backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by Maasracer.. on Feb 6 at 10:53 AM


Four F-22s prepare for take-off - image courtesy Lockheed Martin
The Raptor is still shaping up to be a fine aircraft platform

The United States Air Force (USAF) F-22A Raptor has only been in operational service for a little over a year now, and the advanced fighter aircraft is already shaping up to be quite a formidable weapon in the skies. The F-22 can supercruise (achieve supersonic speeds without afterburner) at Mach 1.58 and has a top speed of Mach 2+ thanks to its twin Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines.

Over the past year, F-22s have partaken in a number of simulated "wargames" to display the capabilities of the aircraft. In one two-week excursion in Alaska, designated Northern Edge, the "Blue Air" team which was led by F-22s simply obliterated its "Red Air" threat.

The Red Air threat was composed of a number of previous generation Air Force and Navy aircraft including the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. During the exercise, in which more than 40 aircraft littered the skies, the Blue Team achieved a remarkable 241-to-2 kill ratio. It should be noted that the 2 aircraft lost on the Blue Team were F-15C aircraft and not the F-22s.

"They [the Red Air adversaries] couldn’t see us," Tolliver said. "And that’s what makes the F-22 special. I’m out there and I have weapons like an F-15C or an F-16, but ... I’m basically invisible to the other guy’s radar," said Toliver.

The F-22's also scored a 97% mission effective rate during Northern Edge, flying 102 out of 105 assigned sorties. No other new aircraft to enter service into the USAF has been able to achieve such high readiness levels.

Over the past year, the F-22 has had many other success stories. The aircraft has successfully handled alternating air-to-air and air-to-ground operations and have provided additional sensor coverage for trailing friendly aircraft. F-22s have also released JDAMs from an altitude of 50,000 feet while traveling at Mach 1.5 and successfully fired AIM-120C-5 and AIM-9M missiles at live drone aircraft.

Despite all of the successes, there is still room for improvement in the F-22 program. The aircraft's mechanical readiness is now pegged at 70 to 75%, which is slightly lower than the USAF's optimal 75 to 78% rating. Also, pilots are asking for dual-mode satellite/laser guided bombs for the aircraft as well as a helmet-mounted firing system for weapons. Other improvements already in queue include an upgraded radar system and enhanced capabilities in the event of an electronic attack.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Over budget
By Goty on 2/4/2007 10:42:27 PM , Rating: 3
But when you can take out roughly 120 enemy aircraft for every F-22 lost, you can "make do" with 200.


RE: Over budget
By Polynikes on 2/4/2007 11:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
But will they ever have the chance? Seems like dog fights went the way of the dodo a long time ago.


RE: Over budget
By ADDAvenger on 2/4/2007 11:54:51 PM , Rating: 5
That's what they said when they made the F-4s without guns (an external gun-pod was later added).

Also what they said when they made the F-14s with super-long-range tomahawk(?) missiles, missiles that can shoot stuff down before the pilot can even see it.

Also what they said around WWII when planes were flying twice as fast as any previous record.


RE: Over budget
By joust on 2/5/2007 12:02:55 AM , Rating: 4
Also, think about this critically. Why was this enormous exercise taking place in Alaska of all places, as opposed to, say, Virginia? Why such a huge exercise? Why tell everyone how amazing this fighter is? Why a couple weeks after China shot down a satellite?

Ah yes, the Chinese. This is a signal to them. They're largest threat that can field aircraft against the US.


RE: Over budget
By cheetah2k on 2/5/2007 1:14:31 AM , Rating: 3
Sure, China can shoot down satellites..

But come to think of it, i dont think China's rapidly ageing numbers of SU-27's and Migs are any match for the F-22



RE: Over budget
By ralith on 2/5/2007 9:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a bit out of the loop so I don't know how capable they are, but the Chinese have some home grown fighters.


RE: Over budget
By AssMonkey76 on 2/5/2007 7:37:40 PM , Rating: 3
China has the J-10, good aircraft but no match to the F-22 or F-15. Also, we shot down a satalite in the 70's with an F-15.


