Is the F-22 the best modern combat aircraft?
Also, it can be considered as a multirole?
>best modern combat aircraft
That would be the F-15. Get a few kills under your belt and we'll talk kid.
>>30667106
>Is it the best ASF?
Yeah, probably.
>Is it multirole?
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 could also carry bombs but its still a fighter.
Still, what /k/ fails to understand is that no plane is better than its pilot or support structure.
>>30667214
Even if a war broke out they'd just use F15C's because of the fear of losing an F22 and its technology possibly getting into enemy hands.
>>30667238
obama had no problem letting them bomb syria
>>30667214
The F-4 has even more kills so it must be even better, or wait, the P-51 has a huge ammount of kills, it must be much better than a F-22.
If the F-22 was worse than the F-15, then why would you build F-22s at all?
>>30667106
Probably, it's the ultimate Air Superiority Fighter at the moment, or so is agreed, so most likely.
And it's not multirole, it's a fighter. Though afaik there are plans for a multirole variant that could drop bombs, F-22B I think it was called, not sure if they went through with the development though.
>>30667214
>Serivce record is an objective mesurement of supieriority.
So let me guess, the Hurricane was better than the Spitfire, right?
>>30667245
Mo money fo dem contractors
>>30667247
The F-22 can drop JDAMs or SDBs, they did that in Syria from 30 000 feet to prove that it had been *combat tested*
>>30667243
ISIS has no air defence , it probably dropped JDAMs from an altitude where Iglas can be ruled out.
>>30667214
As stated if the enemy aircraft shot down by F-15s would have had equally good pilots and support structure/tactics as the F-15s had things would have very different
better support/pilots =/= better plane
>>30667250
>>30667245
> I missed the point completely.
The F-15 is combat proven in modern IADS and has over 100 kills.
The only thing the F-22 has ever done in actual combat is drop bombs. It is unproven and nowhere near taking the USAF fighter crown.
>>30667106
In the air to air role, yes. No, its not really a multi-role, even though technically it has the ability to carry air to ground ordinance.
>>30667282
Sure its a great fighter with a great service record, but the F-22 is still a better plane.
>>30667282
>It is unproven and nowhere near taking the USAF fighter crown.
A fun thing about the F-15 is that most of those kills isnt even USAF.
>>30667282
Is the Hurricane better than the Spitfire, because it had more kills?
>>30667268
They weren't concerned about ISIS, they were concerned that busting into Syrian airspace and dropping bombs without permission might cause Syrian air defences to engage; the F-22s were there to perform SEAD / DEAD and strike missions if that were the case.
>>30667106
>Also, it can be considered as a multirole?
Definitely; the very definition of multirole is an aircraft that can perform multiple roles in combat, eg: shooting down aircraft or bombing things on the ground. The vast majority of combat aircraft around the world are multiroles.
>>30667106
>>30667247
>>30667258
>Also, it can be considered as a multirole?
It can drop bombs, but its only ground attack sensor is its radar. Compared to the radar, EO-TS, EO-DAS, and ASQ-239 Barracuda on the F-35. And to drop LGB's it needs a secondary targeter plane.
>>30667282
>F-22 vs F-15 engagements aren't even worthwhile, as the F-22 gets to just decide when to pick the F-15 off without the F-15 knowing what happened
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7MwfcjCa0
>>30667282
The P-51 was proven in a modern IADs too (for its time)
F-15 probably wouldn't fare well in the year 2500 before you start pissing and moaning
the F-22 will be the last purebreed fighter interceptor in history.
of course it's good, it's the best at what it does, but soon enough we'll be wondering if what it does is useful in the wars of the future.
F-35 is better than the F-22
>>30667282
Listen, I love the F-15, it's my favorite jet fighter of all time.
But.. it's time to let go. There is a new Emperor of Air Superiority. and that's just okay. It is a worthy successor, and our Papa Eagle would be proud to call the Raptor his son.
Just as the Falcon fans must allow the F-35 to take its rightful place atop the Multirole Throne, we must pass the baton to the new champion.
>>30667546
If the F-22 went against the F-35 in a 1v1
who would win
>>30667561
Honestly? I don'y know.
The avionics and detection equipment aboard the F-35 are substantially superior as of right now, as the F-22s have yet to be outfitted with new gear...
