[Colonol Dekker]

I've got no beef with anyones view on this.. But opinion alone does not warrant validity... This is interesting as hell to read.... 


But.....

As the world’s only operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor is, and will remain, unprecedented in its total integration of stealth and advanced avionics. It quite simply is a revolutionary leap in lethality and survivability over any aircraft in production or design anywhere in the world. With its built-in reliability and maintainability, this fighter will be able to rapidly deploy anywhere on the globe.

Air and ground threats that the F-15 can no longer counter will be defeated by the lethal and survivable F-22, with its balance of increased speed and range, enhanced offensive and defensive avionics and low observability or stealth. The F-22’s design also emphasizes reliability and maintainability of systems.

The F-22 provides a first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability through the use of stealth, advanced sensors and a lethal mix of advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. The F-22 also requires shorter takeoff and landing distances as compared to current frontline fighters. F-22 pilots will be able to engage the enemy over its own territory and support long-range air-to-ground assets. The F-22 also brings its own precision ground attack capability to the

I know they won't bad mouth their own product but it's pretty convincing.......

[Roanoke]

I still think the UK should have got a batch of Sukhoi Super Flankers rather than continue to throw money at Eurofighter Typhoon...

[Colonol Dekker]

And i love the SU-37, but i'm not gonna get one any time soon 

I'm looking like mad in vain to put up some official figures or tech specs to aid both sides (for and against the F-22) in an effort to remain fair. But i cant find any

[Black Wolf]

I still think the UK should have got a batch of Sukhoi Super Flankers rather than continue to throw money at Eurofighter Typhoon...

It makes very little sense to buy a plane that your far-and-away most likely allies wont be flying in the evnt of major conflict. Better to get something either American or Euro so you can share maintenance in the event of a conflict, and while it's certainly possible to imagine a UK/Russian alliance against someone, it's not as likely as the UK allying with other NATO or Euro countries.

[Colonol Dekker]

and while it's certainly possible to imagine a UK/Russian alliance against someone,

Interesting concept, but we can't have Clint Eastwood nicking all our mind-controlled planes.

[Roanoke]

I still think the UK should have got a batch of Sukhoi Super Flankers rather than continue to throw money at Eurofighter Typhoon...

It makes very little sense to buy a plane that your far-and-away most likely allies wont be flying in the evnt of major conflict. Better to get something either American or Euro so you can share maintenance in the event of a conflict, and while it's certainly possible to imagine a UK/Russian alliance against someone, it's not as likely as the UK allying with other NATO or Euro countries.

IIRC Finland had Mig29s. Plus I doubt Russian can be so picky who they flog their Floggers to nowadays.
Granted it would never happen, especially after the whole London plutonium poision thing, but it would have been fascinating to see lines of Flankers with RAF roundals.

Atleast they would have been in active service years ago.

[Thaeris]

A lot of stuff on the F-14 in here...

Politics aside, the sad truth is the withdrawl made sense with the way things were going for the 'Cat. If you remove such a large fraction of a given fighter commodity aboard a vessel, logistical support becomes a major problem. Those F-14As were inherently flawed because of the engines. Iran still has the F-14A, but despite any upgrades to the avionics/fuselage, I believe their fighter still has the original dangerous engines. Now, politics are ultimately to be blamed for its removal from service (war and politics, is there a differance?  ), but remember the 'Cat was first put into service in '72.

In terms of "which was better: the Tomcat or the Eagle," it really seems to come down to preference and experience. Pre-Revolutionary Iran had test pilots fly both of the fighters and said the Tomcat was the better of the two. Iran also supposedly pumped enough funds into the program that it was able to be a success for both the US and Grumman. Israel liked the Eagle. But look at the geography: Iran is a big area, Israel not so much. Thus, if you've got a large area you need a large fighter with a powerful, long-range weapons system (F-14). If not, a smaller high-power performer will be perfect (F-15).
In terms of maneuverability, it depends on who you talk to, the condition of the aircraft's weight and balance, etc. As a cadet, I had the opportunity to speak with a former F-14 pilot. He said the aircraft was superior to the Eagle, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

As far as other aspects go, I'd actually suggest reading Osprey's "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat." As with all things involving sketchy governments and thus having to resort to personal interviews where the interviewee is given a pseudoname, take it with a grain of salt. It's still a good read (short, too). If you don't believe the weapons system was up to par (there was someone who was suggesting earlier that the Pheonix was not too good a weapon), this title might change your mind.

If it still had a shot at an upgrade, the F-14 would be most impressive. The D model was great as it was, but an upgrade after that would have seen an aircraft imaginably better than the F-15E, at least in the low-level role. I think this would have been a more suiting end for what might have been the most iconic fighter to see service in the last 30 years...

-Thaeris

[MP-Ryan]

A buddy of mine's wife is in the USAF and several of his pals flew F-15s.  All of them say that nothing in the air today can even touch an F-22.  But every single one of them says that mass-production of the F-22 is idiotic - the need simply isn't there, and they would rather see mass production of the F-35 with it's true stealth technology and capability to carry a much larger armament.

