Big-ticket F-22 Raptor jet fighter has never seen battle

Anchorage Daily News ^ | August 13th, 2011 | W.J. HENNIGAN

[skeptoid]

It's the most expensive fighter jet ever built. Yet the F-22 Raptor has never seen a day of combat, and its future is clouded by a government safety investigation that has grounded the jet for months. The fleet of 158 F-22s, including those in Alaska, has been sidelined since May 3 after more than a dozen incidents in which oxygen was cut off to pilots, making them woozy. The malfunction is suspected of contributing to at least one fatal accident, in Alaska. At an estimated cost of $412 million each, the F-22s amount to about $65 billion sitting on the tarmac. The grounding is the latest dark chapter for an aircraft plagued by problems and whose need was called into question even before its first test flight.

[DesertRhino]

“The Sherman was a terrible tank, but your right if you got enough of em you can win”

Yes, if you think of it in Gladiator terms, one vs one. But the Sherman wasnt terrible if you actually needed to roll somewhere. The Shermans amazing mobility, speed and reliability was an utter embarrassment to anything the Germans ever fielded. They were also super easy to produce.

But Shermans kicked the Nazi butt in several battles,,and won the war. Every advantage of German tanks came with world class flaws,,, which were soon exploited by T-34s and Shermans.

[Chode]

too funny, ya won't believe this, but i'm watching the original True Grit right now

[cracker45]

“Corrosion is a big issue; it wasn’t addressed properly during design.”

Do you have any evidence of that? FYI, corrosion is ALWAYS an issue...

JC

[Nowhere Man]

Heh, reminds me of a game I was playing once (Warbirds) and you would killed as soon as you sat in your cockpit. Turns out there was a guy who parked his B-25 Mitchell (the one with the 75mm cannon) on the runway right behind where new planes would regenerate. As soon as they appeared in front of him, he would just pull the trigger and obliterate them. It took me a while to figure it out.

I am sure an F22 could get shot down, no weapon system is infallible or invincible, and 50% of the F-22 pilots have to graduate in the lower half of their F-22 class...

Heh, I think that was one game where a co-worker always flew a Stuka and he was so reckless as to take on Allied aircraft in dogfights with it. He did get his licks to be sure but he did manage to bring down P-51's and P-47's with the Stuka.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Wonder what 10,000 drones each armed with 2 JDAMS would cost?

[rlmorel]

Wow... I saw the remake when it came out in the movies, and...I thought it was a nice tribute to the original.

Then, I rewatched the original...no contest. There is no Rooster Cogburn like John Wayne. Jeff Bridges did okay, but...there was a likableness to John Wayne's Rooster that Jeff Bridges just couldn't match. I gained a new appreciation for Kim Darby, but I will admit, every time I saw Campbell, I just thought "Man...what is it with that hair???"

Of course, when I saw Matt Damon, all I could think of was..."Matt Damon."

[rlmorel]

Heh, if you are good enough, and your opponent is not...it can be done!

[Chode]

really... at least he's not a F.A.G.

[rlmorel]

Boy, is that sad. I had no idea what had ever happened to him. When I looked, he has apparently been diagnosed with Alzheimers.

[Chode]

yup... i still like his old music

[lmsii]

I don’t know where this guy is coming from. The F22 Raptor is the best all around fighter there is. No county has anything better and the F35 doesn’t even, and never will, come close.

In a dog fight, if 5 F-15’s cant beat a single F-22, nothing can (at least that is currently flying).

The reason zero killed the program was to make sure that the US does not have a superior weapon system. It is like everything else, he wants to kill this country.

If I were going to destroy a county, I would do everything that zero has done. And low and behold. . . .

[Java4Jay]

A unique situation of dissimilar corrosion between the surfaces of the carbon skin and aluminum structure, not the normal corrosion one finds in other aircraft.

[Java4Jay]

Plus they have to stay dry, a big problem.

[gura]

You said it. We need to go hi-lo on our air superiority mix with the F-22 and the F-15SE. The F-15 can actually house a better radar due to it’s bigger nose cone.

