Sukhoi passes into obselence as the 50th Raptor is delivered.
- Thread starter dannytoro
- Start date
IDonT said:
Hopefully it won't be another f-4 vs mig17 shit, you know the plane that in paper was unbeatable...the one that forced the airforce to go for Red Flag. Remember that?
One wise man said once "all that flies irremediably comes down...".
And super cruise that means shit, just low cost propaganda.
...Aaaaaaand it's online! According to defencetalk.com, US has officially declared their F22 squadrons operational.
Exact numbers i don't have but would love to know (if someone can supply us with them) but it's safe to assume it's over 50, or at least two full squadrons. Current plan, approved by congress, calls for 183 delivered Raptors which will be made operational into 7 squadrons.
Question now is, since this is sinodefence after all, where will those squadrons be placed. Will, for example, a permanent home for at least one of them be on okinawa or perhaps guam?
Comments and guesses are welcome
Exact numbers i don't have but would love to know (if someone can supply us with them) but it's safe to assume it's over 50, or at least two full squadrons. Current plan, approved by congress, calls for 183 delivered Raptors which will be made operational into 7 squadrons.
Question now is, since this is sinodefence after all, where will those squadrons be placed. Will, for example, a permanent home for at least one of them be on okinawa or perhaps guam?
Comments and guesses are welcome
ger_mark
Junior Member
a war against iran is getting more and more relistic
the last statements have been relatively ignores
but his last one was enough israel said it will attac if that goes on and bush is calling for axis of evil
some more speeches of the iranian president and we will see some lightshows on cnn
the last statements have been relatively ignores
but his last one was enough israel said it will attac if that goes on and bush is calling for axis of evil
some more speeches of the iranian president and we will see some lightshows on cnn
The Americans don't need F-22's to attack Iran. Wait a minute, they actually might need them considering the fact that Iran does have a good supply of S-300 missiles protecting their nuke facilities. Question is, will the US attack with the current situation in Iraq? I doubt it. Bush and Israel can scream all they want but an attack is out of the question. The F-22's are more directed against China than against any other country now.
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
well, the opponent may be russia aswell. the u.s is not going to deploy the f-22 to japan immediately after induction. 50 simply isnt enough to disperse so far. perhaps by 2015, the u.s will have at least a few hindred f-22s(maybe not with budget cuts...) and some will be in japan. but by then, china will have j-xx for defence.
Skycom Type 2
New Member
Raptor expensive techno toy?
The more I learn about the f-22 and military affairs in general the more I think the f-22 is the American equivalent of the German maus super heavy tank. The maus tank is a derivative of the German king tiger, it weights some 190 tons and is armed with 150mm main gun and 75mm secondary, complete overkill when you consider that the king tiger weighting 60 tons with 88mm main fulfills the same purpose of a slow heavily armored and armed tank.
The cheapest price I heard was 250million for 300ish f22’s; currently number I am hearing is 300 million for each for a total of 150ish f22’s. Considering that the f16 costs 25 million you could have a 10-1 ratio of f16’s to f22’s.
Now I read somewhere that during a simulation of 4 f22’s vs 16 f16s with the ability to respawn, continue fighting after it had been shot down to simulation overwhelming numbers, the f22’s did achieve a 10-1 kill ratio. However keep in mind that using these test parameters the f22 would have been outnumbered is 4 to 1 on average, also in real life the f22 only carries 8 missiles.
You could argue logistical benefits of having one super fighter compared to 10 f16’s, 1/10 the fuel/maintenance. On the other hand it can only perform 1/10 the number of missions, one plane can only be in one place.
Lastly and possibly the f22’s most damning trait is its near inability to attack ground forces. Due to the need for low RCS it carries everything inside, which in turn means very limited volume for weapons. Even if you could bolt on extra bombs, which would skyrocket the RCS, the f22’s lack of armor means it needs to stay above 15000feet/5000m or risk becoming a 250+million dollar fireball.
So besides a non-noticeably decrease for the time it would take to destroyed he Iran air force, the f22 really brings nothing to the table, except a very expensive target.
Final note: the f22 may have been very good for what it was designed for, taking on hordes of Soviet aircraft, but where is the soviet union now.
The more I learn about the f-22 and military affairs in general the more I think the f-22 is the American equivalent of the German maus super heavy tank. The maus tank is a derivative of the German king tiger, it weights some 190 tons and is armed with 150mm main gun and 75mm secondary, complete overkill when you consider that the king tiger weighting 60 tons with 88mm main fulfills the same purpose of a slow heavily armored and armed tank.
The cheapest price I heard was 250million for 300ish f22’s; currently number I am hearing is 300 million for each for a total of 150ish f22’s. Considering that the f16 costs 25 million you could have a 10-1 ratio of f16’s to f22’s.
Now I read somewhere that during a simulation of 4 f22’s vs 16 f16s with the ability to respawn, continue fighting after it had been shot down to simulation overwhelming numbers, the f22’s did achieve a 10-1 kill ratio. However keep in mind that using these test parameters the f22 would have been outnumbered is 4 to 1 on average, also in real life the f22 only carries 8 missiles.
