defending. Raptor pilots had all the available data on the airspace fused and displayed on a single, easy-to-read screen. "When I look down at my scope and put my cursor over a [friendly] F-15 or F/A-18, it tells me who they are locked on to," he says. For example, "I could help them out by saying, 'You're double-targeted and there's a group over here untargeted' . . . to make sure we got everybody." F-15 targets will be latent because of the radar sweep.

However, these messages are less and less verbal. "When you watch [tapes of the Alaska] exercise, it's fairly spooky," says Gen. Ronald Keys, chief of Air Combat Command. "There's hardly a word spoken among Raptor pilots." That silence also previews some of the fighter's possible future capabilities.

"Because of the way the aircraft was designed, we have the capability to do more," Keys says. "We can put unmanned combat aircraft systems in there with Raptor. You've got three fairly low-observable UCAS in the battlespace. An air defense system pops up, and I click on a UCAS icon and drag it over [the emitter's location] and click. The UCAS throttles over and jams it, blows it up or whatever."

In Alaska, because the F-22 remained far forward at high altitude, with an advanced radar it could monitor rescue missions that the AWACS 150 mi. away could not. "We could see the helicopters down in the valleys and protect them," Tolliver says.

In addition to AWACS, the F-22 also can feed data to the RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft to improve situational awareness of the battlespace.

"If a Rivet Joint is trying to get triangulation [on a precise emitter location], he can get more [voice] information" from an F-22, Keys says. "If an AWACS sees a heavy group 40 mi. to the north, Raptor can come up and say it's two F-18s, two F-15s and four F-16s."

Moreover, Keys says, modifications are underway to transmit additional target parameters - such as sensitive, high-resolution infrared data - from the F-22 with a low-probability-of-intercept data link.

"Getting data into an F-22 is not hard," Keys says. "Getting it out [while staying low observable] is more difficult. We bought the links, but we just don't have them on yet."

The F-22's advanced electronic surveillance sensors also provided additional awareness of ground activity.

"I could talk to an EA-6B Prowler electronic attack crew and tell them where a surface-to-air missile site was active so they would immediately know where to point their electronic warfare sensors," Tolliver says. "That decreased their targeting time line considerably."

In addition, the F-22 can use its electronic surveillance capabilities to conduct precision bombing strikes on emitters-a capability called destruction of enemy air defenses.

"And future editions of the F-22 are predicted to have to have their own electronic attack capability so that we'll be able to suppress or nonkinetically kill a site like that," he says.

The F-22's operating altitude and additional speed during the Alaska exercise also garnered praise.

"We stayed high because it gives us an extra kinetic advantage with shooting, speed and fuel consumption," Tolliver says. "The Raptor typically flies way higher than everybody else and it handles like a dream at those altitudes." Tolliver wouldn't confirm the operating altitude, but Pentagon officials have put it at 65,000 ft., which is at least 15,000 ft. higher than the other fighters.

"There were times we went lower, maybe to visually identify a threat or if we were out of Amraams and there was a bandit sneaking in at low altitude," he says. "The Raptor would roll in and kill him with a heat-seeking missile."

The lopsided combat ratio resulted because, "they never saw us," Tolliver says. "We got there without being detected, and we killed them rapidly. We didn't do any major turning. It's not that the J-Turn maneuver isn't fun, but we didn't get a chance to use it."

The F-22's Mach 1.5 supercruise capability also got a workout in Alaska. Because only eight F-22s were ever airborne at once during the exercise, four of them were constantly involved in refueling from tankers flying orbits 150 mi. away. Supercruise got the fighters there and back quickly. On station, the fighter would conserve fuel by cruising at high altitude.

"We also used supercruise quite a bit because the fight was on such a large scale," Tolliver says. "The airspace was roughly 120 mi. by 140 mi. We could sit up at high altitude and save our gas and watch. We don't hang out at Mach 1.5. With our acceleration, when we saw the threats building, because we could see them so far out, we'd dump the nose over, light the burners and we were right up to fighting speed."

During a typical day in the Alaska "war," 24 air-to-air fighters, including up to eight F-22s, defended their aerial assets and homeland for 2.5 hr. Air Force F-15s and F-16s and Marine F/A-18s simulated up to 40 MiG-29s, Su-22s, Su-24s, Su-27s and Su-30s (which regenerated into 103 enemy sorties in a single period). They carried AA-10s A to F, Archers, AA-12 Adders and the Chinese-built PL-12. These were supported by SA-6, SA-10 and SA-20 surface to air missiles and an EA-6B for jamming. Each day, the red air became stronger and carried more capability.