[Thaeris]

 

That's not personal, by the way.

The F-35, while demonstrating good use of modern "stealth" technology, is not what I'd call "true" stealth technology. Ever seen the engine exhaust on that thing? It's very unstealthy in comparison to the rest of the fighter and much less so than an F-22's exhaust. Little things like that make a fighter stick out on the increasingly more powerful sensory systems being placed into service.

I've been told the external load of the F-22 is potentially most incredible, exceeding 20,000lbs of ordnance. However, with the exception of the F-4 (as well as a few of the "century fighters") or the F-16 currently in service, the Air Force does not seem to employ its high-performance fighters as diversely as a branch like the Navy might. Thus, you'll probably never see an F-22 going on a heavy bombing run. To illustrate, when do you ever see F-15Cs with a bombload?

So yes, the F-35 will be useful. But I'm also not convinced it will be a world-beater either. If the Air Force would have elected to adopt the F-23 instead, I feel the Air Force could have ended up with a truly superior multirole platform (albeit expensive). But that's politics for you...

-Thaeris

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

IIRC Finland had Mig29s. Plus I doubt Russian can be so picky who they flog their Floggers to nowadays.

F-18 C and D variants actually. The Hornets replaced aging Mig-21s and Drakens during mid-90s.

[TrashMan]

As far as other aspects go, I'd actually suggest reading Osprey's "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat."

Gave it a skim. Very interesting read, got to admit.

http://www.amazon.com/Iranian-Tomcat-Units-Combat-Aircraft/dp/1841767875#reader

page 10 is most interesting in regards to the tomcats combat performance.

[Liberator]

Not being a huge aircraft person, I don't really have a dog in this fight.

But if I were President, perish the thought, I would have someone design 3 separate aircraft, one for each branch that wants/needs.  This much generalization is what makes the damn thing cost so much.  And screw the stealth aspect, it's great, but the cost makes it questionable.  I mean is one stealthed aircraft worth 2 non stealthed aircraft assuming the rest of the characteristics are similar?  And no one has mentioned the cannon yet, do these hunks of tin even HAVE a cannon?  The last figure I heard was that about 50% of dogfights, even after the implementation of radar guided A2A missiles, were still resolved with cannon fire.

Anyway, those're my two bits...

[Black Wolf]

The USAF learned very quickly in Vietnam that combat aircraft need a cannon when they tried deploying the F-4 without one, so yes, they do. And as for individual aircraft for each service, that's why the F-35 comes in three variants. The marines get VTOL, the Air Force get CTOL and the Navy get STOVL. The Air Force also gets the F-22 to replace the F-15 and maintain, in theory, technological superiority in the air. At least until the Russians start exporting the PAK FA, which will bring things back to parity again.

[Roanoke]

That's not personal, by the way.

The F-35, while demonstrating good use of modern "stealth" technology, is not what I'd call "true" stealth technology. Ever seen the engine exhaust on that thing? It's very unstealthy in comparison to the rest of the fighter and much less so than an F-22's exhaust. Little things like that make a fighter stick out on the increasingly more powerful sensory systems being placed into service.

I've been told the external load of the F-22 is potentially most incredible, exceeding 20,000lbs of ordnance. However, with the exception of the F-4 (as well as a few of the "century fighters") or the F-16 currently in service, the Air Force does not seem to employ its high-performance fighters as diversely as a branch like the Navy might. Thus, you'll probably never see an F-22 going on a heavy bombing run. To illustrate, when do you ever see F-15Cs with a bombload?

So yes, the F-35 will be useful. But I'm also not convinced it will be a world-beater either. If the Air Force would have elected to adopt the F-23 instead, I feel the Air Force could have ended up with a truly superior multirole platform (albeit expensive). But that's politics for you...

-Thaeris

F15Cs didn't carry bombs because they had the Strike Eagle F15E.

[Thaeris]

@ Roanoke:

I think you're missing the point I was getting at. The point I was making is that Air Force aircraft usually are not deployed as diversely in operations as they might otherwise be capable of. In short, the multirole potential of the aircraft in question is often put to the wayside. The single seat F-15 would make a rather impressive "bomb truck," if you will. Due to operational protocol however, this never happened. Also, don't forget that the Strike Eagle is a later project which served to (somewhat unsatisfactorily) replace the F-111.

Specialization is not necessarily a bad thing. One aircraft probably can't do everything and expect to do each of the given tasks well. However, given modern avionics and airframe technology, a fighter should be able to serve in multiple roles and perform well in most of those roles. Air Force doctrine, unlike Navy doctrine, does not seem to regard this concept terribly well in my opinion. This results in a potentially inflexible force - potentially lethal in a combat environment.

