Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F/A-22 Secrets Revealed  
User currently offlineRaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 376 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 6656 times:

Here's something from AWST

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/05244wna.xml

It's nice to see a few details about such a new program, but the simulated engagements lost by F-15's to Indian fighters concern me. I was always under the impression that the F15 was fairly superior to just about anything.

Also, the F-22 seems to be taking on a fairly broad range of tasks. Cruise missile defense? Talk about new meaning to the phrase 'air superiority fighter'

Any F-15 drivers who might be able to explain the engagements with the Indian fighters?



51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6538 times:

Wouldn't get too excited about the Indo-American exercise, it's hard to believe that either side showed off the full scope of their capabilities to a potential adversary. On the other hand, what's there to be surprised about? After all, the Su-30MKI is in no way inferior to the F-15C, to say the least. Its only handicap in this particular scenario was the use of the dubious R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) AAM for BVR engagements.

At any rate, considering the diplomatic issues involved, I would be highly skeptical about any sort of 'score' released by either of the parties in regards to the results of the exercise. This is not to say that the exercise wasn't beneficial, at least those few select Eagle drivers now know what a Flanker looks like...  Big grin


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6492 times:

LY744,

More of our fighter boys may have gotten better looks at Russian aircraft, all the programs that involve the testing to Soviet aircraft, are barely gray aircraft (ie. their existence is acknowledged, but the details are still classified), who knows what black programs that are still operating?

RaginMav,

According to the article it was an aircraft to aircraft face-off, that is just one small element of the system involved for the modern air war.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6216 times:

not just that, but I indeed doubt they used the full potential of the F-22 (if they even know it yet).

Of course the full potential of the F-22 depends on stealth and once you get within dogfighting range that is diminished greatly.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6146 times:

Jwenting,

It was a F-15C versus Su-30MK fight. The F-22 wasn't involved.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6146 times:

There are rumors out there that the F-15s were intentionally handicapped to make them look bad, and therefore garner more support for the F-22 program. From the photos I saw, most of the F-15s were armed with Sparrows, instead of AMRAAMS, that could have played a huge part.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6119 times:

Spacepope,

That might be true, but I doubt it. They might have limited the simulated kill envelope of the AIM-120, from what I understand it's still classified (though our allies that use the missile of course know what it is).



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6056 times:

There's several reasons for seeing Sparrows instead of AMRAAM...
Could be the units involved don't have AMRAAM issued to them (reserve units? Lots of active units are involved in the ME at the moment). Also possible that the missiles are dummies and someone decided to save a bit by not purchasing AMRAAM dummies and just retrofit AMRAAM seekerheads to existing Sparrow dummies instead.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5905 times:

The units involved were active AFAIK (from Elmendorf?) and they did make simulated use of the AIM-120.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5891 times:

LY744 are you sure of your facts?

Information I have is that it was the non-AESA equipped squadron from Elmendorf that went, and they went without AMRAAM or AIM-9X. Basically they were going up against USAF technology circa 1977.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineAFHokie From United States of America, joined May 2004, 224 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

The Elmendorf Eagles were the first to get the AIM-9X and AESA upgrades

User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5834 times:

"LY744 are you sure of your facts?"

I distinctly recall a reference to AIM-120 use in one of the many articles I've came accross about the exercise, but I can't seem to find the exact source right now, so let's scrap that comment for the time being.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5799 times:

OK 12th and 19th squadron at Elmendorf do have AESA. They also have AIM-9X and helmet mounted sights. Reports are there were AIM-9x dummies on aircraft, but they were used without helmet mounted sights and degraded to AIM-9L standards. Apparently they just brought them since no older dummie missiles were handy.

I am finally coming up with some references to AIM-120 now (amazing what a little research does) and it seems these were used in a degraded mode as well.

Although to the Indian's credit, they did not field the R-77 at all, and theit other AAMs also operated in a degraded mode.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5784 times:

"Although to the Indian's credit, they did not field the R-77 at all, and theit other AAMs also operated in a degraded mode."

