F-22. The most advanced fighter the world has ever seen.

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: soydios
wow...those are some...astounding...abilities

example: the F-15 has shot down over 100 aircraft in combat, either in the hands of U.S. or Israeli pilots. Not one has been lost in combat. As a test, one F-22 went up against 6 F-15s. The F-15s never even *saw* the F-22.

Yup, that's the advantage that having a powerful radar, long range missiles, and a low radar cross section will give you.
When the radar is activated, the other aircraft can also detect the owner.

Best advantage is that the F22 can operate jointly with an AWACS type system to guide it until it can launch.

Stealth only works if one does not yell out that you are hiding in the bushes.
The Raptors have an encrypted data link between each other. One Raptor will fly miles behind with the radar on full active. The others will be off. Once the active Raptor acquires a target, the data is sent to the fire control of the other Raptors. The others won't see it coming. And the activated Raptor goes back to silent.
This advertises Raptor B. As stated Raptor A is hidden.

However, if this becomes a predictible strategy, then the opposing forces start looking for/expecting a A/C leading the radar source.

It will also be interesting when you have an opponent hiding in the weeds once they detect the radar signal. ie> Home field advantage and adaptability of tactics.

I am sure that the next time the F22 as a blue force entity comes here to Red Flag, the score card may be different.

Sucks to be the activated Raptor in a real battle doesn't it? =P I guess if you're out of range that's cool, but still....
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Sucks to be the activated Raptor in a real battle doesn't it? =P I guess if you're out of range that's cool, but still....

Although much different, check out what wild weasels do. Now that is crazy.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: slatr
Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Just about any fighter designed in the last 30 years is inherently unstable and requires a computerized FCS.

Actually, the F-15 auto trims (unlike many Russian planes which are much harder to fly) and while not a fighter the A-10 is a fairly modern warplane with a fully manual backup system.

Both the F-15 and A-10 were designed more than 30 years ago.
 

slatr

Senior member
May 28, 2001
957
2
81
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: slatr
Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Just about any fighter designed in the last 30 years is inherently unstable and requires a computerized FCS.

Actually, the F-15 auto trims (unlike many Russian planes which are much harder to fly) and while not a fighter the A-10 is a fairly modern warplane with a fully manual backup system.

Both the F-15 and A-10 were designed more than 30 years ago.

You are right. The f-15 has gone through so many revisions that I keep forgetting its age.


 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
F-15s are getting phased out by said Fighter and totally replaced by F-35s. F-35s will be a bit superior to Eurofighters. Keep in mind, what matters is training and weapon systems.
Also note that in order to keep up with the F-22 taking off, the F-15 has to fire its afterburners.
 

comphollic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2003
1,751
0
0
Originally posted by: slatr
Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
Originally posted by: Aimster

My favt. is still the SU-27 and F-15 , but no doubt the F-22 would own them both

Same here... until they start putting F-22s in video games so I can fly them.

They have had those since the early 90s. I believe the name of the earliest sim was actually f-22 raptor. You can also fly one as an add on in MS Flight Sim.

Jane's USAF flight sim game had the F-22 and F117 as well.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: slatr
Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Just about any fighter designed in the last 30 years is inherently unstable and requires a computerized FCS.

Actually, the F-15 auto trims (unlike many Russian planes which are much harder to fly) and while not a fighter the A-10 is a fairly modern warplane with a fully manual backup system.

Both the F-15 and A-10 were designed more than 30 years ago.
Thanks for making me feel old:p

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: TehMac
F-15s are getting phased out by said Fighter and totally replaced by F-35s. F-35s will be a bit superior to Eurofighters. Keep in mind, what matters is training and weapon systems.
Also note that in order to keep up with the F-22 taking off, the F-15 has to fire its afterburners.

The F-35 still has to get into the production line.

Also, there are very few F22 squadrons around. Two I believe.

Many of the A/C that I see flying here at Nellis are F15s with a few F16s. It will be a long time before they are replaced. 10+ years

 

slatr

Senior member
May 28, 2001
957
2
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: TehMac
F-15s are getting phased out by said Fighter and totally replaced by F-35s. F-35s will be a bit superior to Eurofighters. Keep in mind, what matters is training and weapon systems.
Also note that in order to keep up with the F-22 taking off, the F-15 has to fire its afterburners.

The F-35 still has to get into the production line.

Also, there are very few F22 squadrons around. Two I believe.

Many of the A/C that I see flying here at Nellis are F15s with a few F16s. It will be a long time before they are replaced. 10+ years

They have F-22s at Langley, Tyndall and soon Elemdorf. They needed the Alaskan cold to keep the computers cooled off.

edit: I was partially joking about the computer,but I have read about issues with the heat generated. I am wondering if the Elemdorf decision was heavily motivated by North Korea.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: loic2003
Great planes. Now all you need are some decent pilots.
How about Air Traffic Controllers that can provide accurate info to the pilots.
Do not blame the pilots for doing their job.
 

loic2003

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2003
3,844
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: loic2003
Great planes. Now all you need are some decent pilots.
How about Air Traffic Controllers that can provide accurate info to the pilots.
Do not blame the pilots for doing their job.
So, the pilot asks his commander to lay down some artillery to show where the enemy actually is. He doesn't wait for this. Grid references aren't used ("Yeah, like, near that canal..."). He sees the orange markers. Neither he nor his wingman properly identify the targets as enemies. They both know friendlies were in the area not so long ago. They do not see the friendlies nor have proof they're out of the area other than very sketchy intel. He actually says 'it'd be fun' to shoot some stuff. Goes in for the kill. Commander comes back with abort mission. Too late.

 

aldamon

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
3,280
0
76
Originally posted by: tcsenter
The Red Air threat was compromised of a number of previous generation Air Force and Navy aircraft including the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. During the exercise, in which more than 40 aircraft littered the skies, the Blue Team achieved a remarkable 241-to-2 kill ratio. It should be noted, however, that the 2 aircraft lost on the Blue Team were F-15C aircraft and not the F-22s.
That's because most of the F-15C's combat systems and avionics suite are over 10 years old (in technology standards), particularly the inferior AN/APG-63(V)1 radar system, and deliberately being kept that way to justify the 'need' for the F-22. Though much improved over the original version, the APG-63(V)1 capabilities are still very dated and near the limits of its upgradeable processing and memory capacity.

Raytheon has developed a major retrofit package, the AN/APG-63(V)3, based on the same Active Electronically Scanned Array technology found in the F-22's AN/APG-77, with major processing, memory, and avionics capability increases over the AN/APG-63(V)1. Certain elements within the Air Force, defense industry, and Congress are trying to prevent this and other cost-effective improvements to the F-15C because they would effectively close the capability gap between the F-22 and F-15C.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c...el_awst_story.jsp?id=news/10184top.xml

The F-15C's aerodynamics and flight performance characteristics are still on par with newer aircraft, all it needs is a modern avionics and combat systems overhaul, as well as an engine update and significant improvements in the reliability of several sub-systems, all of which have passed development and prototype phases and are ready for operational evaluation. A few studies/analysis of these improvements concluded the F-15's air superiority could be extended at least 15 years into the future for about $5 billion or less.

Now think about why we are spending 200+ billion to 'replace' the "indisputed and unrivaled king of air-to-air (and multi-role) fighter" in the world when that status could be extended by at least 15 years at a cost of not more than $5 billion?

While we will need to replace the F-15 at some point, it is fairly indisputable that point would be no sooner than 2022 with cost-effective improvements, but for the 'push' in favor of the F-22 by certain interests within the defense industry and military.

The further-out we attempt to predict the needs and capabilities of a future aircraft, the more likely those predictions will be wrong. The F-22 will already be 15 years-old when it is slated to finally replace the F-15. We could have kept it in development phase for another 10 years at a fraction of the cost and ended up with an even better and future proof replacement for the F-15C.

Can an F-22 fan please respond to these points? Good thread!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: loic2003
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: loic2003
Great planes. Now all you need are some decent pilots.
How about Air Traffic Controllers that can provide accurate info to the pilots.
Do not blame the pilots for doing their job.
So, the pilot asks his commander to lay down some artillery to show where the enemy actually is. He doesn't wait for this. Grid references aren't used ("Yeah, like, near that canal..."). He sees the orange markers. Neither he nor his wingman properly identify the targets as enemies. They both know friendlies were in the area not so long ago. They do not see the friendlies nor have proof they're out of the area other than very sketchy intel. He actually says 'it'd be fun' to shoot some stuff. Goes in for the kill. Commander comes back with abort mission. Too late.
Pilots were told there were no friendlies in the area by Manila Hotel.
They questioned the ID panels and were told again that there were no friendlies.

 

slatr

Senior member
May 28, 2001
957
2
81
Originally posted by: aldamon
Originally posted by: tcsenter
The Red Air threat was compromised of a number of previous generation Air Force and Navy aircraft including the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. During the exercise, in which more than 40 aircraft littered the skies, the Blue Team achieved a remarkable 241-to-2 kill ratio. It should be noted, however, that the 2 aircraft lost on the Blue Team were F-15C aircraft and not the F-22s.
That's because most of the F-15C's combat systems and avionics suite are over 10 years old (in technology standards), particularly the inferior AN/APG-63(V)1 radar system, and deliberately being kept that way to justify the 'need' for the F-22. Though much improved over the original version, the APG-63(V)1 capabilities are still very dated and near the limits of its upgradeable processing and memory capacity.

Raytheon has developed a major retrofit package, the AN/APG-63(V)3, based on the same Active Electronically Scanned Array technology found in the F-22's AN/APG-77, with major processing, memory, and avionics capability increases over the AN/APG-63(V)1. Certain elements within the Air Force, defense industry, and Congress are trying to prevent this and other cost-effective improvements to the F-15C because they would effectively close the capability gap between the F-22 and F-15C.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c...el_awst_story.jsp?id=news/10184top.xml

The F-15C's aerodynamics and flight performance characteristics are still on par with newer aircraft, all it needs is a modern avionics and combat systems overhaul, as well as an engine update and significant improvements in the reliability of several sub-systems, all of which have passed development and prototype phases and are ready for operational evaluation. A few studies/analysis of these improvements concluded the F-15's air superiority could be extended at least 15 years into the future for about $5 billion or less.

Now think about why we are spending 200+ billion to 'replace' the "indisputed and unrivaled king of air-to-air (and multi-role) fighter" in the world when that status could be extended by at least 15 years at a cost of not more than $5 billion?

While we will need to replace the F-15 at some point, it is fairly indisputable that point would be no sooner than 2022 with cost-effective improvements, but for the 'push' in favor of the F-22 by certain interests within the defense industry and military.

The further-out we attempt to predict the needs and capabilities of a future aircraft, the more likely those predictions will be wrong. The F-22 will already be 15 years-old when it is slated to finally replace the F-15. We could have kept it in development phase for another 10 years at a fraction of the cost and ended up with an even better and future proof replacement for the F-15C.

Can an F-22 fan please respond to these points? Good thread!

You could further enchance the F-15. However, it will never have the stealth capabilities, thrust vectoring and supercruise that the F-22 does.

EDIT: Personal feelings deleted
 

novasatori

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
3,851
1
0
Originally posted by: slatr
Originally posted by: aldamon
Originally posted by: tcsenter
The Red Air threat was compromised of a number of previous generation Air Force and Navy aircraft including the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. During the exercise, in which more than 40 aircraft littered the skies, the Blue Team achieved a remarkable 241-to-2 kill ratio. It should be noted, however, that the 2 aircraft lost on the Blue Team were F-15C aircraft and not the F-22s.
That's because most of the F-15C's combat systems and avionics suite are over 10 years old (in technology standards), particularly the inferior AN/APG-63(V)1 radar system, and deliberately being kept that way to justify the 'need' for the F-22. Though much improved over the original version, the APG-63(V)1 capabilities are still very dated and near the limits of its upgradeable processing and memory capacity.

Raytheon has developed a major retrofit package, the AN/APG-63(V)3, based on the same Active Electronically Scanned Array technology found in the F-22's AN/APG-77, with major processing, memory, and avionics capability increases over the AN/APG-63(V)1. Certain elements within the Air Force, defense industry, and Congress are trying to prevent this and other cost-effective improvements to the F-15C because they would effectively close the capability gap between the F-22 and F-15C.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c...el_awst_story.jsp?id=news/10184top.xml

The F-15C's aerodynamics and flight performance characteristics are still on par with newer aircraft, all it needs is a modern avionics and combat systems overhaul, as well as an engine update and significant improvements in the reliability of several sub-systems, all of which have passed development and prototype phases and are ready for operational evaluation. A few studies/analysis of these improvements concluded the F-15's air superiority could be extended at least 15 years into the future for about $5 billion or less.

Now think about why we are spending 200+ billion to 'replace' the "indisputed and unrivaled king of air-to-air (and multi-role) fighter" in the world when that status could be extended by at least 15 years at a cost of not more than $5 billion?

While we will need to replace the F-15 at some point, it is fairly indisputable that point would be no sooner than 2022 with cost-effective improvements, but for the 'push' in favor of the F-22 by certain interests within the defense industry and military.

The further-out we attempt to predict the needs and capabilities of a future aircraft, the more likely those predictions will be wrong. The F-22 will already be 15 years-old when it is slated to finally replace the F-15. We could have kept it in development phase for another 10 years at a fraction of the cost and ended up with an even better and future proof replacement for the F-15C.

Can an F-22 fan please respond to these points? Good thread!

You could further enchance the F-15. However, it will never have the stealth capabilities, thrust vectoring and supercruise that the F-22 does.

EDIT: Personal feelings deleted

don't forget maintenance costs

that's the main factor I think - sure you could upgrade F-15s and F-16s endlessly but eventually you will have to replace every part in the aircraft, possibly more than once.

as they age the maintenance costs will skyrocket - so why upgrade over and over, eventually it is just better to say "Hey, sure we could upgrade this a lot, but instead lets design something new that will have lower maintenance costs, and higher performance."
 

mrgq912

Member
May 16, 2005
115
0
0
So much of our Airforce power is based on acurate satellite triangulation, so those bombs can hit the target from our backyard. But what if we wre to go to war with china, and they start taking down all our satellites. I am sure u have all heard about how they blew away one of their own with a missel launched from land.

Our planes would be nothing without the sophisticated satelites. I am surprised the US has not militerized Space yet.
 

beemercer

Senior member
Feb 10, 2006
817
0
0
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Sucks to be the activated Raptor in a real battle doesn't it? =P I guess if you're out of range that's cool, but still....

Although much different, check out what wild weasels do. Now that is crazy.

QFT, wild weasel pilots are crazy.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: mrgq912
So much of our Airforce power is based on acurate satellite triangulation, so those bombs can hit the target from our backyard. But what if we wre to go to war with china, and they start taking down all our satellites. I am sure u have all heard about how they blew away one of their own with a missel launched from land.

Our planes would be nothing without the sophisticated satelites. I am surprised the US has not militerized Space yet.

We were going to in the '80's. but all the smartass libs and dumbasses attacked the plans. Calling it "futile" and all that.
 

slatr

Senior member
May 28, 2001
957
2
81
Originally posted by: mrgq912
So much of our Airforce power is based on acurate satellite triangulation, so those bombs can hit the target from our backyard. But what if we wre to go to war with china, and they start taking down all our satellites. I am sure u have all heard about how they blew away one of their own with a missel launched from land.

Our planes would be nothing without the sophisticated satelites. I am surprised the US has not militerized Space yet.

Some satellites can defend themselves

 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: mrgq912
So much of our Airforce power is based on acurate satellite triangulation, so those bombs can hit the target from our backyard. But what if we wre to go to war with china, and they start taking down all our satellites. I am sure u have all heard about how they blew away one of their own with a missel launched from land.

Our planes would be nothing without the sophisticated satelites. I am surprised the US has not militerized Space yet.

IIRC there's a pact between most of the world's powers not to militarize space...doesn't mean they won't do so covertly, of course. After all, reconnaissance satellites are almost as "military" as an orbital missile platform.
 

Minjin

Platinum Member
Jan 18, 2003
2,208
1
81
And they all have internal guidance (INS) should GPS fail.

As for the argument for keeping and upgrading F15s, the same argument was used to keep the battleships alive. Sometimes you need to bite the bullet and plan for the future even if it costs a little more and maybe isn't as good in the short term.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
This reminds me of James Bond: Die another Day, with Icarus. That scene was pretty sweet.