-Thaeris

[Roanoke]

@ Roanoke:

I think you're missing the point I was getting at. The point I was making is that Air Force aircraft usually are not deployed as diversely in operations as they might otherwise be capable of. In short, the multirole potential of the aircraft in question is often put to the wayside. The single seat F-15 would make a rather impressive "bomb truck," if you will. Due to operational protocol however, this never happened. Also, don't forget that the Strike Eagle is a later project which served to (somewhat unsatisfactorily) replace the F-111.

Specialization is not necessarily a bad thing. One aircraft probably can't do everything and expect to do each of the given tasks well. However, given modern avionics and airframe technology, a fighter should be able to serve in multiple roles and perform well in most of those roles. Air Force doctrine, unlike Navy doctrine, does not seem to regard this concept terribly well in my opinion. This results in a potentially inflexible force - potentially lethal in a combat environment.

-Thaeris

I was under the impression the F15E had served quite well, especially during Desert Storm ?

[Thaeris]

<Thaeris smacks forehead in frustration>

No, that's still not what I mean. I was referring primarily to the old single-seat F-15s in the last post. Those aircraft have a potentially great multi-role capability. This capability is not really used.

The Strike Eagles did do well in the Gulf War. These aircraft also represent a multirole aircraft. With the current restrictions on the old single-seater fleet being an issue, the F-15Es might truly become a multirole aircraft for the Air Force (rather than an aircraft restricted to one field of operation - mostly...).

The bit about the "somewhat unsatisfactory" replacement of the F-111 is this: The Aardvark was a fast, low level, long range intredictor/bomber with a truly exceptional "skill set." The F-111 represents a specialized type, yes, but it fit the bill exceptionally (much like the A-10 does in its role(s)). The unique combination of its abilities meant that its replacement, the F-15E, does not do what the F-111 did any better.

(a.) The F-111 flew a longer-ranged mission than the F-15E.

(b.) The F-111 carried a heavier payload with specialized (albeit old) avionics to get the job done, again arguably better than the Eagle.

(c.) The F-111 was a superior performer at sea level/low-level in general. The variable geometry wings allowed for this. The F-15E is a nasty ride low to the earth, those HUGE wings (originally designed for dogfights and flying around at over 50,000 feet) have a rather low wing loading in an environment which does not need that sort of thing...

Thus, you see why I don't think the Eagle was a truly satisfactory replacement for the F-111 (and I'm not the only one...). Similar arguments have probably been made for why Australia can't just get rid of its F-111 fleet. (By the way, have they done that yet?)

-Thaeris

[Black Wolf]

No. In their infinite wisom, our government decided to replace them in 2010 with... Super Hornets.

This despite the fact that, not only are we losing all the force projection capability that F-111s give us, but that the F-111s actually have the lowest maintenance time:flight time ratio that they've ever had.

[Flipside]

Odd... I always considered the Hornet an Offensive fighter, Ozzies are usually smart enough to keep out of world conflicts, so, I would have thought, their real concern would have been defensive in nature. I suppose if you replaced the AMRAAM mounts with sensor pods, that could help, but it's still not going to match up to having an AWACS up there. I suppose you could throw a couple of Sparrows on there, but even they are getting just a bit long in the tooth now.

[Thaeris]

It really is quite odd. The older-generation fighters which are currently being replaced (or have been replaced) have not necessarily been replaced by aircraft that can do what they did - better. Obviously, everyone seems to doubt the F-35. I'm actually quite apathetic about it. I will say that it'll be no F-16: the wing loading on the A and B variants is going to be pretty high if my assumption is right. I think the Navy will actually get the best one-the F-35C. The wing loading on that version should be the lowest due the greater span (even if you factor in naval gear). This means greater maneuverability and a superior payload (at least when flying from land).

The Super Hornet isn't bad, but it's not the best, either. Certainly, it did not fill in all the gaps left by when they pulled the Tomcats. The factors lost by the fleet should be fairly obvious to anyone (who is interested, at least) reading this thread.

AND I really hope that when they finally decide to get rid of my beloved A-10 they get an aircraft that can do its job better than the A-10 did it!

Even today, I can think of potentailly useful aircraft which are long gone. A HUGE stretch would be in advocating the RA-5 Vigilate: now that's a sexy aeroplane!  It looks a little dated now, possibly, but roll back 10 years and it would fit in with the rest of the fleet. The Tomcat was a worthy repacement for the plane (in the reconnaissance role): it was fast and had a long range. Still, it did not have the same capabilities of the Vigi. And despite the fact that external weapons tests were conducted when the aircraft was still in service (The aircraft was originally designed as a supersonic, long range, carrier-based nuclear bomber  . Weapons would have been internal. Here's the weird part: the bomb was ejected through the plane's tailcone! It didn't work too well...), given the condition that you get rid of that rediculous "ejector" bomb-bay and add more pylons on the wings, you might just get yourself a good long-range strike bomber. The age and somewhat limited capability of the craft might nullify the argument (I said it would be a stretch...), but you can make that point for a good many aircraft that went out before their time was actually over.

-Thaeris