Perhaps the IAF too is looking to squeeze some more funding from their government to finance additional Flankers or what have you...  Smile


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5762 times:

Yeah, they where out of Elemendorf.

Interesting that the Indians where getting the first shot off.

Not to diss russian equiptment but it always struck me as needing more "manual" intervention to work.

I dont' recall those EDF fighters going with AWAC support, so they wheren't under centeral control.

Edit: maybe we should bring back a modernized Phoneix.

[Edited 2004-05-26 07:24:55]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5763 times:

The IAF did NOT field the Su-30MKI in the Cope India exercises, but instead fielded the baseline Su-30K with N001 radars and much older original Russian avionics. The MKI has the powerful N011M Bars PESA radar and much more advanced avionics composed of a combination of French (Thales/Sextant), Israeli (Elta) and Indian components tailormade to the IAF's requirements. The MKIs are not quite "Russian"; the airframes are, but the avionics are IAF custom spec.

The IAF also refused to field the R-77 and used only downgraded versions of the R-27 and R-73s. Similarly the USAF fielded the F15Cs rather than F15Es and AWACS, which IAF initially requested them to bring. Neither side was willing to display their best toys, but it was just the first time the two countries held an event of the sort. Whether more will be seen in future depends on the policies of the new government.

Perhaps the IAF too is looking to squeeze some more funding from their government to finance additional Flankers or what have you...

The IAF has been quietly purchasing thousands of R27s, R73s and R77s in the last few years. Check SIPRI.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineChdmcmanus From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 374 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5509 times:

I brought the F-15's home from Gwailor, and according to the Eagle drivers,
they had they're hands tied; but no one stated why. The US participants were very anxious to invite the IAF to Red Flag, so they could take the gloves off. IMHO I would say it was to conceal actual capabilities, as the Indians were extremely aggressive about info collection. It was impossible to have more than a two sentence conversation with anyone without "what is the range of..." or "how much does X weight......". Some of the restrictions I was told of were a half mile difference in engagement range, and a 10 second "no shoot" rule imposed on the US F-15's. There may have been more, but that's all I heard about.

ChD



"Never trust a clean Crew Chief"
User currently offlineSuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 23 hours ago) and read 5457 times:

The F-22 is a hole in the ground that actual cost per aircraft is more like $165,000,000 per unit and not $143,000,000 per unit. 2nd where are they going to store all of those countermeasures that the article talks about? The F-22 and the F-35 already have limited space for armament and electronic countermeasures by design. 3rd why didn’t they use the United States latest inventory aircraft (F/A-18 Super Hornet and it is stealthy) against the Red team? I assume it was as suggested previously here they wanted the F-15C’s to loose. Why didn’t they use the F-15E model which was designed to have growth built into it and was designed to work with AESA? 4th Aviation Week has a vested interest to see new aircraft built to maintain its readership and it’s not like Lockheed doesn’t advertise extensively with Aviation Week. In my opinion we should scrap the F-22 and in order to reduce cost and slow development of the F-35 to reduce cost and to design an aircraft that will meet the U.S. security and future threats as they develop. A stop cap measure would be to continue F-16/F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet development including meeting the AF requirements for new aircraft to as its old fleet retires by replacing F-15 with the Super Hornet $50,000,000 is a lot less than $165,000,000 and that doesn’t include fuel and air in the tires.


Watch the ball
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

My guess is that it will be a cold day in hell before the USAF buys the Super Hornet. Why buy an aircraft that was designed for carrier use? To do so would mean lugging around all that added structural weight for no reason. Then you have to take into consideration the added cost of having a new type in the USAF inventory.

User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5395 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 5442 times:

Also, the F/A-18E/F is not exactly "Stealthy." All munitions are carried externally (a BIG RCS killer), and there's no changes to the basic structure to make it a stealthier aircraft. While it does have improved ECM and reduced signatures, the Super Hornet, like the B-1 is "low-observable" and not stealth. It'll be able to get closer without being detected, but it will still be detected a lot further away than an F/A-22, an F-117, or a B-2.


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 835 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 5438 times:

"A stop cap measure would be to continue F-16/F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet development..."

