TyphoonTrying to predict future US confrontations is speculation, but we can make some educated guesses. All the potential hostile major powers are in no position to go on the offensive and Europe is likely to remain a close ally of the US over this period. No power is going to overcome the effect of the nuclear deterrents over the next few decades either. This leaves the US facing less developed countries like Iran or being sucked into the third world (Somalia) and war on terror (Afghanistan/Central Asia) type conflicts.
The F-22 unlike the F-35 just doesnt fit well into these kinds of conflict, as a result the F-35 will provide the bulk of future US aircraft, in a way it could be considered that the F-15 fleet has already recieved its successor.
That's not the point. Continued acquisition of the F-22 is a result of a the necessitated priorities of the USAF to successfully wage potential future combat operations according to its established doctrines.
The whole decision to defer F-22 production until a future date at which more can be made is exactly what that stems out of.
Let's dispense with the "F-22 is built for an obsolete purpose" mantra shall we?
Its already been stated several times now that it is quite good in as a multi-role platform. USAF combat doctrine has always relied on on a "Hi-Lo" mix of combat aircraft to carry out its missions, and the F-22 was specifically designed as the natural successor to the F-15C in that role. The present conflicts being waged today have never required the extensive use of airpower in any other purpose than CAS sorties, so exemplifying those as if they will be the future of all US operations is highly disingenuous.
The F-22A completely rocks as a precision strike bomber with JDAMs and SDBs. That's why it's a door-kicker vs a well-intergrated IADS. Lofting bombs at targets whilst flying at 50,000ft, supersonic on dry thrust, is
extremely badass.
IRST may not nessasarily be 5th generation technology but it is a vital piece of 5th generation equipment.
Again, not really. Either way the F-22 is advanced enough that it can do away with employing an IRST system simply because its other features are better and offer a greater tactical advantage in combat anyway.
Since IRST systems start out as significantly inferior in range and other capabilities compared to radar, the IR signature suppression on the F-22 doesn't have to be quite as ambitious as that of its RCS in order to get the desired effect. The F-22 would instead use datalink, the ALR-94, and its onboard LPI radar to detect other fighters first in order to gain a tactical advantage at greater range.
While we're on the subject, this is probably why the Lockheed design team felt that they could do away with the F-22's IRST for the time being--it really wouldn't provide enough of an advantage unless it was to have been some kind of "Super-IRST", and the technology for that probably doesn't exist yet. Some people like to point out the paradox of a stealth fighter not having an IRST while many other modern fighters do, but the "goal" of the F-22 is to achieve air dominance with overwhelming tactical advantage, not to be absolutely stealthy per se.
Again, until some kind of long range "Super IRST" tech comes around, there's no need for an aircraft like the F-22 to need it. It'd be redundant for its primary role.
It makes perfect sense for the F-35 on the other hand, with it being tasked for more multi-role combat sorties and all.
When the PAK-FA or equivilent comes into service we could well see a point where IRST will be able to detect aircraft before radar.
When pigs fly...
....or when better IRST tech comes around that allows for a greater detection range.
Either way, let's not delve into feckless speculation shall we?
Since the stealth aspects employed by 5th generation aircraft work best for the centimeter wavelength used by aircraft. The F-22 relies on an active target to allow passive detection, in a passive-passive situation then F-22 could well be blind to the enemy and detected first, the F-35's optical system allows it to overcome this problem.
Highly doubtful to be honest.
Both the F-22 and F-35 have LOAN exhaust systems which help to keep their IR signatures in line with the rest of their LO RCS'. Besides, the F-22's top coat redirects most of the energy in IR wavelengths to other, less exploitable wavelengths (it probably serves as RAM, too). Aside from trying to keep everything cool inside, dumping as much heat from other areas of the airframe as possible into the exhaust, the IRST system wouldn't be able to pick up much in your passive-passive scenario.
In all likelihood the two aircraft would already be WVR by the time IRST could even detect the heat corona from the F-22's engines. Which in itself wouldn't occur in a passive-passive air engagement. It would come down to which aircraft had the more powerful LPI radar suite, or alternatively could rely on the datalink from an extremely high-powered active system blowing through the LO-RCS to feed the necessary targeting data. IRST is just too short ranged.
The IRST in the F-22 was cut to reduce cost as at the time it was deemed unessasary, that was the past however and it has left the F-22 with a big flaw.
Again....that's simply not true.
It was cut because it was redundant. IRST wouldn't be needed for the F-22's avionics package when it comes to long range target acquisition.