As a result of all the emitters in the battlespace, the F-22's ability to map the electronic order of battle (EOB) - what's emitting and from where - proved critical.

"I love intel, but it's only as good as the last time [analysts] got a data update, which could have been hours or even a day earlier," Tolliver says. An F-22 "gets rid of the time delay. I can plot an EOB in real time. I'm not saying we're better than a Rivet Joint, but I can go places that it can't. If he's 150 mi. away, he's probably not going to be able to plot a high-fidelity threat location as quickly as I can."

The adversaries were wily and didn't want to lose."We had guys running in at 500 ft. off the deck," Tolliver says. "We had guys flying in at 45,000-50,000 ft. doing Mach 1.6, trying to shoot me before I know they are there. They would mass their forces and try to win with sheer numbers. None of it worked."

A tactic used by the F-22s was actually developed and practiced in smaller scale at Langley before the exercise. Raptors worked in pairs, integrated with F-15Cs or F/A-18E/Fs.

"I could help target for them from behind and above," Tolliver says. "We really don't have a name for what we were doing other than integrated ops. I was able to look down and smartly target F-15s or F/A-18s to groups at ranges where they could not yet [detect] the target."

Yet, there are a number of F-22 capabilities that are shrouded in mystery, including electronic attack, information warfare and cruise missile defense.

"It's no secret that one of our mods is to put electronic attack on board and then we will play a role in combating networks," Tolliver says. "We're already involved in the collection part. When we come back from a mission, we have the ability to download EOB data that's turned into intelligence pictures. This makes us an intelligence platform doing nontraditional ISR by bringing back emitter data so that teams can go out and conduct information operations."

The next step will be to pass the detailed information about surface-to-air missile locations, capabilities and emission details (called parametrics).

"If I have characterized, say an SA-10, I can send it verbally to AWACS and they can send it out to other platforms," says Maj. Shawn Anger, an F-22 instructor with the 43rd Fighter Sqdn. at Tyndall AFB, Fla. However, "I can't pass the parametrics characterization. Hopefully, we'll be able to shoot it up the radar" - a new capability for the radar, which is being developed to send large, high-bandwidth imagery files.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw010807p1.xml

Edited April 20, 2009 by Saint Warrior

[Baff1 0]

On the subject of AWACS vs Stealth, have a look at the recent Israeli airforce strikes in Syria.

No stealth, but total radar jamming on a nationwide scale. Whatever they were doing, really works. They are making this system in conjunction with Russia I believe.

The end result is the same. For at least one strike the enemy is unable to pinpoint your force until it is too late.

F22 might be able to lock onto pretend soviet airframes with ease, but the real thing is likely to be a lot harder.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Baff1

[Baff1 0]

From the ordnance charts on the F-35, it cannot carry a single weapon suitable for anti-shipping. Why do we need a stealth fighter for anti-shipping?

Why would you need an aeroplane for anti shipping?

That is the job of a submarine.

The days of the carrier being used as an over the horizon anti shipping weapon system ended with the cruise missile.

Not to mention the ASBM.

If you have to get within 1250 miles of your target in the Pacific, you'd better be submerged when you do it.

[ricoadf 0]

He's refering to useing land based aircraft to defend australia, which is a very valid and 1 of our major points of our defence, a ship takes far longer to go from Syd to Darwin than a plane does.

[Dwarden 1125]

F-22 always reminds me on RAH-66 Commanche project (btw. several similar concepts later were built and are in use i think JAR and Japan designs)

and about the 'tests' it's hard to say how would these planes fare in enemy territory full of passive and rnd active radars with random population of Su / Mig from 2x and 3x generations ...

sure it's definitely most advanced design in 'mass production' but like was pointed being first usually means lot of bugs and issues to be found and resolved ...

just look at Osprey program it took 3 decades to solve problems but not it seems to be reliable (all it needs is cannon on belly (wip))

[echo1 0]

due to extreme level of digital electronics and technologies inside them.