So, probably the F-35 most of the time. The F-35 has better integrated stealth technology, so would have a massive first-shot advantage, but in subsequent exchanges, the F-22 could outmaneuver the F-35.
I'd give advantage to the F-35 for sure, though.
>>30667593
the F-22 also has slightly better stealth from all angles, so it could negate some of the 35's sensor advantages.
honestly, an upgraded F-22 with the F-35's package would be a rape engine the likes of which have never been seen.
>>30667612
That's what they plan to do, there is concern that F-22 operating systems are unable to support some of the new equipment though.
As upgrades roll out I'm sure they'll either find a fix or develop new software to accept the new capabilities though.
the USAF is leaps and bounds ahead of anyone on the face of the planet right now, and when the LRSB and F/A-XX finally kick into overdrive, there's not a snowball's chance in hell of anyone getting close.
>>30667633
And then they are gonna start putting directed energy weapons on aircraft
And everyone else might as well quit the military aircraft industry.
>>30667546
I've seen more Hornetfags get really salty about the F-35 than people that like the F-16, honestly.
Probably something to do with muh naval aviation
>>30667282
Ironically, most of the F-15's kills come from Israeli pilots.
>>30667661
kek
>Today the Russian Federation announced it would be mothballing its entire inventory of combat aircraft, and dissolving the RuAF, saying "the Americans are too far ahead, they'll either shoot our shit out of the sky and laugh at us, or sell equipment to our enemies, and laugh at us when our shit gets shot out of the sky. We'd much prefer to spend our extra military budget on obscene levels of vodka to keep the conscripts complacent."
>In unrelated news, the PLAN announced it has equipped it's newest naval fighter, the "definitely not American-inspired" J-62 with a laser canon. They so far have denied accusations that this laser cannon is a bootlegged astronomy laser pointer.
>>30667612
The F-35 is referred to on numerous occasions as having better stealth than the F-22, at least in the X-band.
Might not have as good IR reduction measures but the F-22 has no IRST anyway
>>30667661
As soon as directed energy weapons become prevalent and long-range I don't see aircraft surviving very long.
>>30667247
FB-22 was a dedicated medium bomber that never got past the drawing board.
Shame too, because it could've killed so many sandniggers.
>>30667730
>yfw even the current F-22 costs as much to fly as a strategic bomber anyway, rendering its role as a strike craft pretty fucking redundant
1. No
2. Lolno
>>30667238
you are so fucking stupid adsafafjfojifojaiewfo;jia
Mirage III
>>30667106
>Is the F-22 the best modern combat aircraft?
It's by far best at one part of fighter operations, air to air combat, in everything else it's pretty mediocre. Given the weapons integration status and avionics capabilities are today overall best fighter is one of following: F/A-18E/F, F-15E, Eurofighter Typhoon or Rafale.
>Also, it can be considered as a multirole?
In theory, but it sucks in air to ground use.
>>30667230
>The Messerschmitt Bf 109 could also carry bombs but its still a fighter.
Back then difference between fighter and attack aircraft was much smaller than today when it comes to bomb delivery. No targeting pods, really complicated avionics or weapons integration like it's now.
>Still, what /k/ fails to understand is that no plane is better than its pilot or support structure.
Very true, if pilots, logistics, combat support and sizes of air forces are close to parity, plane may make a big difference.
>>30667561
Depends on atmospheric conditions and engagement set up. In heavy weather or cloud cover, without the F-35 passive optical/IR sensor advantage? Probably very even/slanted to the F-22. In absolutely clear skies? F-35 has the edge in passive detection. In 4 on 4? Edge to the F-35 because of the LPI send-receive comms/sensor fusion between jets. Now, once the F-22s are upgraded with proper IR/optical A2A systems, full HMD cuing and MADL, that balance shifts back to the F-22 in nearly all situations. It will be a little while until that happens, though. F-22s are being upgraded by block in rolling progams, but so many of the resources are currently going into getting the F-35As fully operational. Once the F-35A is IOC (in the next month or two) and FRP is achieved, we will begin to see accelerated upgrade programs for the F-22 to bring them up to standards (possibly even reclassifying them to F-22Bs if the upgrades are substantial enough).
We will probably never see a full DAS system on the F-22, but I would not be surprised to see an upgraded EOTS plus MADL in addition to heavily upgraded processing hardware.
