The SecurityArms Message Forum

The SecurityArms Message Forum (http://securityarms.com/forums/index.php)
-   Aircraft (http://securityarms.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   The Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor. (http://securityarms.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81)

UZI4U 04-28-2006 05:26 PM

The Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor.
 








What more needs to be said?

Mk23 05-15-2006 02:29 PM

My rather depressing question...
 
Is it ever going to see combat?


All the damn paper pushers are keeping them from being deployed out of the continental USA because there's no 'projected threats that can't be met by aircraft already in theatre' or some shit like that.

JCoyote 05-15-2006 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mk23
Is it ever going to see combat?


All the damn paper pushers are keeping them from being deployed out of the continental USA because there's no 'projected threats that can't be met by aircraft already in theatre' or some shit like that.


There is likely just a bit more to it than that. Putting them in combat in other parts of the world sees risk of one getting shot down otherwise forced to land and then losing control over some advanced technology developed for the craft. Seriously, even without ever getting hit a plane can go down. So, as long as the other things we have are up to the task, I'd keep them here. When it starts looking like those other things can't provide absolute air superiority, then we bring the F-22's to the party. :)

UZI4U 05-15-2006 05:03 PM

People said the same things about the B-2 fleet, yet it has seen combat in every major American conflict seen since it was put into service.

The B-2s cost ten times what the F-22s will, per each. They also carried much more advanced tech for the time they were introduced than the F-22 does now [considering how much tech has advanced in that time].

Then again, one must keep in mind that there is considerable weight to the theory that each B-2 has an integrated 500 ton nuclear device for self-destruct, in the event that it should be lost over unfriendly territory.

But of course, we could do the same thing with the F-22s...

JCoyote 05-15-2006 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UZI4U
People said the same things about the B-2 fleet, yet it has seen combat in every major American conflict seen since it was put into service.

The B-2s cost ten times what the F-22s will, per each. They also carried much more advanced tech for the time they were introduced than the F-22 does now [considering how much tech has advanced in that time].

Then again, one must keep in mind that there is considerable weight to the theory that each B-2 has an integrated 500 ton nuclear device for self-destruct, in the event that it should be lost over unfriendly territory.

But of course, we could do the same thing with the F-22s...

Yes but a B-2's one shot run over enemy territory is nothing like daily sorties. The risk and loss potential on a B-2 mission is very low and most times they aren't used long term. We run B-2's for a few days in engagements, but our fighters provide aircap for months on end.

Also, even if a B-2 did go down, and even if some people did get ahold of a bit of tech from it, it's a LARGE integrated system. We are pretty much the only nation in the world that can even afford to have the damn things. The very expense is a protection. The F-22 on the other hand... Britain, Israel, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, perhaps China and lord knows India in a few years... could all make serious use of any piece of F-22 they can get. I know, a lot of those are allies. Even so, they are entitled to their own secrets and so are we.

Also, the B2's are never actually fielded from outside the US. They are maintained and stationed here, some of them just a few miles from my house. When they bomb something they go over there and come back. They never land or take off from a runway that isn't stateside. But the F-22's can't run aircap sorties from the other side of the world. They'd have to be landing and taking off from airfields in that zone. Big difference. Maintaining security is hard enough over there.

And... as for capability... the planes we had from before are fine for maintaining long term aircap. They don't need to use their top speeds the vast majority of the time. And previous fighters just can't keep up speed for too long. The F-22's on the other hand... supercruise lets them rundown anything in their range at supersonic speeds. That is a significant advantage in any sort of 9-11 replay. The ability to run a true supersonic interception, and not just dash, is pretty much unique to the F-22. It's not needed there, but here it might be.

Mk23 05-15-2006 07:56 PM

In other words...
 
You're saying that the proper use for the F-22A Raptor is...


A 338 million dollar hangar queen.

UZI4U 05-15-2006 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mk23
You're saying that the proper use for the F-22A Raptor is...


A 338 million dollar hangar queen.


Try 110 million, All the 300+ million dollar tags include development cost, the fly-away cost is much less.

And it won't be a hangar queen once the Su-47 gets exported [and that won't take long].

Don't forget about MiG 1.42, which seems to have attracted the attention of NATO again, suggesting Russia has been doing more research on it than thought.

Do I need to mention the JAS-39 and Rafael, both of which will undoubtedly be exported to our enemies [no offense to Roger]?


The F-22 is badly needed, we should have had it three years ago, and we need four times as many as we have on order.

JCoyote 05-15-2006 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mk23
You're saying that the proper use for the F-22A Raptor is...


A 338 million dollar hangar queen.


No, I'm saying it's currently deployed for national defense. Given the amount of airspace we have here, and the fact that we don't have fighters in the air all over 24/7, the F-22 is great for defense here. Mach 2 is nice, but if you can only pull it for 5 minutes it doesn't do that much good. The F-22 is exactly whats needed to get things fast without having to run a continuous air cover.

Whereas the places we are deployed HAVE a continuous air cover. While the F-22 would be good there, it'd be a bit like issuing anti-tank artillery against medieval knights. What we already have in the air there is already far beyond anything we've run into. So the extra advantages of the F-22 would be pointless anyway. Until we run into something more challenging, it's better to leave the world in the dark about what our best stuff can really do.

The B-2 on the other hand, has no air defense role. It's only use is to pound things a long way away. The F-22 is an air dominance fighter. It's for defense. So keep the best defense where it's most important. Here.

Jabroni 05-22-2006 09:43 AM

The YF-23 was more advanced than the YF-22 but still got turned down being more expensive too, There are roumours that it will come back as a strike aircraft designated FB-23.







http://ash-institute.web.infoseek.co...plane/yf23.htm

The F-22A Raptor looks well better than its YF-22 Lightning 2 prototype that looked like a 'flying bathtub with stupid oversized tails'

JCoyote 05-22-2006 02:50 PM

Yeah, I was sad to see the YF-23 lose the contest, I'd liked it a lot better. It looks less conventional... but damn... it looks sexy and intimidating too!

There were reportedly some issues with its approach for weapons carriage in its internal bays. But perhaps those could be worked out.

I would think an "FB-23" with enhanced range (drop tanks perhaps?) could be very handy. Supercruise with a relatively stealthy fighter could really surprise the hell out enemies, without needing stuff in the air as diplomacy is still pursued.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SecurityArms.com 1995 - 2009