That's what they said about the F-4 when it went to fight in Vietnam. Look how that turned out. I think there's a danger in forgetting that you're trying to build a fighter jet, not a flying supercomputer.

[ricoadf 0]

not to mention that the digital electronics inside the aircraft and the airframe are 2 different things. The F-15SE is the F-15 with basically the F-22 electronics built into it. Also remember the F-22 and F-35 has no room for updates, so while the F-15 will continue to get newer and newer tech built into it the F-22 and F-35 are stuck with their stock hardware, not very future friendly :p

[Saint Warrior 10]

The F-15SE is the F-15 with basically the F-22 electronics built into it. Also remember the F-22 and F-35 has no room for updates, so while the F-15 will continue to get newer and newer tech built into it the F-22 and F-35 are stuck with their stock hardware, not very future friendly :p

F-15SE Silent Eagle is just the same F-15E Strike Eagle originating from late 1980's but with more spacious conformal fuel tanks which are used for weapon storage now, as well as canted vertical tail fins and possible anti-radar covering with air-intake RCS reduces (like we have on F/A-18E/F Super Hornets).

It is not a "pure stealth" what can be clear seen from the oval shape of it's nose. It's AESA has got much less transmitters than APG-77, it has less powerfull engines, compared to supreme thrust-to-weight ratio of F-22 Raptor (which is even able to do vertical zigzags from lowest airspeeds).

As for possible upgrades, F-22 Raptor is a future platform, with plenty of unused capabilities (facts from military excersise reports I mentioned above prove that), while F-15 has already got nearly everything it is possible to install on this fighter, so it is limited to future upgrades, in fact.

That is quite the same, like if you got enough money for Bugatti Veyron (the world's fastest car), but say "it is limited to upgrades" instead that's why you will buy a Volkswagen Golf Mk2 for $1000 and put all the possible upgrades in trying to make a faster car than Bugatti Veyron. :) Will you succeed? I really doubt this.

[echo1 0]

"pure stealth"

Nothing is "pure stealth". Some are just harder to detect than others.

F-22 Raptor is a future platform, with plenty of unused capabilities

Bingo.

SaintWarrior, do you work for Lockheed Martin's PR department or something?

[Saint Warrior 10]

SaintWarrior, do you work for Lockheed Martin's PR department or something?

Nope. I just try to make sensible conclusions. Why should one invest in outdated equipment (like all F-15 variations are) if there is a possibility to purchase a next generation stuff for a bit higher price?

I like to compare this situation with ordinary car purchase. For example, you would like to buy an Audi A8 this summer. The model available now has been produced since 2002. This summer a next generation of Audi A8 is entering production. What will you buy, a car, that has been produced since 2002 or a brand new next generation series, while both are available at the moment? :D

Same here, there is F-15SE Silent Eagle and there is F-35 Lightning II. It is up to you what you choose. ;)

Nothing is "pure stealth". Some are just harder to detect than others.

Actually, any fighter equipped with a radar can detect a stealth aircraft. It is another question, whether this fighter will survive as far as that detection range is. Edited April 21, 2009 by Saint Warrior

[Baff1 0]

I never buy next generation equipment before it has proven itself.

Why buy Windows 7 in the first year, when my company works very efficiently with Windows XP and Windows 98 currently.

Next generation doesn't mean better. It quite often means "very expensive and not fit for purpose".

It would be a very large mistake to imagine that most wars have been won by the "latest technology". More wars have been won by superior manufacturing capabilities.

The best "industry".

I would suggest to you that the price difference between making and upgrading an F22 and upgrading an existing F15, is more than just a "bit" higher.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Baff1

[dm 9]

Nope. I just try to make sensible conclusions.

You can NOT be serious?

You've essentially been spouting the PR material from Lockheed and the positively biased media reviews from the USAF, while at the same time ignoring information from more informed sources. Yet you claim to be making SENSIBLE decisions... Wow...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Nope. I just try to make sensible conclusions. Why should one invest in outdated equipment (like all F-15 variations are) if there is a possibility to purchase a next generation stuff for a bit higher price?

"A bit higher price"!? You've just had me fall off my chair laughing at that.

Are you serious? A F-22 costs $210million per airframe. An F-15 with a 5 year support package costs $52 Million. A EuroFighter with the 10 year limited spares and support package cost only $65 Million.

I spent a good part of my working life in the Aerospace and Defence Industry and everything you've posted so far just sounds like PR material to me.