You could argue logistical benefits of having one super fighter compared to 10 f16’s, 1/10 the fuel/maintenance. On the other hand it can only perform 1/10 the number of missions, one plane can only be in one place.
Lastly and possibly the f22’s most damning trait is its near inability to attack ground forces. Due to the need for low RCS it carries everything inside, which in turn means very limited volume for weapons. Even if you could bolt on extra bombs, which would skyrocket the RCS, the f22’s lack of armor means it needs to stay above 15000feet/5000m or risk becoming a 250+million dollar fireball.
So besides a non-noticeably decrease for the time it would take to destroyed he Iran air force, the f22 really brings nothing to the table, except a very expensive target.
Final note: the f22 may have been very good for what it was designed for, taking on hordes of Soviet aircraft, but where is the soviet union now.
Re: Raptor expensive techno toy?
You're comparing fly away price of f16 with combined flyway and R&D price of f22. Since i don't know how much R&D of f16 is i'll tell you that current flyaway cost of one f22, according to US, is 138 million. Sure it's still far more expensive, no one is denying that.
I agree with you there. There will be only so many F22s. But I guess that's why there will also be other kind of planes in USAAF. Raptor is meant to be used as a first strike weapon, a cutting knife to weaken the defences, after which its job is done and other, less costly and less stealthy craft move in to take care of remaining targets.
First of all, F22 doesn't NEED to be as stealthy. It's an advatange its field commanders can choose to use on a mission per mission basis. when they see fit, they can use the underwing pylons, giving it 8 additional amraams and two fuel tanks, or whatever different array of weapons they see fit. Granted, i don't see that happening often, certainly not in the opening hours of a conflict, when air dominance hasn't been achieved yet.
Secondly, it's silly to say it's almost unable to do air to ground missions. It can carry two 1000 pound weapons while still being able to protect itself with carrying additional 2 amraams and 2 sidewinders. It can also carry a combination of 250 lbs small diameter bombs, which can be pretty useful. So while it does not carry as many bombs as a f16, it can handle its share. It all comes down on targeting anyway, which raptor is at least just as good at as newest f16. Besides, it's just as armoured as any plane out there (save for a10 and the like). f16 would be just as vunerable, actually more since it has bigger RCS and would be easier to target a missile at.
It's bringing stealth to the table. Not the f117 or b2 kind where if they're targeted they're as good as dead but stealth that is coupled with the most sophisticated air to air combat system and great flight performances. It would be deadly to engage a raptor one on one. I actually believe sending a horde of aircraft versus a f22 flight would be best way to go about it, if you have to to do air to air combat at all. As good as it is, it has limited ammo supply and if by any chance you can get enough of your planes close enough - you will shoot it down. One good thing for it's enemies is that it's not the fastest plane around, talking about maximum speed possible. Sure, afterburners eat tons of fuel but if you can afford it and burn it, you can catch up with an ammo empty f22 and blow it to bits.
Skycom Type 2 said:
You're comparing fly away price of f16 with combined flyway and R&D price of f22. Since i don't know how much R&D of f16 is i'll tell you that current flyaway cost of one f22, according to US, is 138 million. Sure it's still far more expensive, no one is denying that.
Skycom Type 2 said:
I agree with you there. There will be only so many F22s. But I guess that's why there will also be other kind of planes in USAAF. Raptor is meant to be used as a first strike weapon, a cutting knife to weaken the defences, after which its job is done and other, less costly and less stealthy craft move in to take care of remaining targets.
Skycom Type 2 said:
First of all, F22 doesn't NEED to be as stealthy. It's an advatange its field commanders can choose to use on a mission per mission basis. when they see fit, they can use the underwing pylons, giving it 8 additional amraams and two fuel tanks, or whatever different array of weapons they see fit. Granted, i don't see that happening often, certainly not in the opening hours of a conflict, when air dominance hasn't been achieved yet.
Secondly, it's silly to say it's almost unable to do air to ground missions. It can carry two 1000 pound weapons while still being able to protect itself with carrying additional 2 amraams and 2 sidewinders. It can also carry a combination of 250 lbs small diameter bombs, which can be pretty useful. So while it does not carry as many bombs as a f16, it can handle its share. It all comes down on targeting anyway, which raptor is at least just as good at as newest f16. Besides, it's just as armoured as any plane out there (save for a10 and the like). f16 would be just as vunerable, actually more since it has bigger RCS and would be easier to target a missile at.
Skycom Type 2 said:
It's bringing stealth to the table. Not the f117 or b2 kind where if they're targeted they're as good as dead but stealth that is coupled with the most sophisticated air to air combat system and great flight performances. It would be deadly to engage a raptor one on one. I actually believe sending a horde of aircraft versus a f22 flight would be best way to go about it, if you have to to do air to air combat at all. As good as it is, it has limited ammo supply and if by any chance you can get enough of your planes close enough - you will shoot it down. One good thing for it's enemies is that it's not the fastest plane around, talking about maximum speed possible. Sure, afterburners eat tons of fuel but if you can afford it and burn it, you can catch up with an ammo empty f22 and blow it to bits.