It's official - the Raptor is operational

[gewing]

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

259647[/snapback]

 

 

 

Who has said Stealth + invisibility? The Raptor should be harder to locate than any other fighter with anywhere close to its performance, but it is not as stealthy as a B-2, supposedly.

 

I wonder whether weapons will be built with stealth features in a manner that will allow relatively low signature external carry, perhaps conformally.

 

 

It looks to me like the Russians are advertising at least some of their shorter range air defense systems as able to engage standoff weapons at least.

It would really suck to drop a couple precision guided bombs from a stealth aircraft after flying halfway around the world (example!) and have them be destroyed 5000 feet above their targets.

 

 

Another reason the US imo needs better shortrange Air defenses. oh well.

[Paul in Qatar]

Great! Just the thing for World War III!

 

In other news, how we doing on fielding armor kits for our wheeled vehicles?

[Koesj]

Great! Just the thing for World War III!

 

In other news, how we doing on fielding armor kits for our wheeled vehicles?

259692[/snapback]

 

Since this seems to be your standard response to every thread on this subject, where were you in 1985 advocating adding armor to humvees? Consequently, what makes you think you can adequately predict the situation in 2025 in such a way that haves you believing the US is better off without a necessary counter-air upgrade for the next couple of decades. I say there should be a push to include both ends of the tech spectrum, cutting the Raptor now (again) is foolish.

[Ivanhoe]

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.   

 

It occurred to me that there's a convoluted way to implement a surprise factor. Develop little cartridges that have a block of material that increases the RCS over a particular frequency band by the desired number of square inches. Have the cartridges mounted in ejector tubes like other countermeasures. Use the F-22 in joint field exercises with ROW forces, and let them conclude that the F-22 is detectable by X radar at Y range*. When its time to go hot in a real war, the pilot merely ejects the blocks (perhaps using compressor bleed air) and goes "invisible".

 

Of course, since I've thought of it, the US and/or Russia have probably already fielded such a system and trash-canned it for human/alien hybrid technology.

 

* One can just imagine the USAF nerds chortling with glee while reading all the online boards. Smug bastards.

[Ivanhoe]

I wonder whether weapons will be built with stealth features in a manner that will allow relatively low signature external carry, perhaps conformally.

 

If they haven't, I believe they'll need to. Two half-ton JDAMs aren't going to be enough, methinks, and I'm a little skeptical that SDBs will do everything a pair of 1000 pounders won't. I've been expecting a two-piece JDAM replacement system. A conformal bomb rack that precisely fits against the lower wing surface and provides a flat mount plate and sloped sides, and a "stealth JDAM" which has an upper surface mating to the bomb rack's flat surface. It'll increase the RCS quite a bit, but still would be one or two orders of magnitude better than an F-15. Four 2000 pounders plus maybe 4 AAMs internally seems like a good loadout.

 

Another reason the US imo needs better shortrange Air defenses. oh well.

259656[/snapback]

 

Yeah, the current paradigm of sweeping the skies with F-15s and Patriots isn't going to last much longer. Russia, PRC, and maybe India are going to be selling cheap UAVs and standoff missiles to whoever. I expect we're going to revisit SPAAG, maybe also a Sidewinder-based system on the Stryker chassis, and the inevitable air defense UAVs.

[savantu]

When did the F22 project started ?? I mean , the decision to build a new birdie ? 198x....

 

If anyone has got a link with the history of the project pls post it..Thanks!

[gewing]

If they haven't, I believe they'll need to. Two half-ton JDAMs aren't going to be enough, methinks, and I'm a little skeptical that SDBs will do everything a pair of 1000 pounders won't. I've been expecting a two-piece JDAM replacement system. A conformal bomb rack that precisely fits against the lower wing surface and provides a flat mount plate and sloped sides, and a "stealth JDAM" which has an upper surface mating to the bomb rack's flat surface. It'll increase the RCS quite a bit, but still would be one or two orders of magnitude better than an F-15. Four 2000 pounders plus maybe 4 AAMs internally seems like a good loadout.

 

Another reason the US imo needs better shortrange Air defenses. oh well.