Edited April 21, 2009 by RKSL-Rock
typos

[fumo 0]

Next generation doesn't mean better. It quite often means "very expensive and not fit for purpose".

It would be a very large mistake to imagine that most wars have been won by the "latest technology". More wars have been won by superior manufacturing capabilities. The best "industry".

True, examples? WWII: German was way more sophisticated, Impulse engines, ME-262 Jets, flying wing aircrafts and the first "cruise Missile" types (V1 and V2). But they loose though. And a most popular example, Vietnam: Here were the US more sophisticated, but who "win"? (here we must be aware that no side realy can win a war, there are just sides with "less" casualties) ;)

[Saint Warrior 10]

A F-22 costs $210million per airframe.

The exact price of F-22A Raptor you can calculate here at page F-3.

2 719 500 000 USD for 20 fighters = 135 975 000 USD unit delivery to Air Force cost. It is an official, unclassified document of Pentagon, as you can see, not a PR press release or something like that.

F-15 with a 5 year support package costs $52 Million

F-15SE Silent Eagle fly away cost is estimated to be USD 100 million.

The actual price difference between real 5th generation fighter aircraft and the 4th one appears to be something around 36 percent.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Saint Warrior

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

The exact price of F-22A Raptor you can calculate here at page F-3.

2 719 500 000 USD for 20 fighters = 135 975 000 USD unit delivery to Air Force cost. It is an official, unclassified document of Pentagon, as you can see, not a PR press release or something like that.

Thats in 2007/09 Financial Year cost esitmated on a larger produrment figure. The 2008/09 figure was $192million per aircraft excluding support costs. The 2009/10 figures are $210 Million Source for that is the US GAO and US DoD press release at cancellation via Janes (correct at April 2009) after the cancellation of the extended F-22 project.

F-15SE Silent Eagle fly away cost is estimated to be USD 100 million.

Did I say Silent Eagle? I was referring to the recent (2009) F-15 package offered to Korea and several allied Arab States. Sources for that are numerous.

The actual price difference between real 5th generation fighter aircraft and the 4th one appears to be something around 36 percent.

Now i KNOW you don't work in the Defense Industry. If you did you would know how funny that statement is. Its like saying "a piece of string is approximately 1m."

And just so there is no translation issues, i mean that it is impossible to make generalised statments like yours in an industry where cost spiral up on a daily basis without even factoring exchange rates.

[fumo 0]

The actual price difference between real 5th generation fighter aircraft and the 4th one appears to be something around 36 percent.[/color]

That's realy just "a bit", if you buy one. But military need a few dozen, so the little difference of ~36 Million is multiplicated. 360 million for ten as example, that can't be called "just a bit more" anymore.

[Saint Warrior 10]

The 2008/09 figure was $192million per aircraft excluding support costs

Could you do me a favor providing a source of information, considering terrific F-22 Raptor prices starting at USD 192 million?

Have a look at Pentagon budget charts, the biggest estimated production price per unit is USD 152 million.

I was referring to the recent (2009) F-15 package offered to Korea and several allied Arab States.

The latest and the most likely to be chosen by foreign customers package is F-15SE Silent Eagle. Nobody needs something that is outdated already- if there is F-15SE, all serious customers (like India or Pakistan) will be looking forward to it only, without any consideration about possible purchase of F-15E or F-15K versions.

[ricoadf 0]

Thats the thing SR, nations can use the F-15E because it is a good plane, they dont need to waste millions more on an unproven plane. The fact that Rock has WORKED in the industry gives him far more credability than your lines.

You forget that even the F-22 has been shot down in mock dogfights, by a french plane (how ironic) and a F-18F. So that goes to show the money ISN'T worth investing.

It's a plane made to show off and intimedate, anyone with any brains will go "whatever" and no be concerned.

EA-18G Growler shoots down F-22

Edited April 21, 2009 by RicoADF

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Could you do me a favor providing a source of information, considering terrific F-22 Raptor prices starting at USD 192 million?

- DID - F22 News Page

- Janes Defence - The future of advanced stealth - worth the cost?