RE: Over budget
By saratoga on 2/5/2007 2:47:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Also, think about this critically. Why was this enormous exercise taking place in Alaska of all places, as opposed to, say, Virginia?


Because there is little air traffic over Alaska. Conversely, the nations capital and east coast do occasionally have air craft around them.

quote:
Why such a huge exercise? Why tell everyone how amazing this fighter is? Why a couple weeks after China shot down a satellite?


Thats silly. The F22 program has been in the works for more then a decade. The Chinese already know all about it.

More likely this is an exercise designed to convince the new Democratic Congress not to reduce funding for F-22 purchases.


RE: Over budget
By SLI on 2/5/2007 7:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats silly. The F22 program has been in the works for more then a decade. The Chinese already know all about it.


I can tell you from personal experience this plane has been in development since (at least) 1989. ;-)


RE: Over budget
By jarman on 2/5/2007 12:15:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
More likely this is an exercise designed to convince the new Democratic Congress not to reduce funding for F-22 purchases.


You hit the nail on the head. Kudos pal.


RE: Over budget
By JimFear on 2/5/2007 7:50:13 AM , Rating: 1
The Red Dragon is sleeping ;)


RE: Over budget
By dare2savefreedom on 2/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Over budget
By ss284 on 2/5/2007 10:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
And somehow this huge infantry is gonna cross the largest ocean on this planet? Brings a whole new meaning to fresh off the boat.


RE: Over budget
By PrinceGaz on 2/6/2007 3:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
China doesn't need to fight a military battle against the US because they are already winning the economic war. It is almost certainly the US which would need to cross the pacific in any military confrontation.


RE: Over budget
By Regs on 2/5/2007 3:24:01 AM , Rating: 2
I remember that. They couldn't fire their missles because the fighters closed in so fast.


RE: Over budget
By ralith on 2/5/2007 9:39:05 AM , Rating: 3
F-14's carried the AIM-54 Phoenix for long range AA. The tomahawk is a cruise missile.


RE: Over budget
By timmiser on 2/5/2007 5:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. Also, even though it is a relatively old a/a missile and now retired (since it was so large it could only be mounted on an F-14), it is still classified and the USN still won't admit the actual effective range of that missile although rumoured to be about 150 miles! That's about 5-6 times further than the AMRAAM's. The Phoenix was one big muther!


RE: Over budget
By alcalde on 2/5/2007 3:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
But times have changed since WWII and Korea. We're not going to be fighting massive battles against regular forces in the foreseeable future. Conflict short-of-war against irregular forces using unconvential tactics in urban environments is the present and will be the future.

Such situations do not call for massive dogfight battles.


RE: Over budget
By Samus on 2/6/2007 4:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
They F22 is excellent at taking out ABM's and LRM's as well as aircraft. It's payload can also be equips for anti-tank and anti-ship deployment.


RE: Over budget
By stromgald on 2/5/2007 12:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
The F-22 could achieve an average 120-1 kill ratio over it's life, but that doesn't mean that 200 is enough. In a full scale war against a significant enemy like China, Russia, or some of the European countries, 200 is a very low number. The JSF/F-35 is what's supposed to make up for the loss in numbers but probably won't in the end.

Then again, the likelihood of conflict against any of those nations is exteremely low.


RE: Over budget
By nomagic on 2/5/2007 2:09:23 AM , Rating: 3
Fighter planes can be built rather quickly when the situation demands so. I think it is more important to get more experienced pilots to feel comfortable with F-22 now. After all, training pilots takes more time than building fighter planes.


RE: Over budget
By tmarat on 2/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Over budget
By gorobei on 2/5/2007 6:08:51 AM , Rating: 3
it was a f117 that was shot down. mostly due to the fact that its generation1 stealthtech was based on reflecting the radar away from the emmiter/receiver dish. the enemy simply waited until the 117 flew past and used another radar to light it up from an angle that the missile receiver could see it from.

the f22 and f35 use second gen stealth that work by absorbing radar energy. so the "light it up from behind" trick wont work.


RE: Over budget
By masher2 (blog) on 2/5/2007 9:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
> "it was a f117 that was shot down..."