259656[/snapback]

 

Yeah, the current paradigm of sweeping the skies with F-15s and Patriots isn't going to last much longer. Russia, PRC, and maybe India are going to be selling cheap UAVs and standoff missiles to whoever. I expect we're going to revisit SPAAG, maybe also a Sidewinder-based system on the Stryker chassis, and the inevitable air defense UAVs.

259725[/snapback]

 

 

AIm9x from ground mount might be interesting.

 

Or maybe use that sensor on a missile based on the rocket motor from the Amraam, so it has more range and higher speed than a sidewinder. Since we are building Humraam...

 

Or we could buy a LOT more Humraam.

 

 

I think that the program using modified Phalanx systems to defend the Green Zone is more in line with what we need. Though I would be seriously tempted to use the 35/1000 (millenium?) gun in a turret with 2+ missiles on the sides. Given the range of the 35mm, something with more range than Stinger might be useful.

[swerve]

When did the F22 project started ?? I mean , the decision to build a new birdie ? 198x....

 

If anyone has got a link with the history of the project pls post it..Thanks!

259817[/snapback]

 

http://www.f22fighter.com/timeline.htm

 

Google fu good today

[swerve]

why does everyone want to turn the F-22 into a bomb truck?  Despite this insane fetish with multi-role aircraft there is nothing wrong with having a dedicated air-superiority craft that has a secondary ground attack ability.  Leave the next generation bomb trucking to the UCAVs that are on the way.

 

As to the "raison d'etre" of the F-22, IMO said projects, just like continued MBT R&D, CV work, etc fullfill a vital role: To keep a level of experience and technical know how alive and well..these projects might be expensive, but putting things on the backburner and ultimately loosing your technical abilities and knowhow isn't a smart move either.  30+ years later when geopolitics turn around and bite you in the ass you have to throw even more money in playing catchup.

 

1) There is a role for an F-22 type strike aircraft, but not necessarily for the USA, which has other weapons. We could perhaps use one, for example, & I'm sure the Aussies would love a squadron of them to replace the F-111 (but would probably balk at the price). But rather than a fighter with a couple of bombs, I'd prefer a dedicated strike aircraft based on the F-22 (FB-22, anyone?), with a much bigger internal bomb load & greater range, & sacrificing whatever other capability & performance is necessary to achieve that, while keeping it stealthy.

 

2) Agreed. Most definitely.

[DKTanker]

I think going un-manned for the air to mud role makes the most sense.  IMO leave the F-22 as a dedicated fighter, used the JSF as a F-16 replacement, and develop dedicated UCAVs  for the precision strike role as well as ones to replace the A-10 et al. in the real dirty job of CAS.

259847[/snapback]

 

IF a UCAV can be made reliable enough for CAS why the need for any manned AC? Seems to me that it would be technically easier to have an unmanned air superiority fighter fleet than an unmanned CAS fleet.

[DKTanker]

How so?

 

UAVs have already deployed mavericks successfully.  What more does it take to transfer that capability to other weapon systems (hellfire, iron bombs, cannons)?  If the optics and other sensors are up to the task I don't see transferring the limited weapon capabilities to a more capable airframe and suite being a huge deal.

 

For eg, imagine night missions...whats the difference if the pilot is looking through his NVG and using the FLIR, etc etc from within a cockpit...or from a bunker a distance away?

 

IMO it makes sense to go man in the loop rather than man in the plane in the AtoG role first since its already being done in a limited fashion as we speak.

259878[/snapback]

 

Your arguments for why it's practical for an unmanned CAS aircraft are the same I would make for an unmanned air superiority fighter with the caveat that the wide open sky makes for a far less taxing envirornment than does the clutter associated with flying CAS.

[Ivanhoe]

AIm9x from ground mount might be interesting. 

 

I figure range is adequate for the amount of airspace a treadhead ought to be looking at, plus the ground vehicle could assist homing with a laser pulse every second or so. Plus, we can build Sidewinders by the thousands, so if OPFOR buys UCAVs in large numbers we can afford to knock them down in large numbers.