[Monorprise]

“
Yes, if you think of it in Gladiator terms, one vs one. But the Sherman wasnt terrible if you actually needed to roll somewhere. The Shermans amazing mobility, speed and reliability was an utter embarrassment to anything the Germans ever fielded. They were also super easy to produce.

But Shermans kicked the Nazi butt in several battles,,and won the war. Every advantage of German tanks came with world class flaws,,, which were soon exploited by T-34s and Shermans.”

With all due respect every part of the Sherman’s armor was a world class weakness. Americans usually had to call in air-support to destroy the German tanks. Their speed and numbers(ease of manufacturing) were nice, but the same could be accomplished with ever greater effect had we just used Jeeps equip with a cannons.

Pound for pound the German army was a far superior fighting force then anything in the western acenel. That is a fact we have to learn to accept, we were in fact woefully unprepared for world war 2, our arms were in many respects 2nd rate at best.
The only thing that pulled us thou were the relatively tiny size of our opponent’s ultimate fighting capacity.

In the next war this is likely NOT to be the case, which means we either have an overwhelming pound for pound fighting edge over them or we lose.

[spetznaz]

You can include the T-34 tank from the Soviets as well. I always argued that we need more of an F-5 (well, F-20 to be more up to date) type vs F-22. Perhaps we can see a middle ground with an updated F-15 wit the F-15SE Silent Eaqle, either or, you have more proven technology with various tweaks to update it.

What you say makes a lot of sense. The only question I would ask is doesn't it make it more of a fair fight for any potential adversary? By this I mean that a F-20 type fighter (or for that matter, a middle-ground technology like an updated F-15) would be easier for an enemy to match. Already the latest generation Flankers are a match for Eagles/SHornets, and will continue to be so as they get AESA MMRs and better engines. I am not saying that the Chinese or Russian airforce would defeat the USN/USAF (or even the Australian airforce's SHornet force), because any modern engagement in the air has more to do with systems (e.g. the coalesced/force-multiplied result of the fighter+the training+the support systems+networking+situational awareness etc). So, it doesn't mean that the PLAAF will be defeating the USN/RAAF anytime soon ...but the fact does remain that when it comes to airframes the latest foreign analogues are become a match (or more in some specific areas) vs legacy Western fighters. Which brings up the 'what if' the foreign forces invested in training and networked support systems with enhanced/augmented situational awareness?

Anyways, that is my concern. That investing in F-20 type (actually, let me focus on F-15 type since in your post you mentioned updated Eagles like the Silent-E) ...that investing in updated Eagle variants basically puts us at closer parity with foreign forces than we would have with the Raptor. An updated Eagle would have better avionics, and in particular an AESA MMR. So will the upcoming Flankers who are already testing their own AESAs, and in some cases engines capable of low-level supercruise. Again, it doesn't mean they will win! I would rather be part of a flight of South Korean F-15K updated-Eagles than in a flight of SU-35s flown by (insert non-Western airforce here), but in terms of individual airplane vs individual airplane the gap that was there between the MiG-23 and the F-14 TomCat will simply not be there between the SU-35 (and similar evolved Flankers) and the F-15K/SG (and similar evolved Eagles). The two airframes, with AESA radars and updated avionics, and more or less equal. That is dangerous in a fight against a near-peer adversary, because it is a fair fight and in fair fights it might be your nose that is bleeding. What about the F-15SE? Well, it is basically a F-15K type updated-Eagle that has weapon bays molded into its conformal tanks (and other stealthy treatments like canted tails and RAM coatings) to enhance its RCS. Well, there has also been some work on a similar system for the Flanker (link: http://paralay.com/bm/flanker2010.jpg), to create more or less a 'Silent Flanker.' Again, even if it is not to the level of the Silent Eagle (I am sure their knowledge of RAM coatings for instance may not be as advanced as that of the West), the fact still remains it is a far larger gap than existed between the MiG-23 and the F-14 (or even between the MiG-29/SU-27 vs the F-15). It becomes more and more a fair fight, with the only advantage in the West's favor being its better training, far better situational awareness/networking, and (put together) a better system. That advantage is sufficient to ensure the Blue Side wins against the Red Side, but what if the Red Side puts more money into training and more funds into situational awareness? Then what?