>>30667238
>fear of losing an F22 and its technology possibly getting into enemy hands
If they shoot down an F22 and it crashes into the ground in pieces on enemy territory, what could they possible profit from a bunch of burn wreckage?
It's probably highly unlikely that an F22 would perform an emergency landing in hostile territory, they probably tell Raptor pilots that if they know they won't make it back to base, then they must try to destroy their plane. Drive it into the ground.
What can possibly be recovered from that?
>>30670418
Even without IR the F-35 has a sensor advantage over the F-22.
But the thing is, it doesn't matter, because in real combat the F-35s will be acting as a sensor net that sics F-22s on bandits.
>>30667712
>energy weapons become prevalent and long-range
Well, two things here: line of sight and atmospheric density. These two variables put hard limits on energy weapon range, in addition to the soft limits imposed by detection/tracking methods.
The horizon and weather conditions drastically affect a ground based energy weapon's range. Atmospheric density at ground level plus weather conditions also negatively affect the power required to effectively destroy a target at range (high humidity, lower altitude, fog/cloud cover, atmospheric particulate count all drastically increase the power required for a laser to deliver the same energy on target at distance).
Furthermore, detection becomes an issue as well. When aircraft are firing long-range standoff weapons from outside an energy weapon's targeting envelope, it then becomes a simple equation as to whether the energy weapon can detect and engage incoming small VLO munitions far enough out to have enough time to engage and destroy all of them before they reach the AA mount itself or their intended target. It's a familiar problem in terms of AShM saturation attacks against SAG/CSG/ESG naval groups.
TLDR: it's not an absolute of "achieve widespread energy weapons = no more aircraft", but still a complex equation and give and take between offensive and defensive detection, tactics and technology.
>>30670497
>What can possibly be recovered from that?
Smaller bits of not so burnt radar absorbing materials and possibly some bits of electronics for analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if a F-22 would crash or got shot down in hostile territory, crash site would be bombed into oblivion.
>>30670501
>Even without IR the F-35 has a sensor advantage over the F-22.
The F-35 has more sophisticated processing and LPI capabilities in the active radar, but the F-22 still retains a larger array in area and T/R module numbers with still excellent processing and passive processing. I would say they're close enough so as to be nearly a tossup.
>>30670507
Aircraft, unlike ships, can "kite" inbound missiles
>>30670550
This. Remember pic related. This gave both the Russians and the Chinese a lot of very big clues about the F-117 and VLO tech in general.
>>30670568
>Aircraft, unlike ships, can "kite" inbound missiles
Ships possess orders of magnitude more transmit power, array area, EW processing and decoy/spoofing capability.
Remember, defeating missiles kinematically (through maneuver) is the least effective way to escape a missile that you cannot outdistance before fuel/energy depletion.
>>30670591
If by "clues" you mean "you can tell where an aircraft will be if it flies the same route every day and becomes complacement, before violating your own rules of engagment to down a single aircraft", then yes, I guess.
>>30670611
Well we're talking about energy weapons here, so by kiting I meant extending the engagement time on inbound missiles.
>>30670565
It's not just the radar, it's the passive RF/EWO array that's way more advanced than the F-22's RWR.
>>30670615
you're an idiot stop posting
>>30670648
Thanks for the well thought out rebuttal
>>30670615
And get lucky and the bomb bay is open when you shoot so you've got a return to shoot at.
>>30670648
Quiet kid, the adults are talking.
>>30670615
>If by "clues" you mean "you can tell where an aircraft will be if it flies the same route every day and becomes complacement, before violating your own rules of engagment to down a single aircraft", then yes, I guess.
I was not discussing the shootdown itself, only the R&D yields from dissecting its corpse. These were substantial and avoidable but for the neglegence of USAF mission planners and the diligence/cleverness of a Serbian AA crew.
>>30670678
Tech that was by that point 18 years old and rudimentary.
>>30670678
With the impact damage and fires, it's not likely they got that much. Even the Russians state the expected RCS of the PAK-FA as being in Eurocanard range.
>>30670638
>Well we're talking about energy weapons here, so by kiting I meant extending the engagement time on inbound missiles.
