PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

[shiv]

The point being made is that the F-22 outranges every other aircraft i.e. it sees its adversary long long before showing up on anyone else's radar.

But the assumption that they will all be shot down because they are seen first is mental fog that needs to be removed from this incomplete statement of the truth.

Most stuff about the F 22 is incomplete truth primarily because it has never really fought in any wars yet. The only people talking about it are those who want to sell it.

[Viv S]

The Raptor has been flown against others in only one much publicised exercise in 2007 where it achieved those 144:1 ratios. Recall that the F-15, when new was claimed to have a 782:1 advantage advertised - which dropped as described below:

Minor correction, that's 144-0. The results of exercise IIRC were 241-1(Blue Force 'lost' a F-15s I believe). Also, Northern Edge was the only exercise where kill ratios were revealed. The excerpts I posted (on the last page) were from Red Flag(same year I think).

The Raptors’ advanced radars make them extremely proficient at defeating enemy aircraft, and they usually kill F-15Cs and F-16s with ease.

One of the main goals in bringing the F-22s to Red Flag, Spain said, is to practice operating them in conjunction with other aircraft — a necessary strategy in any future war since the Air Force will not have enough F-22s to rely on them alone.

And the Raptor’s much-touted avionics suite gathers a tremendous amount of situational awareness data that pilots must learn to analyze and share with other aircraft.

“We have to manage that data,” Spain said, “and we have to manage it in a way that allows us to get if off our jet and out of our mouths so the rest of the participants can benefit.”

Neither Sullivan nor Johnson — who also flies as an aggressor — would say whether a stealthy F-22 has been killed at Red Flag, but Johnson won’t discount the possibility and wouldn’t mind the chance.

“If you get the F-22 where you can see it visually with your eyeballs, anything can happen,” he said. “As a red air guy who flies with the aggressors, it’s not quite as fun when you can’t see the dude and you’re being called dead.”

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/ ... g_032309w/




Red Flag Raptors

The F-22 extended its winning streak at its first all-up Red Flag combat training exercises, where the Raptor-led "Blue" forces scored a lopsided victory over Red Air "Aggressor" forces using their best tricks.

Smith said the F-22s, augmented by F-15s, typically protected a strike package of about 50 aircraft against a numerically superior defending force. The 94th—most of whose pilots have less than 100 hours in the F-22—consistently defeated the F-15s and F-16s of Nellis' Aggressors, the 414th Combat Training Squadron. The 414th quickly upped the ante of their tactics, and by the third day, "we were seeing their 'A' game, if you will," Bergeson reported. Only one F-22 was "lost" in the war games.

Bergeson noted that "very few, if any" Red Air survived the F-22-led Blue force attack.

The F-22s went against ground threats simulating real-world air defenses, including communications jamming, networked surface-to-air missiles, and anti-aircraft artillery. The Aggressors attempted to lure the F-22s into "SAM-bushes," trying to get the Raptors to pursue them into areas densely defended by surface weapons.

Bergeson described the Nellis units as "probably the best Red Air on the planet" and said the F-22 pilots are now "better than we were [before] ... because of the fantastic training" the Aggressors provided.

AFA

[rajeshks]

Well the exaggeration is in assuming that the F-22 is invisible. The point being made is that the F-22 outranges every other aircraft i.e. it sees its adversary long long before showing up on anyone else's radar.

May be my ignorance but I still dont understand how will it happen?? If F-22 wants to see others it should switch on its radar which automatically makes it visible to others also. Incase both F-22 and opponent depends completely on passive sensors they have to come close enough which removes any BVR advantage F22 claims. Now if we consider the scenario where F22 is supported by AWACS and tankers, I remember reading about a Chinese war game where they simulated scenarios where both AWACS and tankers can be taken out by saturation attack by flankers which will make F22 ineffective or even force it to crash for want of fuel.

[shiv]

it’s not quite as fun when you can’t see the dude and you’re being called dead.

Well this says it all.

The exercises have rules of engagement that allows this to occur because this is as far as an exercise can go. Applying the results of an exercise and extrapolating it to a real life situation is fine and dandy but says nothing about a real war situation in which the opponent cannot be called dead. Either he's really dead or he's not.

We don't even know what the rules were. We only read that the F 22 won. That's all. It only shows the F 22 is a powerful and dangerous adversary. That is what everyone is saying. Any conclusions beyond that are not possible. It may still turn out that the F 22 like so many of its "best fighter in the world" predecessors turns out to have weaknesses that show up in real war.

[Viv S]

The point being made is that the F-22 outranges every other aircraft i.e. it sees its adversary long long before showing up on anyone else's radar.