Wasn't there some question over whether the F117 was even detected on radar or not? I seem to recall some evidence that it was simply hit with a lucky AA shot, and not a radar-guided SAM.


RE: Over budget
By BladeVenom on 2/5/2007 11:06:16 AM , Rating: 3
It was dropping a bomb when it got shot down. The bomb bay doors were open, negating it's stealth.


RE: Over budget
By beemercer on 2/5/2007 3:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
It was a combination of the open bomb bay doors and that the F-117 in question was also wet, and when the radar absorbent paint gets wet it loses some of it's ability to absorb radar.


RE: Over budget
By WhiteBoyFunk on 2/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Over budget
By stromgald on 2/5/2007 7:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
Radar abosrbing paint is not "horse crap" as you put it. It's one of the main features of the F-22 and Su-47. Read up on stealth before you go mouthing off. I'm not sure if water affects radar absorbant paint, but it's effect is unlikely to significant IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology#Ra...

You're right in that the F-117 wasn't shot down with bomb bay doors open. That was the tactic the Iraqis used in the first Gulf War. When the bomb bay doors were open, they shot up flak like crazy to try to clip/damage the F-117s.

The one that came down in Yugoslavia was targeted using a combination of visual sightings and multiple radar sources to help 'paint' the F-117. This greatly reduced the effectiveness of the F-117's faceted stealth.


RE: Over budget
By gorobei on 2/6/2007 8:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
they're right about the RAM(RadarAbsorbingMaterial). Just as certain materials convert UV radiation into heat, there are others that convert the radar EM into non-returnable bounce. the reason the F117 is the least stealthy is that the only RAM on it is the paint. It either ablates or abrrades off, and the plane has to be repainted on a regular schedule. (And rain does seriously affect it; why do you think weather radar is so effective?)

2nd gen stealth uses RAM and radar absorbing structures to avoid reflecting the radar back to the enemy. The leading edge of the B2 has tiny faceted funnel structures inside the leading edge to trap the radar energy. There are also materials that are radar transparent.

and on the F117 shootdown: it wasn't exactly a "lucky" shot. the political airspace restrictions at the time forced the US to fly in from the same direction every time. they knew where he was coming from and where he was going, so it was easy to setup the radar sources along the path to paint him. The airforce knew it was a bad idea but they didn't have much of a choice.


RE: Over budget
By tmarat on 2/5/2007 10:52:40 AM , Rating: 1
F117 must be made so that it reflects as less radio signals back and absorbs as much as it can. But frankly I don't believe a F117 is made so that it is invisible to radars from front and visible from back. I think that would be very stupid, to say the least. Any plane coming from behind would shoot it down. And in a battlefield stationery radar might happen to be located behind the plane.
I don't remember where but I read an article long time ago questioning all this stealth tech. Certainly it does achieve a low radar signature, but at a huge cost.


RE: Over budget
By stromgald on 2/5/2007 11:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
The F-117 shot down over Yugoslavia wasn't because of the bomb bay doors, it was because there were measures to counteract stealth technology. The Yugoslavian military used TV signals instead of normal radar to detect the F-117 and shoot it down. The UK and certain universities in the US have also developed stealth countering systems (one of which involves the separate emitters and receivers that I think a previous poster referred to). All these stealth countermeasures is one of the main reasons that the Russian Su-47 doesn't rely as much on stealth as US planes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#How_...


RE: Over budget
By alcalde on 2/5/2007 3:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about the likelihood of full-scale conflict against these countries. But in addition, remember that the kill ratio was achieved against F-15s, F-16s, F-18s. Russia isn't in shape to field massive numbers of anything at the moment (after repeated submarine missile launch failures one of their top folks stated that Russia's ability to defend its own borders was in doubt, let alone project force outward), and the majority of its airforce consists of older Migs. The bulk of China's airforce is also much less effective than the U.S. planes listed above. This leaves certain European countries. Here the ratio would apply with planes like the French Rafale, the UK/German/Spanish Eurofighter, the Swedish & Czech Gripen, and others.


RE: Over budget
By lewisc on 2/5/2007 5:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one (from Europe) wondering which European nation is lining up for a war with America? I know you were posing a hypothetical, but even so!


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki