It's official - the Raptor is operational

[pluto77189]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013572

 

'bout freakin time!

[Samson]

Awsome. Finally, a weapon program success! I am going to get shitfaced tonite!

 

[Scott Cunningham]

I was talking with an F-15 pilot a few weeks ago and he had a pretty high opinion of the Raptor. Basically the F-15 and F-16 are about as good as anything else out there, and pilot skill makes the difference, but with the Raptor it isn't an even fight

[Chris Werb]

Awsome.  Finally, a weapon program success!  I am going to get shitfaced tonite!

 

259215[/snapback]

 

This must be some new usage of the word 'success' that I hadn't previously encountered.

[Burncycle360]

First stop, India!

[Josh]

I was talking with an F-15 pilot a few weeks ago and he had a pretty high opinion of the Raptor. Basically the F-15 and F-16 are about as good as anything else out there, and pilot skill makes the difference, but with the Raptor it isn't an even fight

259227[/snapback]

 

I believe in simulations a lone F-22 downed 5 F-15's in about as many minutes. It wasn't clear what exact configuration of F-15's it engaged though; I assume a later mark. That would imply a rather large leap in capability; I think an F-15 would have a hard time duplicating that success rate against its predecessor the F-4. Of course they cost several times as much as well, but the R&D is a sunk cost anyway so I say buy whats paid for and proven to be suprior.

[Rod]

Just in time for the new Iranian campaign

[larrikin]

Given its profile I suppose it had to be publicized that it was operational, but could you imagine the reaction if they had let it just quietly come on line while telling people it was still not up to speed. Then some poor mook has a real WTF moment.

 

No way, of course, that they could pull an F117 with the Rupture.

[bigfngun]

Given its profile I suppose it had to be publicized that it was operational, but could you imagine the reaction if they had let it just quietly come on line while telling people it was still not up to speed.  Then some poor mook has a real WTF moment.   

 

No way, of course, that they could pull an F117 with the Rupture.

259300[/snapback]

 

This type of response prompted me to ask for a moratorium on another forum (F16.net) on personal attacks towards a weapons system. Last time I checked the Raptor isn't alive and doesn't have an ego to bruise. Making fun of its name won't make it feel sad. If that is the extent of your issues with the F-22 and having nothing more substantive to back it up you have provided absolutely NOTHING to this discussion. For ex: "yeah Raptor sucks!!" is not an argument.

 

Mr. Larrikin you further arm your critics here that you are nothing more than a knee jerk America hater.

[gewing]

Given its profile I suppose it had to be publicized that it was operational, but could you imagine the reaction if they had let it just quietly come on line while telling people it was still not up to speed.  Then some poor mook has a real WTF moment.   

 

No way, of course, that they could pull an F117 with the Rupture.

259300[/snapback]

 

 

while it would be humorous...

 

 

"I don't think so Tim."

[nitin]

This type of response prompted me to ask for a moratorium on another forum (F16.net) on personal attacks towards a weapons system.  Last time I checked the Raptor isn't alive and doesn't have an ego to bruise.  Making fun of its name won't make it feel sad.  If that is the extent of your issues with the F-22 and having nothing more substantive to back it up you have provided absolutely NOTHING to this discussion.  For ex: "yeah Raptor sucks!!" is not an argument.

 

Mr. Larrikin you further arm your critics here that you are nothing more than a knee jerk America hater.

259315[/snapback]

 

Uh are you confusing Larrikin's views with those of BS?

 

Re: the Raptor- I wonder, is it really that good or have the exercises been set up thataway? Ricconi has been very critical of the prime aspect of the Raptor- its RCS.

 

Plus its claimed that the EF while in the US detected the Raptor.

Edited December 17, 2005 by nitin

[larrikin]

This type of response prompted me to ask for a moratorium on another forum (F16.net) on personal attacks towards a weapons system.  Last time I checked the Raptor isn't alive and doesn't have an ego to bruise.  Making fun of its name won't make it feel sad.  If that is the extent of your issues with the F-22 and having nothing more substantive to back it up you have provided absolutely NOTHING to this discussion.  For ex: "yeah Raptor sucks!!" is not an argument.

 

Mr. Larrikin you further arm your critics here that you are nothing more than a knee jerk America hater.

259315[/snapback]

 

Wow!!!! Talk about a knee jerk.

[Rickshaw]

Uh are you confusing Larrikin's views with those of BS?

 

Perhaps because we both live in Australia?

[gewing]

Uh are you confusing Larrikin's views with those of BS?

 

Re: the Raptor- I wonder, is it really that good or have the exercises been set up thataway? Ricconi has been very critical of the prime aspect of the Raptor- its RCS.

 

Plus its claimed that the EF while in the US detected the Raptor.

259383[/snapback]

 

 

 

We discussed him a few months ago.

 

I think we came to the conclusion that HIS conclusions may not be 100% valid.

[Garth]

Uh are you confusing Larrikin's views with those of BS?

 

Re: the Raptor- I wonder, is it really that good or have the exercises been set up thataway? Ricconi has been very critical of the prime aspect of the Raptor- its RCS.