[Ivanhoe]

why does everyone want to turn the F-22 into a bomb truck?  Despite this insane fetish with multi-role aircraft there is nothing wrong with having a dedicated air-superiority craft that has a secondary ground attack ability.  Leave the next generation bomb trucking to the UCAVs that are on the way.

 

Because for each nation with quality fighter aircraft there are ten with quality SAMs and AAA. And has been seen in Iraq, OPFOR will be using a variety of tactics to prevent their air defense from being swept from the field on D+1. Even after the first wave of TLAMs and then Raptors softening defenses, there will be days if not weeks where the airspace is too dangerous for nonstealth aircraft. Having Raptors at altitude for SEAD is going to happen, might as well have a broad spectrum of munitions to deal with it.

[Michael Dekmetzian]

Even after the first wave of TLAMs and then Raptors softening defenses, there will be days if not weeks where the airspace is too dangerous for nonstealth aircraft.

 

Surely ARM equipped fighters are not useless with the introduction of stealth and UAV's?

 

What happens if some part has a critical failing which grounds the whole F-22 fleet, do we stop the war ?

 

I apologise if i'm sounding abrupt but i do think that our respective countries actually do pay fighter pilots to fly into harms way on occasion

 

[Paul in Qatar]

Since this seems to be your standard response to every thread on this subject, where were you in 1985 advocating adding armor to humvees? Consequently, what makes you think you can adequately predict the situation in 2025 in such a way that haves you believing the US is better off without a necessary counter-air upgrade for the next couple of decades. I say there should be a push to include both ends of the tech spectrum, cutting the Raptor now (again) is foolish.

259715[/snapback]

 

 

1985? Nope, sorry. I was doing Army stuff back then. By 1992 when I retired I was a Concepts Guy at the DCD at the Engineer School at FLW. I was an advocate for mineproofing kits for each and every wheeled vehicle. It never really caught on.

 

As for the Raptor, well, it might kill someone on purpose in the next five years or so. I would not want to bet money on it however. (That would be a great bet, how could we handle the administration of it?)

 

Really the Raptor is way cool. It is just a matter of priorities. Do we really need Raptors of seawolfs more than we need other stuff? Prioritization takes leadership. We don;t have enough of it.

 

I seem to recall that as soldiers we take risk. Here we avoid risk by trying to have everything. In fact we end up with not enough of anything.

[p620346]

"Just in time for the new Iranian campaign "

 

I think that an Ohio class SSBN with 24 x Trident D-5s would be the ideal weapon to use against Iran.

[JOE BRENNAN]

IF a UCAV can be made reliable enough for CAS why the need for any manned AC?  Seems to me that it would be technically easier to have an unmanned air superiority fighter fleet than an unmanned CAS fleet.

259875[/snapback]

Funny how each of these discussions settles on UCAVS...

 

The heart of CAS is deliver ordnance where engaged ground force says it's supposed to land. The main reason CAS planes have needed pilots for that key part of the mission is technological inability to tell the plane where the ordnance is supposed to land except by indicating the target somehow (or what's definitely not the target, ie. recognition panels) and having the pilot reaquire it. With JDAM etc the ground controller just tells the weapon directly. The artillery battery's eyes are the FO not the gunners in most cases. With geolocation weapons the planes eye's become the FAC/FO not the pilot.

 

Secondarily a pilot in a CAS plane may be a recon asset, but so can imagery from a UCAV, similarly to attack moving targets with say an LGB. CAS is amenable to UCAV's because the best fire control asset is on the ground not in the plane. There's no more reason to demand manned CAS only than direct fire artillery only. By the same token, manned CAS may have a continued role in some situations, like direct artillery fire. It doesn't justify a dedicated new generation of CAS planes though, which is 0% likely anyway no matter how many times proposed on TN. The point is there's a good reason it's not gonna happen.