Ship based EW does this same thing while also providing a much higher non-kinetic kill pK. I would argue that ship-board EW and other countermeasures will always retain an edge over aircraft countermeasures, including maneuver. However, due to how locked down EW details are within the USN, I fear this is a question we may never have an answer to.
Also remember how power limited aircraft are. Think about how much power generation you require to project significant energy on an intercept target, and then think about what a modern fighter platform, even one optimized for energy generation, could provide. There's a reason they tested airborne lasers in airliner-sized platforms.
>>30670698
>>30670700
You're both forgetting just how big an effect this event and the 1991 flawless demolition of the Iraqi IADS had on Russian and Chinese procurement, area denial strategies and R&D resource shares. There were profound shifts across the board in both militaries by 2003 once the lessons were fully absorbed, and local lessons being enacted as early as 1995. The tech windfall from the F-117 only reinforced the trend and gave several hints about where research would bear fruit.
>>30670725
Except that it mainly led to development of more dead-end ground IADS systems that still likely can't effectively protect airspace against current white-budget stealth, and that's not even considering what could be going on in the black-side ops and R&D.
>>30670725
>Tech windfall
By the time the F117 was shot down the F-22 had been flying for 2 years.
The tech was basic as hell. Acting like it shifted their program forward considerably when in reality it was overwhelmingly obsolete
>>30670754
>Except that it mainly led to development of more dead-end ground IADS systems that still likely can't effectively protect airspace against current white-budget stealth, and that's not even considering what could be going on in the black-side ops and R&D.
There's a difference between developing a stopgap until you catch up with VLO aircraft systems which also serves as a gate/limiter on access (nothing not VLO through here, etc) and developing a dead end to no other purpose.
In spite of Russian and Chinese claims about the efficacy of their ground-based detection systems, you will note that they're both heavily pursuing VLO manned aircraft in long-term crash programs originating in the early 00's.
>>30670785
>The tech was basic as hell.
It's still a windfall if you don't have it. While it was largely obsolete by US standards, if it's new to the receiving country and shows them where to look, it's still Christmas. There are several examples of this phenomenon just over the last 70 years.
>>30670754
>>30670785
>>30670698
>>30670700
>first intact samples of US production aircraft RAM, plus analyzable hard evidence of internal structure, edge alignment detail and several other details
>not important
I'm not saying this gave them everything they needed to build an F-22, but come one. That's still pretty damn important. Just look at how the USSR or the US responded to things like intact defector aircraft in the cold war - even if your shit is better, it's still incredibly valuable intel.
>>30670816
None of Russia or China's programs could be described as stealth outside of propaganda. They do have RCS reduction measures in place, but at best they're equivalent with Western 4.5Gen aircraft, which nobody considers stealth aircraft.
>>30670845
Look at those photos of the crash. The wreckage burned. And that early RAM was fragile as fuck. The only part that was intact-ish was the canopy, because the pilot punched out.
>>30670848
>None of Russia or China's programs could be described as stealth outside of propaganda. They do have RCS reduction measures in place, but at best they're equivalent with Western 4.5Gen aircraft, which nobody considers stealth aircraft.
Again, any diversion of resources to VLO technology is significant when you're also being forced to completely rebuild and completely modernize your entire military once you're given a window onto just how fucked your older "modernized" equipment is (Desert Storm).
Also, I would argue that at the very lease, the J-20 shows significant VLO properties with the J-31 showing a very strong beginning. Of course, neither quite to F-22 levels, but they are significant reductions in signature, if not overwhelming success in most other areas. While the PAK-FA is certainly a dumpster fire in many respects, it also represents a very large step forward in Russian application of VLO research.
Argue as you like, but the watershed period of 1999-2003 in military procurement and R&D planning for both Russia and China moved both from "pft. stealth is worthless. we have the numbers and we will crush them with tough, simple systems." to "we have to build a modern and technologically advanced military with modernized platforms in all branches. Tomorrow." Also, Russia starting to have money again helped. This is significant. Arguing that the F-117 crash had no bearing on this shift in priorities seems silly, especially as I cannot for the life of me see where your emotional investment in the concept that the F-117 crash meant nothing for anyone comes from.
>>30667106
It's the best airplane that we never needed. The cupholder costs 27 million dollars!
>>30670935
Your argument has shifted from the shootdown giving clues to VLO aircraft operation and performance giving clues.
Pick a position and stick with it
>>30667106
No. Too expensive, & still manned.
Cost/benefit=dud.
1970s tech still rules: >>30667214
>>30670972
this
>>30670873
>Look at those photos of the crash. The wreckage burned. And that early RAM was fragile as fuck. The only part that was intact-ish was the canopy, because the pilot punched out.
Anon, please do a basic review of crash investigation procedures. Start with how most major aviation investigation organizations around the world can reconstruct entire fully destroyed/gibbed airframes and use them to determine exact failure points, material deficiencies, explosion/energy vectors and the sequence of events (all without even referencing the black box if necessary).
There was enough RAM on the canopy alone to provide excellent samples, and the crash site was more than contained enough to reconstruct most of the entire aircraft in broad strokes on paper, with many, many smaller details recognizable.
Pic related is how much of MH-11 they were able to reconstruct after basically combing through peoples back yards weeks or months after the crash in the middle of a war zone.
>>30670964
>Your argument has shifted from the shootdown giving clues to VLO aircraft operation and performance giving clues.
I'm not even sure where your distinction here is between these vague arguments, but it's very clear to me at least that my position has changed not at all between >>30670591
>This gave both the Russians and the Chinese a lot of very big clues about the F-117 and VLO tech in general.
and
>>30670678
>I was not discussing the shootdown itself, only the R&D yields from dissecting its corpse.
and
>>30670725
>The tech windfall from the F-117 only reinforced the trend and gave several hints about where research would bear fruit.
and
>>30670816
>It's still a windfall if you don't have it. While it was largely obsolete by US standards, if it's new to the receiving country and shows them where to look, it's still Christmas.
and
>>30670935
>Arguing that the F-117 crash had no bearing on this shift in priorities seems silly
Perhaps you're not reading my posts closely enough?
>>30670972
>1970s tech still rules
About that anon...
>>30671018
>Perhaps you're not reading my posts closely enough?
Perhaps you're convieniently leaving out the multiple times you reference 2003 and performance in Iraq?
>>30670935
>especially as I cannot for the life of me see where your emotional investment in the concept that the F-117 crash meant nothing for anyone comes from.
They're both arguing because the slavs like to give shit online about how stealth is useless, using the F-117 shootdown as an example of how vulnerable it is. So burger posters get super fucking defensive about it instead of analyzing what actual effects it might have had on history.
Basically, you just walked into a nationalistic dickwaving contest on /k/ without realizing it. Expecting rational analysis is shooting for the moon.
>>30671018
>can reconstruct
They engage in GUESS WORK and then can work from known issues to make an informed GUESS
What does old obsolete RAM samples give? Nothing
Theres no magic involved in Stealth, its an application of physics that takes years of work & billions of dollars
If they got an intact F-117, they might have been able to work from there and produce shitty knockoff F-117's
But it's not like some video game that it gives you an RP boost into researching stealth..
>>30671044
>Perhaps you're convieniently leaving out the multiple times you reference 2003 and performance in Iraq?
Ah. I see your confusion. No, I never referenced the 2003 invasion. I was always referencing Desert Storm as the initial turning point which told the Chinese and Russians that their tactics and procurement might need significant overhaul/review. The references to 2003 only coincidentally correspond to the second Iraq invasion. They're directly relatable to the timetable in which both Russian and Chinese R&D and Procurement became fully realigned to new realities and priorities, which was roughly 1999-2003.
If you would, go back and reread the posts to discover the truth of this. Apologies if I was unclear.
>>30671028
lol
And all it cost was 1.5 Trillion dollars.
>>30671078
>They engage in GUESS WORK and then can work from known issues to make an informed GUESS
Anon. Please. Educate yourself. There are several very good articles online about aircraft incident investigation.
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/retro/Docs/marine_casualties/annex_13.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/pages/default.aspx
http://www.saa.com.sg/saa/en/Courses/Aircraft_Accident_Investigation_Techniques_Management.html
http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/Documents/aviation/investigations/ICAO_Inv_%20Man_Pt3.pdf
And hundreds of full reports including methods and investigation findings:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/aviation.aspx
https://aviation-safety.net/investigation/
I would suggest taking the time to learn something about what I consider a very interesting topic rather than continuing to insist on an uninformed conclusion.
>>30667702
>They so far have denied accusations that this laser cannon is a bootlegged astronomy laser pointer.
>>30671132
>>30671078
>What does old obsolete RAM samples give? Nothing
Also, again, see >>30670816
>It's still a windfall if you don't have it. While it was largely obsolete by US standards, if it's new to the receiving country and shows them where to look, it's still Christmas. There are several examples of this phenomenon just over the last 70 years.
I have already sufficiently addressed this point, unless you wish to present a serious counter argument rather than reassertion without support.
>Theres no magic involved in Stealth, its an application of physics that takes years of work & billions of dollars
As anyone involved in a major and complex R&D project can tell you (especially one involving everything from advanced composite material science to EM wave propagation physics and modelling to advanced engine design to advanced frequency-frequency agile EM LPI sensors and comms to etc), having even broad initial data which points you to the most immediately fruitful areas of research is incredibly valuable. Even a picture of the airframe from a moderate distance is a boon when thinking about RCS modelling in conjunction with producing an aircraft with acceptable flight characteristics.
>If they got an intact F-117, they might have been able to work from there and produce shitty knockoff F-117's
I think you are vastly underestimating what can be gleaned from wreckage of that type. Even burned materials produce useful information after chemical analysis. Gross structural points are extremely easy to infer.
>>30671018
>>30671083
>>30671132
>>30671189
>>30670935
>>30670816
>>30670725
>>30670678
Get the fuck off my /k/ with your logic, broad historical perspective and calm, polite writing style.
What do you think this is? A place people come to for learning shit?
>>30670659
>>30670658
>>30670615
The reason >>30670648 Called you an idiot was because >>30670591 was talking about the pieces left from the plane that the Chinks and Slavs used to reverse engineer older RAM materials and get some hard data on its VLO geometry that could aid in detection of the aircraft.
Reading comprehension. Clearly none of you have any.
>>30671224
>that could aid in detection of the aircraft.
I'm >>30670591. I'm not sure if I've been unclear so let me be more precise. The F-117 crash data would have been far, far more useful for jumpstarting and enhancing the procurement and research of VLO vehicles. While I'm certainly not well versed in ground-based AA systems, I would argue that the yields to their ground based L-band systems, etc., would be far less substantial, considering how VLO geometry and RAM material effectiveness VS certain bandwidths changes from aircraft to aircraft (see: the B-2s vastly reduced L-band signature compared to even the F-22 and F-35 due to the lack of a vertical stabilizer).
>>30667230
which the USAF, despite all that it's going through in terms of aging fighter fleets and personnel problems, is still the world champion at.
>>30670972
>still manned.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that g limits on aircraft are there because of the pilots and not the aircraft itself.
>>30669567
>in everything else it's pretty mediocre.
The F-22 has more air to ground capabilities than the F-117 and has shown to possess very high precision air to ground delivery.
>>30667730
Muh fukin dik
>>30671306
Apples to oranges.
F117 never had JDAMs or SDBs. They either dropped dumb bombs or laser guided munitions that needed a spotter on the ground with line of sight.
>>30671301
>not the aircraft itself.
To be completely fair, while we can design much higher G limits than the general 9ish sustained G limits for the human body (less in different body positions or other directions than directly down while sitting), such aircraft designs would be far more expensive in materials and maintenance. One of the major reasons for G limits in operational military aircraft is to prolong aircraft engine and airframe life. To over-G an aircraft is to ground it for significant periods of time for full inspections and checks, even if the design of the brand-new aircraft would have allowed the stress with plenty of margin. Once you put 4,000 hours on an airframe, things look a little different.
>>30671268
>The F-117 crash data would have been far, far more useful for jumpstarting and enhancing the procurement and research of VLO vehicles.
Which is why I included the dumbed down bit about the RAM.
The geometry info would be pretty useless for development as even Russia and China could both have easily designed something with better geometry in the early 2000s with their technology then.
>>30671333
Tl;dr >>30671301
>>30671327
>Apples to oranges.
Moving the goalposts. The F-22 is not mediocre in the air to ground role, but it is not optimized for that mission. It doesn't carry enough ordnance to be strategically relevant as a stealth strike fighter (that's why we have B-2s and are buying the B-21), but it is enough to be tactically useful.
>>30671398
No, it is not equivalent.
The G-limits are very much there to keep airframe production and maintenance costs at reasonable levels as well.
If this were not the case, we'd be building drones with 20g limits, rather than the generally low G limits they exhibit (for instance, the Reaper is operationally around a 2g limit).
>>30667106
Can we stop saying that the F-22 is bad for air-to-ground? It is simply wrong. The F-22's stealth capabilities would allow it to hit a variety of ground targets that other fighters would simply not be able to reach.
>>30671412
>The F-22 is not mediocre
Not being sarcastic:
Can the F-22 self-designate for PGMs? What kind of A2G sensors are native to the airframe currently?
>>30671421
>The G-limits are very much there to keep airframe production and maintenance costs at reasonable levels as well.
Both of which are quite often high priority line items on the program feature list, hence a limitation of the airframe.
I'm not arguing that it can't be done, I'm arguing that it won't be done because of exactly what you've been saying, it's too goddamned expensive to build into any mass produced aircraft with our current technological/industrial capabilities.
>>30671434
>Can the F-22 self-designate for PGMs? What kind of A2G sensors are native to the airframe currently?
It can, reportedly through the AN/ALR-94 system.
>>30671412
Try reading the post I replied to. It compared the precision of the F22 to the precision of the F117 with is literally an apples to oranges comparison because the PGMs that the F22 uses to such great effect didn't exist while the F117 was in service.
>>30671498
>AN/ALR-94
I'm very confused or missing basic information about this system. How is a radar t/r system designating laser targets for PGMs? Or is it just not using laser guided PGMs, instead using the radar for stationary GPS/inertial guidance?
>>30671539
The F22 drops GPS guided ordinance, not laser guided. The radar give position information that can be used to calculate GPS coordinates for the target.
>>30671539
>I'm very confused or missing basic information about this system. How is a radar t/r system designating laser targets for PGMs? Or is it just not using laser guided PGMs, instead using the radar for stationary GPS/inertial guidance?
I honestly don't know. The actual workings of classified avionics systems is a bit more than a google search away.
>>30671559
Ah. That makes sense.
Still, that is a relatively crucial PGM capability unavailable. If you're unable to strike moving targets with accuracy that rules out a number of important mission profiles, plus the lack of a target building/landmark producing a radar return would complicate things like CAS or troop concentration strikes.
>>30671064
Yeah, no. The details around how it was shot down simply show how hard it was and how easily it could have been avoided had one star not been in perfect alignment.
>>30671559
>>30671603
The APG-77v1 has full A2G capability, it also doubled its range to ~400km.
>>30671603
F22 doesn't do CAS. It's entire ground strike capability is dropping JDAMs or SDBs on fixed(or relatively unmoving) targets. That's it, nothing more.
>>30671098
>And all it cost was 1.5 Trillion dollars.
Will cost.
Over 50 years.
Still 1/4th of the cost of not relieving current airframes it replaces.
>>30671635
I don't have a dog in this fight, but that does seem to suggest the F-22 is not fully A2G capable in the same ways an F-35, F-15E, F-16C or F-18 might be.
>>30671635
SDB II has datalink, which means the F-22's SAR will be able to follow targets and update the SDB.
>>30671643
That's an outdated figure, too. The estimated 50 year lifetime cost of the program, as of 2016, is $1.124 trillion.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/25/f-35-acquisition-costs-drops-but-overall-operating-costs-increase/82248008/
>>30671665
Eh, it's constantly randomly fluctuating between $800b and $1.5t. I've seen haters take it up to 1.8t.
>>30671652
>F-35, F-15E, F-16C or F-18
All of these have a much larger A2G weapon inventory.
>>30671656
I wasn't aware the F22 could link with the SDB, so my bad on that.
>>30671684
>Eh, it's constantly randomly fluctuating between $800b and $1.5t. I've seen haters take it up to 1.8t.
/k/ fluctuation, anti-F-35-media fluctuation, or Pentagon/Congressional/Other Government Source fluctuation?
>>30671652
It's not, and wasn't really meant to be. It just does what it can with what it has. It can't even haul 2000lbs class munitions.
>>30671656
Which requires you going active on radar.
>>30671697
In general, what I see in the wild.
>>30671717
Yes, but SAR mode is pointed directly at the ground.
Tanks dont have RWRs.