Development of the F-15, F-16, and F-18 has been continuing since the late 1970's. Perhaps the best reason to continue with the F-22, IMO, is that none of those earlier aircraft is what the US wants to rely on for air dominance in 2015, much less 2035. The F-22 is very expensive and has tumultuous software problems that won't be quickly resolved, but it eventually will represent the biggest capability jump ever available to any air force (with the possible exception of Eritrea's aquisition of Flankers!). There is only so much mileage available from 1960s and '70s designs. Delaying development of the next generation of USAF air superiority fighter will not result in an aircraft that is any cheaper or that will have an easier development.



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 5417 times:

Why didn’t they use the F-15E model which was designed to have growth built into it and was designed to work with AESA

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the F-15E a BOMBER???


And the Air Force if they had to give up the F-22 would be better served to stick with the F-15 family then switch to the smaller F-18E family.

Oh, part of the reason why you are seeing those F-22 numbers rise is that the knuckleheads in Washington keep cutting the number of airframes planned, so the builder has to spread his development costs, which are fixed, amoung a smaller amount of airframes. So % of that burden shared by each frame increases as the number of frames decreases.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 5361 times:

The F-15E is both a fighter and a strike aircraft. Though it's being used more as a bomber because it can haul an awful lot of JDAMs/LGBs with an airframe that can be positioned near the front.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineSuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5321 times:

I would remind you that the F4 was an aircraft designed for the Navy but which found its way into the Air Force arsenal. The F4 was designed to be a bomber but was used quite successfully as a fighter and for many years beyond its planned life.

What I am advocating is to scrap the F-22 because it is currently way behind schedule and way over budget and at the same time development of unmanned vehicles are under budget and under funded are progressing on schedule and will have greater stealth than the F-22 while performing the exact same function. Unmanned vehicles are best suited for this type of warfare and are on schedule with development metrics, all that is lacking is the funding to speed up development.

There is no other air force in the world that can match the mighty trio of the F-16, F-15, and the F/A-18 Super Hornet like the B-52 these aircraft can be modified to accept the new ECM technologies and radar technologies the F-15E which is a fighter/bomber which has already proven itself in that capacity in Gulf War I is already designed to accept the new AESA radar which was originally designed for the F-22 but is now in both the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the F-15.


[Edited 2004-05-28 23:54:31]


Watch the ball
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5309 times:

The F-4 is a product of another era, that being the cold war. Back then the services had an almost unlimited budget. Things are different now. Besides, it would make more sense to "upgrade" the F-15 than buy Superhornets.

Can you guarantee that the F-16, F-15 and F/A-18 will be able to maintain their superiority in the future? With aircraft such as the EF2000, Rafale and the latest versions of the SU-27 coming on line I don't think one can. You might say that these aircraft are either built buy countries that are close allies or countries that we are unlikely to go to war with. While this may be true it's not our allies or "associates" that worry me. It's the countries that might end up buying them.