 

In air superiority, or interdiction ground attack against moving targets that can't be pre-briefed, a plane has to acquire targets by itself* (not to mention avoid becoming a target), which is a hell of lot more computationally complicated than what a CAS a/c itself really needs to do: orbit a designated area. It will happen eventually but lets look at development cycle times realistically, and not for example assume that because F-22 (or EF or Rafale) have taken seemingly amazing periods of time to become operational, that's all incompetence and it could be done in a few years. In real procurement cycles air superiority UCAV's replacing manned air superiority fighters are still a few decades away IMO. I'm not speaking of breadboard experiments with computer hardware/software to prove feasibility, which may be sooner, but an operational system. Partly autonomous UCAV's controlled by air superiority fighters are not necessarily as far away. A semi black program was revealed a while ago to develop one for the F-22, though more for its SEAD role than air-air.

 

A general thing to remember about the F-22: many of its capabilities are black or semi-black. It doesn't mean it's the invincible super machine; it's just hard to evaluate it for that reason.

 

*given a modern concept for large scale UCAV force: the unmanned planes have to be mainly autonomous, not one for one "flying" of each by a guy at a console at all times.

 

Joe

Edited December 19, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Samson]

While probly being the biggest robotics supporter on this website I have to say that I believe we should procure the F22 in significant numbers at this time.

 

Not that I dont have faith in robotics/UAVs to perform many tasks...

 

The big hold up is in AI.

 

There is little question in my mind that a UAV could be made to out perform a F22 in every category given that you dont have to worry about the pilot at all. The one place where it wont be able to compete for some time to come is in intellegence. That wont happen by most predictions until after 2030-2040 timeframe.

 

In the mean time we may be able to come up with telepresnece, Virtual Reality so good that you might as well be sitting in the UAV but you are actually safe in an armored truck or bunker somewhere.

 

But that will take some time as well.

 

F22 is here now, ready to go, lets get some and enjoy the last of the maned fighters.

 

[JOE BRENNAN]

IMO if anyone is forced to fight with CURRENT CAS assets against a well equiped and determined enemy (especially one that has plenty of mobile or man packed AA systems) they are going to be in for a nasty surprise.

 

AC-130s have ALREADY proved to be extremely vulnerable...and IMO A-10s have had their glory from being able to attack with relative impunity that could easily change.

 

260189[/snapback]

But that's the usual labelling of CAS as a plane(s) and not a mission, which is rapidly declining in validity. In the modern and future circumstance where the eyes are on the ground and communicate with the weapon, the idea that the A-10 is a "CAS plane" but the F-35 isn't becomes questionable. As also often comes up on these threads, there aren't any A-10's in Iraq recently; the current mission, with a lot of surveillance, is best done by planes with better IR/EO/Laser pods as well as GPS weapons: which are fast jets pending A-10 upgrades.

 

That said, as I said it might well be advantageous to use UCAV's for a lot of that mission instead of either. Because of their virtue of longer endurance, and lower cost; for the type of CAS UCAV I'd envisage, Predator like and/or the USAF's hunter killer initiative, not some super J-UCAS style thing comparably expensive to a manned plane. Against higher threats you use fast jets with again the man in loop on ground saying, directly to the bomb, where it should land. Also that whole way of operating, even with slow planes, discounts the value of MANPAD's a lot which can only go so high if light enough to carry, the plane OTOH doesn't have to come low, the fire control device is the FAC at zero altitude (though possibly looking through the advanced FLIR imagery from the CAS UCAV). To those who'd bring "cost" up as objection to the smart weapons, I don't think that's a realistic assessment of modern (US) military cost structure. The percentage of the mind boggling cost of a 150k man force in Iraq that is/was aerial ordnance is tiny, JDAM-like v. dumb is negligible in the big picture.

 

The AC-130 is a separate category IMO, also one of those systems that was going to be useless once US forces came up against real enemies.... for 35+ yrs. Six AC-130 combat losses were in Vietnam, one since, so while it's true it's long proven it can be shot down, the fact it can has also long not meant it has no mission. Whether to build a replacement gunship (perhaps LO) is a separate question, from whether to build a specific A-10 replacement for which the answer is clearly going to be "no" as far as US and should be.