But the assumption that they will all be shot down because they are seen first is mental fog that needs to be removed from this incomplete statement of the truth.

Most stuff about the F 22 is incomplete truth primarily because it has never really fought in any wars yet.

No there are no real world scenarios that can be pulled up for reference, but then again which aircraft since 1982 has actually been tested in wartime? Peacetime exercises are the only measure of the aircraft's worth available. Also, for reference the F-15 never displayed the kind of dominance the F-22 brings today, during its exercises with F-4s, F-5s etc.

The only people talking about it are those who want to sell it.

On the contrary, there's a long list of countries who want to buy it, but the F-22 is barred from export, a ban that was upheld by the US Congress.

[Viv S]

Well the exaggeration is in assuming that the F-22 is invisible. The point being made is that the F-22 outranges every other aircraft i.e. it sees its adversary long long before showing up on anyone else's radar.

May be my ignorance but I still dont understand how will it happen?? If F-22 wants to see others it should switch on its radar which automatically makes it visible to others also. Incase both F-22 and opponent depends completely on passive sensors they have to come close enough which removes any BVR advantage F22 claims. Now if we consider the scenario where F22 is supported by AWACS and tankers, I remember reading about a Chinese war game where they simulated scenarios where both AWACS and tankers can be taken out by saturation attack by flankers which will make F22 ineffective or even force it to crash for want of fuel.

The AN/APG-77 is a Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) radar, an crucial advantage AESA radars have over pulse-doppler or PESA units. I don't have the link right now, but I remember reading of an interview with a F-22 pilot, where this question was posed by a journalist (wouldn't the f-22's radar emissions be picked up by enemy aircraft?), the pilot and his sq. leader looked at each other, smiled and said - no it can't.

[Carl_T]

May be my ignorance but I still dont understand how will it happen?? If F-22 wants to see others it should switch on its radar which automatically makes it visible to others also. Incase both F-22 and opponent depends completely on passive sensors they have to come close enough which removes any BVR advantage F22 claims.

Is this really true with AESA radars? I thought with AESA you could disguise your own beam by emitting many other ones.


Futhermore I think the F-22 is supposed to be good at jamming as well.

[Viv S]

it’s not quite as fun when you can’t see the dude and you’re being called dead.

Well this says it all.

The exercises have rules of engagement that allows this to occur because this is as far as an exercise can go. Applying the results of an exercise and extrapolating it to a real life situation is fine and dandy but says nothing about a real war situation in which the opponent cannot be called dead. Either he's really dead or he's not.

I'm didn't really get that part. Is it the efficacy of the missile that you're questioning or the validity of the kill itself? In a real war situation, an aircraft blowing up will come up as a spike on the radar/IR scope.

We don't even know what the rules were. We only read that the F 22 won. That's all. It only shows the F 22 is a powerful and dangerous adversary. That is what everyone is saying. Any conclusions beyond that are not possible. It may still turn out that the F 22 like so many of its "best fighter in the world" predecessors turns out to have weaknesses that show up in real war.

From all available information on Red Flag, the 'aggressors' didn't pull any punches in their engagements against the F-22.

[shiv]

Well this says it all.

The exercises have rules of engagement that allows this to occur because this is as far as an exercise can go. Applying the results of an exercise and extrapolating it to a real life situation is fine and dandy but says nothing about a real war situation in which the opponent cannot be called dead. Either he's really dead or he's not.

I'm didn't really get that part. Is it the efficacy of the missile that you're questioning or the validity of the kill itself? In a real war situation, an aircraft blowing up will come up as a spike on the radar/IR scope.

Yes but no missile is fired in an exercise and a missile lock before "launch" is a kill. That means zilch in a real war scenario. Obviously the French came in either with their radars beaming waves and they were seen by an AWACS - also beaming waves and the info was passed to the Raptor that locked a missile on at BVR and the opponent was declared dead and he accepted that, complaining that it was "no fun'.

That is exactly what is planned and things went as per plan.

What does this mean?

It means that an adversary who knows he faces Raptors should break rules and convention and do what is not expected.

[svinayak]

Was the TSP F-16 involved in the current F-22 encounter in the red flag

[Rishirishi]

Well the exaggeration is in assuming that the F-22 is invisible. The point being made is that the F-22 outranges every other aircraft i.e. it sees its adversary long long before showing up on anyone else's radar.

May be my ignorance but I still dont understand how will it happen?? If F-22 wants to see others it should switch on its radar which automatically makes it visible to others also. Incase both F-22 and opponent depends completely on passive sensors they have to come close enough which removes any BVR advantage F22 claims. Now if we consider the scenario where F22 is supported by AWACS and tankers, I remember reading about a Chinese war game where they simulated scenarios where both AWACS and tankers can be taken out by saturation attack by flankers which will make F22 ineffective or even force it to crash for want of fuel.

It is assumed that any opperation involving Raptors will have support from Awacs. If it is a one 2 one situation the superior Raptor sensors will see the adversary first, and be able to fire a misslie. One of the Raptors may expose it self by switching on its radar, send the information to buddies who are closer to the enemy.

As for the Chinease and all others, they have to come up with the best strategy to fight, no matter how useless. iF a person comes in your house with a gun, you may have to use a knife. You will plan acordingly.
If there are 8 raptors and you send up 100 mig 21, for shure the raptors will be in trouble. Point is that no one will send only 8 raptors, if they know that they may face 100 migs.

[Viv S]

Yes but no missile is fired in an exercise and a missile lock before "launch" is a kill. That means zilch in a real war scenario.

No missile is launched physically, but the entire flight path of the missile is simulated from 'launch' to 'impact' and monitored by ground controllers(Nellis has possibly the most sophisticated Air Combat Tracking System in the world). The target aircraft can still break and attempt to get out of the missile envelope. And if the launch aircraft breaks lock or otherwise disengages, no kill is awarded.

Also, the 144-0 was far above what is officially marketed. LM and the USAF put the F-22's kill ratio as 30-1.

Obviously the French came in either with their radars beaming waves and they were seen by an AWACS - also beaming waves and the info was passed to the Raptor that locked a missile on at BVR and the opponent was declared dead and he accepted that, complaining that it was "no fun'.

That is exactly what is planned and things went as per plan.

I'm pretty sure the Rafale's emission were picked up by the F-22's without any AWACS support. The article didn't mention any AEW&C aircraft being involved in the engagements.

What does this mean?
It means that an adversary who knows he faces Raptors should break rules and convention and do what is not expected.

Most (admittedly good natured) complaints were about the fact that the Red Force pilots never knew a F-22 was in the vicinity until they had an missile incoming.

Its also its an important fact that the Aggressor Squadrons pilots are among the very best fighter pilots in the world and their role by definition is unconventional. Pilots training during Red Flag are placed in complex challenging tactical situations with rules of engagement often being altered mid-mission to increase the degree of difficulty. Red forces are usually tasked with doing the unexpected to push visiting pilots out of their 'comfort zone'. It wouldn't be stretch to assume they would used every bit of innovation in their tactics against the Raptor.



The reputation of the Raptor is evident in the pride that some take in downing one in simulated combat. A photo surfaced on an aviation website that recently caused a stir when the unnamed pilot of a surveillance aircraft said the silhouette of a warplane he painted on his fuselage was an F-22 that he helped locate and shoot down during an exercise. "Some Navy pilots like to brag if they even lock on to a Raptor," says one Air Force officer.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ry/4311433

[Manish_Sharma]

Just the fact that after every mission Raptor needs 30 hrs of maintenance would send its owner back to 2nd or 3rd generation aircraft's times, availability and locking up highlyskilled manpower. Then after this 30 hrs of maintenance Raptor is called upon on a delicate and urgent mission, just when it is being rolled out to fly it has to be rushed back 'cause suddenly it started to rain, which will wash away its magic potion to make it stealthy

[Austin]

Why dont the admins clean this thread and take the Raptor discussion to the right thread ?

[Viv S]

HOW IS ALL THIS RELATED TO PAK-FA & FGFA??? [/size]
This ain't the MMRCA thread, ONE is ENOUGH!!!! PLEASE, LET'S NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD

Not directly yes. But, the PAK-FA would bring a lot of the capabilities to the IAF, that the Raptor did for the USAF. All the same I agree this is more suitable for a different thread. But, instead of stopping the debate, I think it would be better if the admins could move the last two or three pages completely.

[Viv S]

Just the fact that after every mission Raptor needs 30 hrs of maintenance would send its owner back to 2nd or 3rd generation aircraft's times, availability and locking up highlyskilled manpower.

Its 30 man-hours of maintenance per flight hour and not 30 hours of maintenance. While higher than other fighters flying today its not a critical problem. The F-18E/F for example is believed to have a figure of around 15 mmh/fh. The F-22 clocks better figures than other stealth aircraft like the F-117 and B-2 which require well over a 100mmh/fh.

Then after this 30 hrs of maintenance Raptor is called upon on a delicate and urgent mission, just when it is being rolled out to fly it has to be rushed back 'cause suddenly it started to rain, which will wash away its magic potion to make it stealthy

The F-22 had a 97% mission availability rate during Red Flag '07, launching 102 out of 105 assigned sorties.

http://www.thehowlandcompany.com/pdf/AW&ST8JAN07.pdf

[shiv]

No missile is launched physically, but the entire flight path of the missile is simulated from 'launch' to 'impact' and monitored by ground controllers(Nellis has possibly the most sophisticated Air Combat Tracking System in the world). The target aircraft can still break and attempt to get out of the missile envelope. And if the launch aircraft breaks lock or otherwise disengages, no kill is awarded.

If no missile is launched - nobody gets a missile launch warning. How stupid is that? The target aircraft is obviously a sitting duck. Otherwise 5 aircraft may pick up the missile launch and scream a warning over the network. And under operational conditions even the best missiles have a hit probability of 50% or less. So are 50% or more of "kills" randomly allowed to "live" to simulate reality? Or is more than one missile launched? Naturally if a Raptor launches 2 missiles - that halves the number of kills it can have. No details of that in any reports. The game could well be loaded in favor of the Raptor. And we know damn well that if the performance was less than desired nobody is going to talk about it. Or they might say exactly the opposite as was done after COPE India.

This is not to say the Raptor is a bad aircraft. But the conclusions being reached from the little available information and non data like "European pilot felt bad but was good natured", "American pilot felt good about locking" etc are hardly enough to reach the sorts of hyperbolic conclusions I see being reached in fanboy media and transmitted on here.

[Philip]

The USAF's own conclusions found that against large numbers of Chinese Flankers and other aircraft,US Raptors operating out of Guam trying to defend Taiwan would be defeated by superior Flanker numbers,as the Raptors had limited AAMs and once BVR missiles were exhausted and visual contact was made anything could happen.So-called stealthy fighters,once they carry weaponry underwing and not in their conformal weapons bays,suffer the consequences.The absurd cost of the Raptors too are making it unaffordable even for the US.In addition,the US is denying even its closest allies Raptors,instead selling them inferior JSF's ,that too of inferior standards! The Raptors have yet to be (publicly) used in current wars,though there is suspicion that the US has actually sent them into the war zones without advertising their presence and on non-combat missions.Without experiencing battle,it appears to be one huge white elephant to acquire and operate,as if the tech is so deadly and has to be kept so secret,it would be better if it remined on the drawing board!

The US is now ruminating about 6th-gen aircraft and are trying to evolve concepts that can be affordable,and bring significant extra capability,rather than an evolution of the 5th-gen tech developed.

If the PAK-FA comes in at the advertised price,one-third that of a Raptor,or even half the price,it will be possible for India and others who operate the aircraft to acquire it in significant numbers,where in concert with late model Flankers,etc.,they will be able to dominate the skies in our patr of the world.The most significant feature of the PAK-FA will be a naval variant,which will give the IN a quantum leap over current 4++gen fighters like the MIG-29K and LCA naval or even the Sea Gripen or naval Rafale.Russia is reportedly finalising the design of its latest carrier class by the year end and should be designing the carrier with a naval PAK-FA in mind.India's IACs-2 and 3 should be similarly designed to carry a navalised 5th-gen fighter/PAK-FA.

[shiv]

The F-22 had a 97% mission availability rate during Red Flag '07, launching 102 out of 105 assigned sorties.

http://www.thehowlandcompany.com/pdf/AW&ST8JAN07.pdf

http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/edop_7-13-09.asp

The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it
continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03020.html

"

It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a criticalfailure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record.

http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... sonic.html

Stealthy F-22 may have little defense against detection from an IRST flown at high altitude(s) if Raptor is to be flown at high speeds and altitude, due to frictional heating of her airframe and canopy, in addition to (below) her exhaust heat plumes; in surrounding air temperatures of -30F, -40F, -50F, -60F degrees below zero.

Integrated IRST effectively allows the radar to switch (focus its power) straight into powerful-narrow beam(s) directly at the (thermal) target – ‘straight to target-track-mode’ rather than remain in a broader ‘search’ mode. This is consistent with public information reporting that Stealth: “prefers hostile scanning-radar over hostile tracking-radar.”

This is the most hilarious excuse by a US fanboy: "It's not meant to be used in war. Only to threaten"
http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/edop_7-13-09.asp

The best weapon may be the one that isn’t used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence. The F-22 provides those capabilities for today’s contingencies as well as for future conflict.

[jaladipc]

This is soooooooooooooo annoying to read a whole page of sh!t related to F-22 in a PAK-FA/FGFA thread.
Mods please make this thread a pure FGFA/PAK-FA onleeeeeeeeeeee.

f-22 fanboys can go to nukad or international aviation to discuss about their dream fighter.

[shiv]

Well I have tries to shift the F 22 discussion to the "Countering future Threats" thread but people persist in keeping it on here. Raptor is FGFA I guess?

Philip you are right in picking up the way the US is offering the inferior capability JSF with inferior standards to everyone while recouping cost of tech. That is good business mentality. But it suggests to me that F 22 is a dead end of sorts. If the US cannot afford it and the US cannot make it work and quickly does a downhill ski to bigger numbers of a lesser aircraft it should serve as a lesson to any mil aviation watcher.

[Viv S]

No missile is launched physically, but the entire flight path of the missile is simulated from 'launch' to 'impact' and monitored by ground controllers(Nellis has possibly the most sophisticated Air Combat Tracking System in the world). The target aircraft can still break and attempt to get out of the missile envelope. And if the launch aircraft breaks lock or otherwise disengages, no kill is awarded.

If no missile is launched - nobody gets a missile launch warning. How stupid is that? The target aircraft is obviously a sitting duck. Otherwise 5 aircraft may pick up the missile launch and scream a warning over the network.

How would an aircraft detect a missile launch from the F-22 under real world conditions? It may eventually pick up the missile on radar or its exhaust/plume on IR sensors but at launch range? Very very unlikely.

With regard to the Red Flag RoE, if I understood it correctly, target aircraft are warned of the incoming 'simulated' missiles(via the ground based tracking system). Ranges at which they are warned could vary I guess, depending on the trajectory vis-a-vis the target aircraft.

And under operational conditions even the best missiles have a hit probability of 50% or less. So are 50% or more of "kills" randomly allowed to "live" to simulate reality? Or is more than one missile launched? Naturally if a Raptor launches 2 missiles - that halves the number of kills it can have. No details of that in any reports. The game could well be loaded in favor of the Raptor. And we know damn well that if the performance was less than desired nobody is going to talk about it. Or they might say exactly the opposite as was done after COPE India.

Which missiles are we talking about when we say 50% hit probability? Aim-120C7? Aim-120D MICA? Or '99 Kosovo War Aim-120Bs? I've heard estimates for the C7 and D variants stated as high as 90%.

In the exercise, the missiles were rated with the same kill probabilities for both sides, so one could argue that the single Raptor 'kill' may not have occurred as well. The Raptor's theoretical kill ratio in any case will remain the same unless its opponents are equipped with a considerably superior weapon.

In addition, the Raptor's stealth allows it to retain the initiative. The Raptor pilot will be trying to get into an optimum firing position (perhaps into the missile's NEZ) while his adversary is still unaware of any danger.

This is not to say the Raptor is a bad aircraft. But the conclusions being reached from the little available information and non data like "European pilot felt bad but was good natured", "American pilot felt good about locking" etc are hardly enough to reach the sorts of hyperbolic conclusions I see being reached in fanboy media and transmitted on here.

There's enough information on the net to conclude that the F-22 is exceedingly hard to detect or track, while being itself being able to detect and track adversaries exceedingly well.

The Red Flag-like exercises that the F-22 are deployed in, are precisely to identify the 'novel' or 'unconventional' tactics that may be employed against it in actual combat. And all news that's been released so far suggests that until the F-35/PAK-FA/J-xx become fully operational, it will dominate the skies.

The thing with a 144-0 record is that if you halved it or even quartered it (i.e. disallowed three out of every four Raptor 'kills'), to compensate for extraneous circumstances, it would still be an extremely lopsided figure.

[Viv S]

In simpler terms, what after the stealthy a/c fires all its bvr missiles and claims say 3 hits?
Does it scoot off or will it be protected by the same 4th gen a/c that were feeding it data until now?

Its more likely the F-22 will be feeding them data. After exhausting its missiles it will probably bug out or stay back and act as mini-AWACS.

[Viv S]

The USAF's own conclusions found that against large numbers of Chinese Flankers and other aircraft,US Raptors operating out of Guam trying to defend Taiwan would be defeated by superior Flanker numbers,as the Raptors had limited AAMs and once BVR missiles were exhausted and visual contact was made anything could happen.So-called stealthy fighters,once they carry weaponry underwing and not in their conformal weapons bays,suffer the consequences.

First of all, how does a RAND analysis equate to USAF's own conclusions? And secondly, the study assigned a 27:1 kill ratio for the F-22 and assumed that Taiwanese bases are knocked out while Chinese bases remain intact, and the US doesn't escalate the war from its bases in Japan and South Korea.

In any case, the study wasn't intended to study the combat effectiveness of the F-22.

The absurd cost of the Raptors too are making it unaffordable even for the US.In addition,the US is denying even its closest allies Raptors,instead selling them inferior JSF's ,that too of inferior standards! The Raptors have yet to be (publicly) used in current wars,though there is suspicion that the US has actually sent them into the war zones without advertising their presence and on non-combat missions.Without experiencing battle,it appears to be one huge white elephant to acquire and operate,as if the tech is so deadly and has to be kept so secret,it would be better if it remined on the drawing board!

Even if the F-22 can clock a 6:1 kill ratio against fourth generation aircraft (in reality the ratio is likely to be far more skewed), in financial terms the opposing forces will be dealt an equal or greater loss (6 x $50 million).

If the PAK-FA comes in at the advertised price,one-third that of a Raptor,or even half the price,it will be possible for India and others who operate the aircraft to acquire it in significant numbers,where in concert with late model Flankers,etc.,they will be able to dominate the skies in our patr of the world.The most significant feature of the PAK-FA will be a naval variant,which will give the IN a quantum leap over current 4++gen fighters like the MIG-29K and LCA naval or even the Sea Gripen or naval Rafale.Russia is reportedly finalising the design of its latest carrier class by the year end and should be designing the carrier with a naval PAK-FA in mind.India's IACs-2 and 3 should be similarly designed to carry a navalised 5th-gen fighter/PAK-FA.

I haven't heard anything about it, but I hope a naval PAK-FA is on the cards.

[Viv S]

The F-22 had a 97% mission availability rate during Red Flag '07, launching 102 out of 105 assigned sorties.

http://www.thehowlandcompany.com/pdf/AW&ST8JAN07.pdf

http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/edop_7-13-09.asp

The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it
continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.

70% in peacetime is below optimum but not particularly bad. During operations the crew are apparently able to scale that up past 90%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03020.html

"

It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a criticalfailure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record.

http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... sonic.html

Not really sure what that means. Have all exercises so far been plagued with critical failures. Are these design flaws or niggling problems that can be ironed out. 1.7 hours is about one sortie so is it an unsurmountable problem.

Stealthy F-22 may have little defense against detection from an IRST flown at high altitude(s) if Raptor is to be flown at high speeds and altitude, due to frictional heating of her airframe and canopy, in addition to (below) her exhaust heat plumes; in surrounding air temperatures of -30F, -40F, -50F, -60F degrees below zero.

Integrated IRST effectively allows the radar to switch (focus its power) straight into powerful-narrow beam(s) directly at the (thermal) target – ‘straight to target-track-mode’ rather than remain in a broader ‘search’ mode. This is consistent with public information reporting that Stealth: “prefers hostile scanning-radar over hostile tracking-radar.”

Umm... this is from a blog. And the F-22 will also have an IRST sensor looking for enemy aircraft that haven't been designed for low observability in the infra-red spectrum.

[shiv]

^^Everyone has his favorite God to which he pays obeisance, even if that God has visible faults. This is the wrong thread in any case. Am willing to continue blasphemous disagreement on another thread.

[arya]

OMG
Sir, rename this forum to PAK-FA & F22-Raptor.

[Carl_T]

Sure, let's call it stealth fighter discussion and include MCA.

[tsarkar]

Viv S

The first mistake in drawing 100:1 conclusions is the assumption that the opponent will fight symmetrically and line up ducks for the shooting gallery.

In the initial stages, when the opponent is an unknown quantity, the response could be symmetric. However, humans quickly adapt and consequently warfighting skills too evolve, and response becomes asymmetric.

Do read the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F ... bat_losses

and it would be wise to remember the adage that victory belongs to those who’re most desperate for it

May you live in interesting times

[Christopher Sidor]

This PAK-FA/FGFA aircraft that India is building with Russia, is a heavy fighter. We need to have a 5th generation light and medium fighter also. Light and medium for against pakistan, while the heavy, medium and light fighter against China. Currently all the proposed light/medium fighters that India will get with be 4th generation fighters.

[prastor]

This PAK-FA/FGFA aircraft that India is building with Russia, is a heavy fighter. We need to have a 5th generation light and medium fighter also. Light and medium for against pakistan, while the heavy, medium and light fighter against China. Currently all the proposed light/medium fighters that India will get with be 4th generation fighters.

India already has the AMCA program in the pipeline which will be a 5th Gen Medium Combat Aircraft.

I am pretty sure that if AMCA program is a success, then Tejas Mk3 will be incorporating most of the successful features from AMCA and result in our very own 5th Gen Light Combat Aircraft.

Bunch of speculations, really!

[kaangeya]

Why are we wasting time and bandwidth on the F-22, a canceled program? What next a discussion on the Comanche AH and the Predator field gun?

[Gaur]

http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv34 ... 1281177642
Rendering of PAK-FA and F-22 flying together.

[Gaur]

^^
Nahi bhai..its not my work (PAK-FA would have sported Indian roundels if it was ). Just posted it because I thought it was beautiful. Sorry for not making it clear earlier.
I have completed a model of Twin seater FGFA with some modifications though. It was about a month ago but I am just not able to get the textures right and have almost given up. Will try again and post if get satisfactory results.
No mood to render LCA again though. It is too much work and I have little confidence in texturing (not to mention lazy ). Maybe if I get FGFA textures right, I may get some confidence boost and try LCA with darker camo.

[shukla]

Russia: New jet must be better, cheaper

"We are obliged to make the [fifth generation] airplane cheaper than analogous complexes abroad," Ivanov said during a meeting at the Central Institute of Aviation Motor Construction in Turayevo.

Russia's only known fifth-generation project is Sukhoi's PAK FA, RIA Novosti reported. The new jet, called the TA-50, is designed to compete with the U.S. F-22 Raptor, until now the world's only fifth-generation fighter, and the F-35 Lightning II.

[Viv S]

Viv S

The first mistake in drawing 100:1 conclusions is the assumption that the opponent will fight symmetrically and line up ducks for the shooting gallery.

Again, how are we concluding that the Red Forces lined up to be shot at during the exercises? After all, 100-1 can be over the course of a week. On a single sortie, the F-22 may have scored just 2 kills.

In the initial stages, when the opponent is an unknown quantity, the response could be symmetric. However, humans quickly adapt and consequently warfighting skills too evolve, and response becomes asymmetric.

Fair enough. These exercise had Opfor aircraft continually flying sorties while any AF would have stopped air operations and grounded its aircraft long back. The problem with an unconventional response, is that its unlikely to change the overall picture before the attacker(F-22 in this case) also adapts to the shift in tactics. And like I said before, these exercises are partly to throw up surprises for F-22 pilots. For example, the F-15 was a vaunted aircraft when it first entered service, yet F-4s and F-5s were able to give it a bloody nose in exercises conducted by 'elite' USAF/USN schools.

Do read the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F ... bat_losses

I've read quite a bit about the F-117 kill. While very impressive, it was a one off incident. A loss of a single F-22 for example, would not cause the USAF to halt Raptor flights.

and it would be wise to remember the adage that victory belongs to those who’re most desperate for it

May you live in interesting times

The introduction of the PAK-FA should make it very very interesting. Especially if the IN goes in for the F-35C.

[Philip]

What is coming out of the debate is that there is no "magic bullet" or "magic bird" that will win an air war,especially if protracted.I remember an old US study after GW1,where they found that the rate of attrition of Tomahawk missiles was so high that they would run out of them in a very short time and huge efforts were made to increae production for the war effort.A similar study was done on the attrition rate of BVR and SR missiles,v.expensive too,and these cannot be immediately acquired or produced ,which is why the Israeli air force continues to place such high emphasis on dogfighting and its aircraft retain their cannons.

We come back to the age-old credo "safety in numbers" and while in a short war the qualitative edge will make its presence felt,but as we saw at Kargil,the war can linger on for months (though only India resorted to use of its air power against Paki invaders) and will ultimately be also fought with the lowest tech/generation aircraft in service.The challenge in the success of the Indo-Russsian 5th-gen fighter is exactly what one of its Russian heads said,that it must be "affordable".This is where the profligate US defence industry has singularly failed with both the F-22 and JSF,in its quest for even more exotic tech by the day and when the aircraft finally arrives,as in the case of the F-22,it is too scared to use it in battle for fear of its secrets falling into enemy hands!

It is why we should not underestimate the arrival of the JF-17 Thunder,which will be available to Pak and China in large numbers to throw at us.The Chinese are engaged in its modernisation of the armed forces to not only raise the bar as far as acquisition of high-tech systems,but also produce massive numbers of a variety of weapon systems.It is why after spending so much money over decades,the success of the LCA is vital as much as the success of ther 5th-gen fighter,where we need both quality and quantity at affordable costs.

[Nirmal]

Mods Can I respectfully recommend that Habitual derailers of the thread are suspended, after due warnings (2), for say 2-3 months in order to instill some decipline.

[Viv S]

What is coming out of the debate is that there is no "magic bullet" or "magic bird" that will win an air war,especially if protracted.