>>30667282
Its the year 2325 the USAF just revealed their new F-3000 fighter that can be invisible and has a death star attached to it.
But hey the F15 is still better because it has more kills
>>30671692
>All of these have a much larger A2G weapon inventory.
Again, this is not supportive of the concept that the F-22 is a fully integrated multi-role fighter, merely an excellent A2A fighter with limited A2G capability.
Wasn't the anon above arguing that it was fully A2G capable?
>>30671731
If we're talking about taking on nations with Russian or near-Russian doctrine, the organic air defence they integrate directly into armored units certainly do.
>>30671707
It theoretically can under the wings.
>>30671746
Against a beam formed LPI aesa radar?
unlikely.
Even if they did, they wont be able to to do anything about the bomb itself beyond intercepting it directly
>>30671746
>If we're talking about taking on nations with Russian or near-Russian doctrine, the organic air defence they integrate directly into armored units certainly do.
Which is why the F-22's radar is designed to have highly directional emissions with reduced probability of intercept. The secure data-link is broadcasting too, after all.
>>30671765
>>30671757
I don't know enough about radars to say, but thats an assumption that a radar operating in SAR mode has all the same benefits (like LPI) that it does operating normally.
They're vastly different operating techniques.
>>30671798
>I don't know enough about radars to say, but thats an assumption that a radar operating in SAR mode has all the same benefits (like LPI) that it does operating normally.
>They're vastly different operating techniques.
Low probability of intercept is an umbrella term for how the radar operates. It doesn't exclude the radar from forming a synthetic aperture for ground imaging, it seems like it would just complicate the data processing. At the end of the day, all they're looking for is the broadcast echo, and changing the frequency and duration of the radar pulses doesn't change that.
>>30670845
I remember when Viktor Belenko defected with his Mig 25. Up to that point, everyone assumed that it was unstoppable. When the US finally got a good look at it, nobody was very impressed and they realized it was just a plane that flew fast and not the game changing threat they thought it was.
>>30671926
>I remember when Viktor Belenko defected with his Mig 25. Up to that point, everyone assumed that it was unstoppable. When the US finally got a good look at it, nobody was very impressed and they realized it was just a plane that flew fast and not the game changing threat they thought it was.
To be fair, if they used advanced metallurgy and made the thing light weight instead of an ultra-heavy speed devil, it could have been. Huge flight surfaces and monstrous engines in a light weight airframe means incredible performance.
>>30671926
>they realized it was just a plane that flew fast and not the game changing threat they thought it was.
Yup. Valuable information for countering that particular threat against fighters, bombers and recon aircraft plus a PR/intel coup when they get to rub the Soviets' noses in the fact that the F-15 turned out to be everything that they claimed the MiG-25 was supposed to be.
>>30671028
>F-35s singing the air force song
>pew pew pew
This was an official graphic?
>>30671954
>Huge flight surfaces and monstrous engines
Uh... It's a lot more complicated than that, anon. Compressor stall characteristics at all angles of attack and speeds or instantaneous and sustained turn rate performance being just two examples.
>>30671974
>This was an official graphic?
If you're enticed to analyze it that closely, I'd say it did a good job of getting publicity and info about the F-35A out there.
>>30671974
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/809970/acc-f-35-on-track-for-ioc.aspx
Hilariously, yes.
>>30671977
>Uh... It's a lot more complicated than that, anon. Compressor stall characteristics at all angles of attack and speeds or instantaneous and sustained turn rate performance being just two examples.
I know. It was an oversimplification that makes numerous assumptions about what designers would "ovbviously" include in the design.
>>30671684
It doesn't fluctuate much, people just don't understand the different types of costs. The $1.124 trillion figure that >>30671665 mentioned isn't the total cost, that's the operating cost for 60 years. Tack on the production and R&D cost for the US fleet and it goes up to $1.5 trillion (it was $1.4 trillion before, but as the article mentions, they decided to operate it for another 5 years).
Those trillion dollar figures are in then-year dollars, meaning that it includes inflation through to 2070. The $800-900 billion figure you would've seen previously is the $1.5 trillion figure, but in 2012 dollars (ie without inflation).
If you see $370-400 billion, that's R&D and manufacturing, but not operating costs.
If you see ~$280-320 billion, that's manufacturing and not R&D nor operating costs.