 

One extreme in general is the view I intrepret as Paul in Saudi's "scrap everything now and future that's not key in Iraq right now" (well maybe he'd allow some higher end *Army* spending ). Kind of another extreme is "what about the future land wars v. armies fully outfited from the Russian "Military Parade" magazine/catalog"? I think in general future opponents the US would sanely fight *on land* and vice versa will tend toward assymetric, more like Iraq than Military Parade; on the other hand the US needs strong general high end air/maritime superiority forces. The F-22 is a keystone there, to get back to that topic.

 

Joe

Edited December 19, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Ivanhoe]

I see one potential with the archetypical postmodern CAS routine of high altitude bomb trucks dropping PGMs as directed by ground forces. This type of scenario works well when blue forces can stop, hunker down, employ their Tom Swift gear, and watch the USAF implement foreign policy. But will this work when blue forces are either in full retreat or full pursuit? Seems like a lot to ask of the guy on the ground.

 

And how about CAS when blue forces are near OPFOR but not in contact? I can imagine a human-human voice call such as "We're on Hill XYZ, the bad guys are traveling northwest over Hill ABC, can you drop some cluster on them?" Without stopping, lasing, map reading etc it sounds like a hard task for that Co CO without offloading some of the brainwork to a human pilot.

[Rubberneck]

Out of the top 20 procurement programs, 19 are from the USN (includes USMC) and the USAF. The only USA program in the top 20 is the Future Contracts System, which should be scuttled or at the very least cut in half to free up procurement funds for getting the equipment we are using right now back to 10/20 standards.

 

A-10's are used in Afghanistan extensively.

 

Agree with the AC-130 comment - can survive well in the LIC/4GW world, questionable survivability in a conventional conflict.

[JOE BRENNAN]

I see one potential with the archetypical postmodern CAS routine of high altitude bomb trucks dropping PGMs as directed by ground forces. This type of scenario works well when blue forces can stop, hunker down, employ their Tom Swift gear, and watch the USAF implement foreign policy. But will this work when blue forces are either in full retreat or full pursuit? Seems like a lot to ask of the guy on the ground.

 

And how about CAS when blue forces are near OPFOR but not in contact?

260307[/snapback]

Rapid movement and esp combined with "enemy" forces just out of contact are the classic cases where planes operating semi-autonomously end up bombing their own forces. I could agree to the point where a UCAV operating on its own brain in that situation would be even more dangerous than a manned plane but I wouldn't propose it. I don't agree though that right equipment and techniques to control CAS weapons more directly limit mobility or take more time in general than coaching in pilots. I think that sort of positive control has greater advantage in fluid situations than static ones actually; besides bombing yourself there's the multiple of times over that you don't bomb at all to avoid the possibility.

 

The doctrine of most ops is still separate zones where planes will act autonomously and those where they need clearance from the ground, some sort of bombline, whatever the current jargon. Hunting moving targets beyond the bombline is a manned (fast jet) mission for awhile. Delivering within the bombline is something fast jets can do well in most cases too (esp as technology and techniques to hand off targets directly to the weapons continue improving), but I think something UAV's will be particularly good at because: much longer orbit endurance than fast jets or A-10's and vastly cheaper than platforms like B-1/52's with long orbit endurance (I'm thinking Predator B-like not stealthy J-UCAS-like price). They can be more numerous to extend continous support to lower command levels on ground, yet still quickly concentrate at a critical point (the basic advantage of all planes in ground attack). They can also pick out targets themselves via remote operator when forced to.

 

That's an attractive improvement in capability I think will happen, fast jets are still needed for a multitude of missions, you can't have everything: new examples of slow dedicated CAS planes won't be developed and shouldn't be. Neither should new attack helicopters, though there's more potential institutional inertia on that one. Existing examples of both are sunk costs so a different proposition. It makes sense to continue operating them til they wear out.

 

Joe

[SILL2]

Funny how each of these discussions settles on UCAVS...

260135[/snapback]

 

Because, for the moment, R/C airplanes are the Cheryl Tiegs in fishnet at the Senior Prom. Attracts a lot of attention and leads to many wet dreams, but no indication of going home with anyone.