Hence the Raptor in my opinion. Even against new airframes (such as the PakFa and the various J-XX Chinese variants, of which the first - the J-20 - popped up earlier this year) with higher stealthy ratings than legacy fighters, the Raptor is still better than those fighters. Furthermore, the Raptor still has loads of growth potential, meaning that by the time the PakFa/JXX gets to a point where it is equal to the F-22A, by that time there might be a F-22C (or even a new aerial fighting system, in much the same way that by the time the advanced Flankers started becoming a match for the F-15s people were talking F-22).

As for cost - yes, I agree the cost is a bother. No doubt. However, new build F-15SG (basically an upgraded F-15E sold to the Singaporeans that has an AESA radar) types are going for over $100m (I am actually quite curious as to the cost of the F-15SG to Singapore, because the cost of the F-15K to South Korea, which doesn't have an AESA radar, was $100m per plane in 2006 ...which makes me wonder what the same plane with an AESA would be? Basically currently F-35 costs for a plane that is 4.5gen). Thus, if that is the cost of the middle-ground, isn't it better to get actual stealthy fighters than 4.5gen fighters for almost the same cost?

Another alternative would be to enhance some of the avionics of existing fighters (e.g. putting AESAs into current F-16s - for instance the RACR and SABR 'commercial' AESAs that can be put into existing Vipers), but that would also be an expensive proposition.

If I had my way, and in regards to American national defence I do not (which may be a good thing lol), what I would do is keep the current numbers of F-22As (that Bush and Obama froze). However, I would open the production lines for F-22Cs (the proposed variant that had smart skin, side-facing radar in the cheeks, advanced EODS from the F-35, etc) and build maybe 2-3 hundred of them (the sunk cost was already paid for). That's a total force of about 450 Raptors (the 186 As and the rest Cs). I would also ensure that the F-35 program has a fire lit underneath its behind. As a safety measure, there would be an ongoing process on delving into possible mid-life upgrades for the newest build F-15/16/18s as a safety-net measure just in case the F-35's problems are too complex from a commercial perspective.

Anyways, sorry for the long post. I could have summed it far more succinctly by simply saying that I agree with the point you are trying to make (from a cost perspective, as well as from the perspective of 95% of the possible foes that the US would be facing - mostly third world nations that upgraded F-4 Phantoms would probably suffice), but my concern is that when one looks at possible near-peer adversaries, the only thing giving the US an advantage (when it comes to legacy platforms like the F-15/16/18) is the better training and layered support/situational awareness systems. From a plane vs plane perspective any advantage in legacy fighters has undergone attrition. Yes, there are currently hundreds of F-15s compared to the smattering of latest generation Flankers (with most of those being the ones used by India), but in the next decade you will see more and more advanced Flanker types used by countries we may not necessarily like. It concerns me because it is a fair fight, and personally I think those should belong to the movies. Unless I cannot help it, I would rather have the gattling gun with the other guy having the flintlock rifle (or better yet, again if I can help it, a slingshot). Apologies for the long post.

[1010RD]

Bingo! That’s the future of air power. All pilots are grounded and go home for dinner.

[1010RD]

Correct. Resource superiority won the day, not our technical proficiency...with one exception - code-breaking.

[1010RD]

It comes down to this: America doesn’t waste its people.

Pilots are people, they’re valuable. If you’re going to send them up, do so in such a way that they win and win and win and come home safe.

Ideally, air combat with live pilots will end within the next seven years.

[spetznaz]

Exactly. In a fair fight there is always the chance that you’ll be the unlucky one that day. In an unfair fight it is basically clubbing baby seals. Even with the latest Eagle (be it the K, the SG with AESA, or the Silent E) it is more of a fair fight against the very latest foreign analogues. With the Raptor it becomes a very unfair and unfriendly fight. As for UCAVs - I don’t know whether it will be 7 years from now, but it is the future (at the very least a mix of manned with unmanned). Also, with cases like the stealthy Blackhawk used during the Osama raid coming from nowhere, plus stories of F-35 AESA jamming the F-22’s AESA, it makes one wonder what is available (or in the developmental stages) that we do not know about. Even though that Blackhawk was not really high stealth or even that special, the very fact that it existed means that black projects are still around.