25 Vzlet : Superhornet, let me try to make a few points: -If you go back a few years, you'll fnd that "behind schedule and over budget" is pretty much the norm f
26 L-188 : Actually there are some cancellations in that list. The Navy never got the F-111B. The F-14 was developed in leu of the F-111B. The B1A was canceled b
27 Garnetpalmetto : The Navy never got the F-111B. The F-14 was developed in leu of the F-111B Not because of politics, but because of Adm. Tom Connelly's revolt against
28 L-188 : Ah McNamara. Have you ever read the stories about the fit he threw in DaNang when on a tour? Apparently the Air Force mentioned that they where runnin
29 Bsergonomics : This is not the only 'loss' for the F-15s recently. A pair of F-15s bounced the first UK Eurofighter formation training mission out of Warton a couple
30 LMP737 : In regards to the article on the F-22 one must remember that not all of it's capabilities are going to appear in print since they remain classified.
31 Post contains links MD-90 : "There's not enough thrust in all of Christendom to make the F-111 a fighter!" Or something like that. Adm Connelly was pretty cool. Here's a very int
32 Dw747400 : Very interesting. The colonel raises some good points, but he also partakes in exactly what he accuses the Air Force of doing: manipulating data to pr
33 Post contains links RaginMav : Thank You Dw747400!!!!!!!! I read the colonel's comments, and the same thought occured to me. I didn't have time to check the numbers myself, so I did
34 Spacepope : What good are BVR weapons when the ROE prohibit you from using them in the way that they were designed? Seriously, there is only one RUMOR of an AIM-5
35 L-188 : What good are BVR weapons when the ROE prohibit you from using them in the way that they were designed Exactly, but when the rules allow you to shoot,
36 PPGMD : If memory serves the Sparrow was the Kill leader at the end of the gulf war. I would hope so since it and the sidewinder where the only two that went
37 Spacepope : As opposed to it being used from an F-14D which then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheny DID kill...
38 RayChuang : You know, it would be very interesting to see how the Eurofighter Typhoon matches up against the current production F-16C's. I think the F-22A will ou
39 MD-90 : RayChuang, according to the colonel, the exhaust paddles on the F-22 don't really help for maneuvering. They're there for trim purposes. The F-22 look
40 RaginMav : MD-90 Has Colonel Riccioni (or you, for that matter) flown the plane?
41 Jmets18 : SuperHornet, You've gotta be about as blind as a bat if you think the F-22 and the F-35 have limited space for armament and electronic countermeasures
42 Jmets18 : and that colonel can kiss my a$$ because those engine nozzles are called thrust vectoring for a reason. no other aircraft can climb like the f/a-22. i
43 Post contains links and images RaginMav : Jmets18 Gotta agree with you on the thrust vectoring. Saw video clip from a buddy that's an intern at Boeing. He shot a clip of the F/A-22 pulling int
44 PPGMD : Both the F/A-22 and F-25 have the capability of carrying they're weapons load inside, outside, or both. Too bad the external racks for the F-22 were c
45 Garnetpalmetto : Also the main weapons bay can only fit a single 1,000 lb PGM Not quite. Last I checked, the main bay can hold two 1,000 pound JDAMs and two AIM-120Cs
46 Jmets18 : PPGMD, Garnetpalmetto, A-Netters........ Without going into too much detail, i'll give you an example of what the f/a-22 can carry. Center Bay - (6) A
47 PPGMD : Gernetpalmetto, Sorry I was thinking in rack terms. I forgot it only has a single bay, instead of two bays on the centerline like the F-117. It was a
48 Jmets18 : PPGMD, i'm all for debate. that's what forums are for. sorry if i came off as someone who feels they know all there is to know about a particular subj
49 MD-90 : RaginMav, that Colonel was the project leader for the F-16. He ought to know a thing or two about fighters. I doubt that a 172 can ever get to a 90 de
50 L-188 : I had a professor with a 172 that had the 220 Franklin conversion, I bet he could do it.
51 MD-90 : Yeah, you know, I'm wrong, I was flippantly answering, not really thinking about it. If a Cessna Aerobat with a dinky little 115 HP engine can do it,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F/A-22 Secrets Revealed
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
22 C-17s And Lots Of Other Goodies! posted Wed Oct 18 2006 18:13:23 by Galaxy5007
F-22 Wins It's Biggest Battle, Congress posted Fri Sep 29 2006 02:31:58 by STT757
V-22 Osprey Pilots posted Thu Sep 7 2006 18:33:19 by A320ajm
What Took The F-22 So Long To Enter Service? posted Sun Jul 23 2006 20:47:25 by Afrikaskyes
Outstanding 360 View Of V-22 Pit In High Detail... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 07:50:37 by AirRyan
Showdown Brewing Over US Export The F-22 Sales... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 07:09:05 by AirRyan
Marine General On The V-22: How Do You Figure? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 21:53:03 by AirRyan
CNN V-22 At Farnborough Video... posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:25:52 by AirRyan
The NROL-22 Satellite Launch Was Good.. posted Thu Jun 29 2006 02:39:56 by Wardialer
F-22 Successful J D A M Test posted Tue Jun 13 2006 01:41:10 by Lumberton

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format