That's true in a sense. One F-22 squadron cannot generate as many sorties as two F-15 squadrons so that is a drawback. But, if limiting attrition is a priority the former is a better option, if maintaining a constant CAP is a priority the latter is preferable.

I remember an old US study after GW1,where they found that the rate of attrition of Tomahawk missiles was so high that they would run out of them in a very short time and huge efforts were made to increae production for the war effort.A similar study was done on the attrition rate of BVR and SR missiles,v.expensive too,and these cannot be immediately acquired or produced ,which is why the Israeli air force continues to place such high emphasis on dogfighting and its aircraft retain their cannons.

Huh? Pilots will choose to fight WVR because missiles are expensive?

We come back to the age-old credo "safety in numbers" and while in a short war the qualitative edge will make its presence felt,but as we saw at Kargil,the war can linger on for months (though only India resorted to use of its air power against Paki invaders) and will ultimately be also fought with the lowest tech/generation aircraft in service.[/quote

Infantry campaigns particularly in harsh terrain are slow, modern air wars are not. An IAF-PAF conflict will be short, fast and very expensive. The flight time between IAF and PAF bases can be as low as 5min and with the advent of smart weapons, airbases are quite vulnerable. There isn't a lot of scope for outlasting the enemy.

]The challenge in the success of the Indo-Russsian 5th-gen fighter is exactly what one of its Russian heads said,that it must be "affordable".This is where the profligate US defence industry has singularly failed with both the F-22 and JSF,in its quest for even more exotic tech by the day and when the aircraft finally arrives,as in the case of the F-22,it is too scared to use it in battle for fear of its secrets falling into enemy hands!

The F-22 is primarily an air-superiority aircraft. The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq require bomb trucks. There are no battles going on, in the conventional sense. There's no reason to deploy the F-22 in either region. With regard to their prices, when you want the extras(and the Americans do), you have a pay a premium for it. Still 187 F-22s in not something to be scoffed at. Collectively the fleet is more lethal than every other air force.

[Philip]

Viv,It isn't that pilots will not use their BVR missiles,but that after the first week of intense battle,in an extended conflict they will soon run out of them! If a nation like the US suffered a shortfall of missiles in GW2,how much more critical will missile stocks be for us when faced with a formidable adversary in the air in the form of the PAF or PLAF or both. It would be interesting to find out what our inventory of BVR missiles are ,and any study done on war requirements,if there is non-classified info on the subject.

We keep on thinking that any future Indo-Pak spat will be short,sharp,swift.Kargil put paid to that idea.Gen.Kill-Any might also be more daring than the bandicoot and use the PAF especially if he gets solid logistic support from China.The Pakis might employ the PLAN to safeguard their lifeline from the Gulf,perhaps even with say Saudi/Gulf naval support too.We can't rule out such a scenario even if the chance is remote,but Pak with its N-tech can as AQK was doing surreptitiously deliver it to a fellow Islamic ally for support in a crisis.If we face another Himalayan invasion of similar nature,let's say this time that the "squatters" are Chinese,or as I've suggested that we plan for a JV between the Pakis and the Chinese,does anyone think that the spat will be over in days? Look at how the war in Afghanistan has lasted longer than the Vietnam War and WW2 and it is having a major impact on the US economy.

No one is underestimating the capability of the F-22.It is just that the US is shy of using it in its current war in Afghanistan for fear of losing one and compromising its secrets.Remember the Tomahawk that crashed in Paki territory which they handed over to China? This beggars the question,which is most useful for a nation engaged in a ground war,a $300 million equivalent of a Rolls-Royce or a $50 million multi-role aircraft or even a UCAV? It is true though that the US/NATO face zero threat in the air in AF. and little earlier in Iraq.Elements in the US are still obssesed with Russia and Cold War mentality survives in the west and the long gestation of aircraft like the F-22,Typhoon,etc.,which were meant for doing air combat battle with Russia,are now short of a role in the "war against terror".The late arrival of the JSF too is why extra SHs and Strike Eagles are being produced for the US and its allies.The fear of losing aircraft and having pilots captured and held hostage (we saw this ouselves at Kargil with Nachi shot down) has seen most of the GA duties now being carried out by UCAVs,but these are also v.expensive birds and manned aircraft are here to stay for a long time to come.

The F-22s advantange in the Pacific is intriguing as the PRC keep on pushing further outwards the envelope of their defences/strike capability each day to deter carrier task forces and island based F-22s will have limitations in endurance over the airspace around Taiwan.In a spat over a PRC attempt to invade Taiwan,whether the US will also restrain itself from attacking mainland Chinese bases to reduce the threat against their carriers is a moot point.