- For the non susbscriber - Independant Review - How much does an F-22 cost

I've been emailing my old boss who now works at Lockheed Fort Worth on the F-35. We've been discussing the prospect of and finally the cancellation of the F-22 for a month. Here's a little extract for you. The following are extracts from a series of emails:

"The real figures wont be known until the end of FY10 or 11 but the unit costs used in the reports were in excess of $200 million for an ISA (In Service Airframe) in November last year. With the economic downturn and increases in material costs this year the unit cost were estimated to spiral to $220 [worst case] for the dry airframe and suite ..."

"...its been a huge bonus for us [F-35 Community] because it now makes our unit cost seem far more affordable..."

"...there is a feeling among the Lockheed guys here that it was the right decision to take despite the job losses. The F-22 had become a millstone, the cost over runs, politics and unrealistic expectations..."

"...the [F-22] programme became almost bullet proof at one point no matter how many billions got poured into the black hole. It was a matter of national pride for them. I've heard some of the [F-22] project guys saying it must not be allowed to die because if it did it would shame the US."

"...The current flying spec is so far below the advertised spec its a joke. Only 3 airframes have anything approaching the advertised state and one of them is for ground testing. There has been several stories in the popular press about Raptor ops, high speed datalinks etal. Its been a mystery to us since we are waiting on the F-22 test platform to certify the hardware for the datalink and its not forecast to be ready until Q4 09 so god knows how they are using it in wargames."

"...I suppose we [bAE Systems] should be grateful because they've so badly screwed up the job we've been given a far greater advantage. The lessons learnt with the F-22 are now being applied to the F-35 which is bringing costs down. And now with the greater funding we can get the production systems in place ahead of time."

Have a look at Pentagon budget charts, the biggest estimated production price per unit is USD 152 million.

Yes in old figures. The current recession has driven costs through the roof. Remember it was the projected costs that got the project cancelled not the cost of the first airframes.

The latest and the most likely to be chosen by foreign customers package is F-15SE Silent Eagle. Nobody needs something that is outdated already- if there is F-15SE, all serious customers (like India or Pakistan) will be looking forward to it only, without any consideration about possible purchase of F-15E or F-15K versions.

You are living in cloud cookoo land if you think India or Pakistan will be looking at the Silent Eagle. First off the technology transfer issues alone would stop any non NATO aligned nation from buying it. Second and perhaps most poignant is the price tag and support costs. Only a 1st world nation could afford the infrastructures support. Hell India and Pakistan cant even afford the support costs for Rafale and Eurofighter export models and they aren't even half that of the F-15E and K

Thats the thing SR, nations can use the F-15E because it is a good plane, they dont need to waste millions more on an unproven plane. The fact that Rock has WORKED in the industry gives him far more credability than your lines.

You forget that even the F-22 has been shot down in mock dogfights, by a french plane (how ironic) and a F-18F. So that goes to show the money ISN'T worth investing.

It's a plane made to show off and intimedate, anyone with any brains will go "whatever" and no be concerned.

EA-18G Growler shoots down F-22

And if informed reports are to be believed the Eurofighter Typhoon F2 did very well against the F-22 in its the weapons integration trials. Far better than was expected according to insider RAF gossip too.

@ Saint Warrior if you want a job in the PR departments of Lockheed, Boeing, BAE System or Thales Defence I have some contacts. I suspect that if you were a US national Lockheed would offer you the job purely off the faith you have shown them in this thread.

Seriously I dont mean to belittle you but the aerospace/defence industry is the same as any other industry. They use advertising stories to sell the idea of the a product and as we all know more often than not. The product you think you are buying isnt always actually what you get out of the box. I know from personal experience that Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale are sold this way. The F-16 and F-15 certainly were, pretty much any aircraft in history was sold, more as what it would be become rather than what it was. Part of the support contracts are to upgrade to the promised specs over time. Its just the way it is.

Edited April 21, 2009 by RKSL-Rock
more typos

[NoRailgunner 0]

FYI: Computer spies have broken into the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project

Lockheed Martin and BAE declined to comment. Northrop referred questions to Lockheed.

Military officials declined to comment on the incident.

Know your enemy... or is it a trick to delay/cancel the project?

[Baff1 0]

Nobody needs something that is outdated already.

Blimey, when I think of all the outdated airframes the RAF could make good use of right now.

Added capability is added capability.

If you have 2 planes and the other guy only has one, while your state of the art war machines are off duking it out with eachother, you have the capability to attack a second target uncontested.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Baff1