The F-22 will require further modification in the future to keep it competitive in air combat, which is an additional cost. Intregration of the sensor as a pod or by modifying the nose could also compromise the stealth features of the aircraft.
*sighs*
You're branching off into an unnecessary tangent.
If the PAK-FA gets off the ground this year it will be a very small gap
When's that supposed to fly again? August?
I'll believe any date you say, at this point I just want to
see the thing in the air given how often the Russians seem to push back the maiden flight date after saying they were "nearly ready". They once claimed it would fly in 2007, then 2008....now 2009. So you can understand my reluctance to take their statements at value.
Part of me doubts the PAK-FA will even qualify as an actual fifth generation fighter however; Russia has simply been too poor to make the necessary investments in stealth technology R&D. My guess is the PAK-FA will turn out to be Russia's modernized cheap F-35 equivalent, just more along the lines of a 4.5 generation fighter similar to the Typhoon.
It'd make sense since it'd be the culmination of all these other aircraft designs that Sukhoi has been throwing out over the years and giving new names (despite most of them just being evolutionary Su-27 derivatives), and especially since the PAK-FA is intended to replace the aging MiG-29 and Su-27 fleets.
From what i've heard the only two things that would ostensibly qualify it as a 5th Gen aircraft would be its Supercruise (nothing new) and internal weapons bay features.
the bigger problem though is not timing but substance, the US and Europe may field the F-35 sooner but if the aircraft turns out to be a lame duck then early deployment is not going to count for much in the long run. The F-35/PAK-FA could end up being a repeat of the F-15/Su-27 problem, the Su got off the ground later but it is a superior aircraft design.
Oh I have no problem with the substance of the designs the US and Europe will be fielding at all. Western designs have enjoyed an established edge over their Russian counterparts for some time now. Not to mention other important air combat factors like training and organizational doctrine.
I also don't know where you're getting off on the Su-27 being superior to the F-15.
The Eagle has the better radar (better pilots too), more Thrust-to-Weight, can fly faster, higher, lighter, and has a
perfect combat record. The only thing the Flanker really can boast in is a longer range and a 1,000lbs more armament.
I'd take a vanilla F-15 over a vanilla Su-27 any day of the week.
TyphoonI honestly don't see why the USA would even need so many stealth air-superiority aircraft to begin with. Yes, the F-22 naturally kicks arse... but at 200 million a pop, it's hardly cost-effective.
How many times must I repeat that the individual unit cost of the F-22 wouldn't even be so high if the original production order hadn't been cut as it was?
The same thing happened with other aircraft like the B-2.
I'd personally like to see a lot more funding to ground units. How about more durable and effective tanks? Better body protection for soldiers? Better fighting equipment and weapons? For the price of just a handful of F-22s, you can do so much...
The F-22 is mostly a political and economical thing. It has more to do with economical and political pressure, than national security, and that's a sad thing. The USA is already light-years ahead in terms of conventional technology, ahead of any other nation on Earth, and it's the only one capable of producing aircraft like these (even if other nations can acquire them). The Chinese and Russians aren't even close to something like this, but still stand a chance in conventional war, because other segments of the American military have been neglected.
F-22 are designed to kill other fighters, not hold ground, not press wounds, not effectively defend soldiers in tight spots. Where are the better attack helicopters, or advanced tanks?
And here we come to the crux of this thread. So allow me to allow
someone else from another forum I post at to summarize in words more eloquent then my own:
The discussion of the how many F22 platforms are to actually be built underscores the dilemma the US military as a whole (not just the USAF) has with regard to defense procurement and force projection doctrine in this century.
Regardless of which aerial platform is to be chosen or designed in the future; these designs will be expensive if they are to provide and sustain the qualitative edge the USAF and US military doctrine have come to expect. Although Defense Secretary Gates has made it clear he wants to plan for future threats AND ALSO have US Defense procurement address the needs of conflicts currently ongoing; he will find the devil of cost cutting the expense of future oriented platforms will be in the details of exactly what manner of quality he wishes the USAF forgo in terms force projection and air superiority.