 

Plus its claimed that the EF while in the US detected the Raptor.

259383[/snapback]

 

I can't speak to Ricconi, not having seen that particular analysis, but the several studies critical of the F-22's RCS that I have read have been flawed in that they assume that the F-22 is going to have all-aspect stealth like an F-117 or B-2.

 

It isn't, and it wasn't designed to. It's a fighter and therefore design tradeoffs had to be made - some stealth had to be sacrificed in the name of speed, pilot visibility and maneuverability.

 

The simple fact that it has afterburners (requiring afterburner-capable exhaust plumbing) seriously screws with the RCS from some aspects (like the rear of the aircraft). The head-on aspect has the best RCS, and it slowly degrades as you move around the aircraft.

 

When you consider what the role of the aircraft is, it's RCS profile makes absolute sense. An enemy just won't be able to see a Raptor that's coming straight at it. And the enemy won't be left to take advantage of the poorer RCS as the Raptor is moving away.

 

--Garth

[FlyingCanOpener]

while it would  be humorous... 

"I don't think so Tim."

259343[/snapback]

 

You forgot this:

 

[JOE BRENNAN]

Plus its claimed that the EF while in the US detected the Raptor.

259383[/snapback]

Come on. That's been "claimed" about every LO a/c and some weapon somebody wants to sell (perhaps like some claims for the F-22, caveat emptor all around). The statement is meaningless without two qualifications we're not going to get in reliable sources (not "somebody said"): operating at full RCS discretion?: I don't know of any exercises between F-22's and foreign a/c, pretty sure none actually, we couldn't be sure of combat level RCS even then, and in some situation where they happened to just be flying in general airspace someplace off a range probably not, what's made past such claims dubious. Then even assuming it was, what range and aspect, anything is detectable close enough.

 

The EuroFighter btw hasn't reached formal IOC at least with the RAF. It was supposed to be around now til fairly recently (you can still find that date Googling) but currently scheduled for Q3 2007 air defence only, austere air-ground mid 2008 (this is Tranche 1 planes) per AWST article October 17 '05. I haven't seen reliably for LW, GOTI's implying next year.

 

Joe

Edited December 17, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[bigfngun]

    Wow!!!! Talk about a knee jerk.     

259385[/snapback]

 

Oh. I'm sorry I didn't realize that you were an objective critic

I'm sure you will now explain how the F-22 is over hyped by bringing up the facts you have found.

[bigfngun]

Perhaps because we both live in Australia?

259389[/snapback]

 

Damn! You found me out I hate Australians.

 

If there is a valid criticism of the Raptor we can discuss it. Go to F16.net it's been covered there as well as on Tanknet. Saying something sucks or using a wisecrack isn't a detailed argument.

[bigfngun]

We discussed him a few months ago. 

 

I think we came to the conclusion that HIS conclusions may not be 100% valid.

259401[/snapback]

 

It's right here.

 

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showt...verest+riccioni

[Ivanhoe]

Perhaps because we both live in Australia?

259389[/snapback]

 

Yeah, all you guys look alike.

[larrikin]

Oh.  I'm sorry I didn't realize that you were an objective critic

I'm sure you will now explain how the F-22 is over hyped by bringing up the facts you have found.

259421[/snapback]

 

The term 'Rupture' was coined by the USAF as a comment on the unit price after the Congresscritters reduced the buy numbers. It has absolutely nothing, nada, niet, not a fucking thing, to do with it's capabilities. When have I ever given any indication of being an American hater, or of being a critic of the F22 program. The only beef I have with it is that it is too expensive for the RAAF, but then again, it's too expensive for anybody but the USAF, so I can live with that.

[Rickshaw]

Damn! You found me out I hate Australians.  

 

If there is a valid criticism of the Raptor we can discuss it.  Go to F16.net it's been covered there as well as on Tanknet.  Saying something sucks or using a wisecrack isn't a detailed argument.

259423[/snapback]

 

 

I agree. However I wasn't offering one, merely noting that I agreed with Larrikin that you're over-reacting a little bit to his off-handed remark.

[Rod]

It seems tha they dropped the "A" from F/A-22. Now is back to F-22. Good thing.

 

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1529.html

[wallaby bob]

Since the majority,(if that's an appropriate term) of energy from an interrogating radar beam is redirected away from the transmitting source, ie not reflected directly back to the source. I believe only the smaller fraction is absorbed by RAM ( radar absorbing material) it follows that a low observable airctaft/target can still be observed by synchronised radars operating from others locations. Obviously not as well but certainly not precluded. Given modern communications the ability to link two,or more, radars for such usage is routinely achieved.

I guess many of us have forgotten or never even realised that the earliest radar demonstrations(?) used commercial radio broadcasts and merely detected the change in the electromagnetic field(?) caused by the presence of an aircraft or other reflector. These were of course almost lacking in the abilty to provide target information but given co-operating radars,which are synchronied in time and frequency,this is no longer true.

Still many posters here appear to believe thar Low Observability = invisibility this has never been claimed by any responsible authority. The aim seems to be able to close to a distance,unseen, at which the enemy's effective reaction time is inadequate to mount a defence. WB