USAF Photo of the Day: An F-22A Raptor--USA's cutting-edge fighter--pops flares over Kadena Air Base

ChamorroBible.org ^ | January 15, 2009 | U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Clay Lancaster

[EnjoyingLife]

2000 x 1300 pixels, 3202 x 2130 pixels, 4256 x 2832 pixels via http://ChamorroBible.org/gpw/gpw-200905.htm 

The Photographer 
Senior Airman Clay Lancaster, United States Air Force

[EnjoyingLife]

Interview with an F-22A demo pilot: U.S. Air Force Major Paul "Max" Moga
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_jXJD7Oglw

Lockheed Martin: F-22 Air Show Demo Langley AFB, Virginia
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/f22/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv

Lockheed Martin: F-22A Raptors at the Northern Edge 2006 exercise in Alaska
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B02DrUpARFM

AIR FORCE Magazine: "The Raptor in the Real World" by John A. Tirpak
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/February%202007/0207raptor.aspx

[ovrtaxt]

ooooo that’s cool. Thanks for the jet porn!

[Loud Mime]

notice the side door? Is that the flare ejection port?

[ovrtaxt]

Good question, I’ll bet you’re right. Those F22s are the coolest.

[Loud Mime]

From today's update of AIR FORCE Magazine:

Wednesday July 15, 2009 "Not So Much a Study": It now turns out that a recent "study" touted by Pentagon leadership as the justification for terminating the F-22 fighter isn't really a study at all, but a series of briefings by DOD's Program Analysis and Evaluation shop and the Air Force. That word comes from the Pentagon's top spokesman, Geoff Morrell, who told the Daily Report late Tuesday that the study, ah, whatever it is, is "not so much a 'study'" as "work products." Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman Gen. James Cartwright told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, "There is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force" which, he said, nailed the F-22 requirement at 187 aircraft—not the 243 that the Air Force says is the minimum requirement. Asked to describe the nature and timing of this study, Morrell told the Daily Report , "What I think General Cartwright was referring to … is two different work products"—one by the PA&E shop and one by the Air Force—"and not so much a 'study.'" Morrell said work on the F-22 issue was done by "both entities" and that each was likely "informed by the other," but they didn't amount to "formal studies," and they had no formal name, such as the last known DOD analysis of fighter requirements, "Joint Air Dominance," dating to about 2004. Cartwright, in his testimony before the committee, wasn't clear about how many studies had been done, but said that 187 F-22 s would be enough for a one-war strategy. He assured SASC chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that he'd get whatever justifying analysis exists to the committee right away. However, Morrell said yesterday that "I don't know that it has been provided, yet." Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been claiming a rigorous analytical basis for stopping the F-22 since early this year. Congress has been pressing the Pentagon for a vetted analysis of F-22 requirements since 2007, when then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England was directed to provide, within a year, a comprehensive tacair plan that would specifically explain how the number of F-22s had been determined. According to various members of Congress, he never complied with this directive.

[RFEngineer]

There must be some mistake. The F-22 is invisible, so why does it need flares? </s>

[Peter W. Kessler]

Hats off to the guys who fly those planes.

They must be the absolute best of the absolute best.

Wow!

[The Sons of Liberty]

You'd think that the pinheads in Washington, 0bama and his butt-boy Gates, would look at NK and Iran and figure our that there is no way the F-22 should be canceled.

[MarkL]

Oh no!!!!

He’s increasing his carbon footprint!

Mark

[EnjoyingLife]

"...Without a full complement of Raptors, America's aging fighters are more vulnerable, and hence more likely to be challenged. Complaints from the Air Force tend to be dismissed as the laments of spoiled fighter jocks denied the newest, hottest toy. But the picture on Rodriguez's wall reminds us of the stakes for the men and women in the cockpit. Countries such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea will be more likely to take on the U.S. Air Force if their pilots stand a fighting chance. This could well mean more air battles, more old-style aces--and more downed American pilots.

"The impact will not be felt only by aviators. Owning the sky is the first prerequisite of the way we fight wars today. Air supremacy is what enables us to send an elaborate fleet of machinery caterwauling over a targeted nation, such as Afghanistan or Iraq: the orchestrating AWACS ("Airborne Warning and Control System," the flying surveillance-and-command center); precision bombers; attack planes, helicopters, and drones; ground support; rescue choppers; and the great flying tankers that keep them all fueled. This aerial juggernaut enables modern ground-fighting tactics that rely on the rapid movement of relatively small units, because lightly armed, fast-moving forces can quickly summon devastating air support if they encounter a heavy threat. Wounded soldiers can count on speedy evacuation and sophisticated emergency medical care. Accomplishing all this with anything like the efficiency American forces have enjoyed since the Vietnam War depends on owning the sky, which means having air-to-air hunter-killers that can shoot down enemy planes and destroy surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites before the rest of the fleet takes to the sky. Superior fighters are the linchpin of our modern war tactics. Having owned the high ground for so long, we tend to forget that it is not a birthright.

"Unless the 21st century is the first in human history to somehow transcend geopolitical strife, our military will face severe tests in the coming years. The United States will be expected to take the lead in any showdown against a sophisticated air force. So it is worth examining the nature of air-to-air combat today, and the possible consequences of not building a full fleet of F-22s..."

Source: "The Last Ace" by Mark Bowden, The Atlantic (March 2009)
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200903/air-force
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force

[GBA]

Nice! Thanks for the wallpaper!

[usmcobra]

There must be some mistake. The F-22 is invisible, so why does it need flares?

To light up BC street, and Whisper Alley of course.

[Colorado Cowgirl]

You have been to the ROCK I see. 1972-1975 Kadena AB.

[usmcobra]

Futema Skid kid and damned proud of it.

[MosesKnows]

why does it need flares?

A superb question.

[Plutarch]

I don’t see anything in the photo but flares. Is there some sort of stealthy plane?

[AFreeBird]

>>>why does it need flares?

A superb question.

Because the minute you say you don't, and they're not there, is the minute you need them.

Kinda like those missing lifeboats on that unsinkable Titanic.

[GBA]

It’s not invisible, just stealthy to radar and IR detection, but not invisible. I imagine a good IR missile seeker could “see” it against a cold atmosphere, more so the closer it got to the F-22. A flare might be able to trick a really good seeker into thinking the flare was a better target than the F-22.

[Gantz]

With Obama's stated intention to cut back drastically on the number of these planes that the USAF can build for itself, perhaps Japan will have a better chance at getting these aircraft.

[myknowledge]

This Raptor is from the 1st FW @ Langley AFB (the FF tailcode). But specifically which squadron? 27th or 94th FS? I'm guessing the 27th, the Fighting Eagles.