Since the onset of the GWOT post 9/11 as well as the initiation of the Iraq campaign '03, the USAF has been generating an unseemly amount of sortie hours per tactical platform for F15, F16, as well as its aging and limited bomber force. These sortie rates per platform have been expensive, and as the two campaigns have dragged on past half a decade; burdened the USAF with airframes the lifetime hours of which are being used at a rate greater than expected. In a nutshell; airframe hours designed to last until 2025 or 2030 are being expended at a faster rate as the F15 and B1 fleet are forced to sustain tactical missions whose cost benefit ratio exceeds their impact on the battlefield. A cursory look at modern aviation and defense journals highlights commentaries and concerns regarding how the USAF's vaunted airpower is being used against undervalued targets which are undermining these platforms' ability to sustain themselves into the middle of the century as expected. While I don't ever wish to convey the sentiment that saving one American serviceman's life is not worth the high cost of these sorties; these costs have to be factored into the reality that what we use too much today undermines our ability to support our serviceman in the future.
To the point; there is no question the USAF will have to purchase additional F22s in the future; this is mere reality and one the current Defense Secretary will simply push onto his successor. That Gates feels he has to cut production to trim costs is understandable given the state of America's current fiscal crisis, but this decision is not in sync with what USAF structure demands will be in a decade. The USAF's fleet of F15 and F16s are becoming overused and more expensive to maintain with each passing year. Despite commentaries by liberal wonks and Congressional staffers asserting the USAF's current platforms can sustain themselves well into this century and still be as effective tomorrow as they are today is fantasy and not in line with the constraints and cost of maintaining today's technology in today's aircraft for tomorrow's war. Second, despite public commentaries advocating the prowess of the F35, many within the USAF and aviation industry harbor doubts as to this platform's ability outside of its multi-role design. A jack of all trades is a master of none in most cases, some see it as a platform with compromised parameters. Indeed, I like many aviation enthusiasts feel a platform designed to do many various missions rarely does any one mission well. (And before I hear contrarian comments asserting both the F16 and F15 are successful multi mission platforms; one must remember they are nevertheless TWO separate designs which have transmorphed over the last 30 years into multiple variants to the cost of billions of dollars.) That the F35 (JSF) is cheaper than the F22 (ATF) should not make it the driving decision to be the only aircraft which the USAF has to rely upon. Moreover, and I wont belabor the point in this thread; the "pound per ground" ability of the JSF has yet to convince me it is worth its design and production costs!
First, one simply cannot accept the USAF will be able to operate/sustain 187 aircraft in a vacuum of no future airframes if one is to take into consideration training accidents and operational mortality. If the USAF is to design a doctrine around the F22 than it will have to be able to sustain that doctrine making room for more aircraft following attrition. Second, the debate over the cost of the C17 should be remembered; and how that debate structured the number of C17s to be procured. While indeed the original number of C17s planned was curtailed dramatically, the number as then envisioned to be procured by the USAF increased due to force lift demands by the US Military and the attrition of older platforms no longer viable to sustain the mission. Thus, I feel confident that what Gates says today will be the final amount of F22s to be produced in no measure will successfully limit the number eventually made. All emotion aside, I can see no way around additional F22s in the future given all the sunken development costs that have been made for the assembly of this platform.
Mark his words, because I couldn't agree with them more. The F-22 is not cancelled nor dead. It's simply a pause in production.
Igor AutunovicThat's a complete opinion piece and not representative of reality.
The russian PAK-FA is just as advanced (and expensive) as the F-22. Technologically russia is not way behind, she just can't afford these cost-ineffective toys.
The PAK-FA is a phantom....
I hasn't even flown yet, so your claims about it being more advanced (or expensive) as the F-22 have no substance what so ever.
When it flies (and when official design specifications about it get released)
then you can just on the dick-waving bandwagon.
One prototype has been built, tested and flown. Final design will fly in August of 2009. It's reality. Outright dismissing it won't make it go away.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
No prototype of the PAK-FA has flown yet (that's supposedly happening this year, but I doubt it), and a final production design is
years from being operational.
TyphoonContrary to belief the Su-27 is a very advanced aircraft, it was the MiG-29 that was the low cost, mass produced and rugged alternative. The Su-27 was the culmination of over 10,000 hours of aerodynamic testing and implimented a lot of innovative features, which is why it outperformed any of the other major fighters of the time, until the F-22 arrived.
Thanks for the laugh Typhoon.
The PAK-FA should fly by the end of this year with the first aircraft being constructed by KNAAPO now. No imagary exists because the aircraft doesnt exist yet and its top-secret. The only design we have are graphics released by NPO Saturn to demonstrate its next generation engine, though we dont know if the graphic in any way resembles the final product. Though there are a lot of interesting pointers as to what the PAK-FA will resemble in terms of technology and design.
As i've said, the Russians have been saying that for more than three years now.
I'll believe it....
when I see it.
- By Rancid
- By litwin
- By wat0n