F22 Raptor stealth technology broken?

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Fox5

I was under the impression that the F-35 would be close in performance. It's planned for 30 years of service as a top-end aircraft, and will be wildly available to many countries.
Is the extra cost of the F-22 worth its superior performance?.

The F-35 isn't that close in performance, it was designed for a different role. It was meant to complement it, not replace it. Our armed forces usually has a high/low mix of aircraft. One is an expensive air dominance fighter while the other is a cheaper, less capable multirole aircraft.

F-22 and the F-35
F-15 and the F-16
F-14 and the F-18 (now it's the F-18E/F and the F-18C/D)

 

[Arkaign]

Fighter Jets are for the most part merely a weapons delivery system. Better missiles/radar/guidance/countermeasures = win. Doesn't matter so much whether the missiles are launched from an F15 or an F22 or a hypothetical F44, so long as they can be launched first, and fly further, faster, and with accuracy towards their target. Dogfighting in the classical sense died in the Vietnam war, and even then it was rare. It was mostly dodging SAMs and firing short and medium-range AAMs.

 

[iGas]

IMHO, who throw the most lead first usually win.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Fighter Jets are for the most part merely a weapons delivery system. Better missiles/radar/guidance/countermeasures = win. Doesn't matter so much whether the missiles are launched from an F15 or an F22 or a hypothetical F44, so long as they can be launched first, and fly further, faster, and with accuracy towards their target. Dogfighting in the classical sense died in the Vietnam war, and even then it was rare. It was mostly dodging SAMs and firing short and medium-range AAMs.

And if we need to make a strategic air strike in a land-locked country outside the range of ship-based missiles, what exactly do you plan to do? Plop a hellfire warhead onto an ICBM? Sure you could put a land-based launcher in but then you have to put boots on the ground, which is way more complicated and time consuming than an air strike.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Fighter Jets are for the most part merely a weapons delivery system. Better missiles/radar/guidance/countermeasures = win. Doesn't matter so much whether the missiles are launched from an F15 or an F22 or a hypothetical F44, so long as they can be launched first, and fly further, faster, and with accuracy towards their target. Dogfighting in the classical sense died in the Vietnam war, and even then it was rare. It was mostly dodging SAMs and firing short and medium-range AAMs.

And if we need to make a strategic air strike in a land-locked country outside the range of ship-based missiles, what exactly do you plan to do? Plop a hellfire warhead onto an ICBM? Sure you could put a land-based launcher in but then you have to put boots on the ground, which is way more complicated and time consuming than an air strike.

Re-read my post, I wasn't even talking about ship-based missiles or land-based missiles, just the general fact that as long as air superiority is a given, the AAM or AGM will be just as effective whether launched from an F15E or from an F22, etc. I'm not saying that we don't need to keep up with good tech in aircraft, just that the F22 seems to be a near worst-case scenario of cost vs. result, and of a laundry-list of important bits for fighting 21st century wars large or small, aircraft are becoming less and less critical in the overall machine.

 

[Miramonti]

Nothing a bios update can't fix.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Fighter Jets are for the most part merely a weapons delivery system. Better missiles/radar/guidance/countermeasures = win. Doesn't matter so much whether the missiles are launched from an F15 or an F22 or a hypothetical F44, so long as they can be launched first, and fly further, faster, and with accuracy towards their target. Dogfighting in the classical sense died in the Vietnam war, and even then it was rare. It was mostly dodging SAMs and firing short and medium-range AAMs.

And if we need to make a strategic air strike in a land-locked country outside the range of ship-based missiles, what exactly do you plan to do? Plop a hellfire warhead onto an ICBM? Sure you could put a land-based launcher in but then you have to put boots on the ground, which is way more complicated and time consuming than an air strike.

Re-read my post, I wasn't even talking about ship-based missiles or land-based missiles, just the general fact that as long as air superiority is a given, the AAM or AGM will be just as effective whether launched from an F15E or from an F22, etc. I'm not saying that we don't need to keep up with good tech in aircraft, just that the F22 seems to be a near worst-case scenario of cost vs. result, and of a laundry-list of important bits for fighting 21st century wars large or small, aircraft are becoming less and less critical in the overall machine.

assuming every future war is against totally crippled opponents or insurgents. you can never be so sure.

 

[jpeyton]

Maintenance issues make F-22's hourly flight cost skyrocket

Obama threatens F-22 veto

 

[runestone]

One must wonder if the -now almost ten year old problem- continues to exist.
I know the B-2 bomber has always had a very high cost for maintenence of the "secret sauce" radar absorbing coatings. I think it reasonable to assume that the F-22 would also be a high cost coating.
We DO NEED far more than the 187 that the current administration has proposed, and threatened to veto any number above that.

This pic is from a supersonic flyover of the USS John C. Stennis at sea near Alaska:

http://www.navy.mil/management...090622-N-7780S-014.jpg

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: runestone
We DO NEED far more than the 187 that the current administration has proposed

No we don't.

 

[runestone]

Disagree JP,,,I hate the cost, probably as much as you do,,but all those F-16's and 15's are wearing out( as all machines do).
Can you propose a "plan B"? Always willing to listen, especially if it helps the country( and my IRS tax check).

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: runestone
but all those F-16's and 15's are wearing out( as all machines do).

Replace them with F-35s and UAVs.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Maintenance issues make F-22's hourly flight cost skyrocket

Obama threatens F-22 veto

Well of course the F-22 has a high maintenance cost, its new. Procedures change as crews become familiarized with the new systems over the first few years and the maintenance cost is reduced.

The same thing occurred when the F-15 was introduced, but now its our main air-superiority fighter.

One also has to take into account that a single F-22 can play the role of multiple other aircraft, say 3 F-15s, and keeping 3 F-15s in the air is more expensive than a single F-22.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Fox5

I was under the impression that the F-35 would be close in performance. It's planned for 30 years of service as a top-end aircraft, and will be wildly available to many countries.
Is the extra cost of the F-22 worth its superior performance?.

The F-35 isn't that close in performance, it was designed for a different role. It was meant to complement it, not replace it. Our armed forces usually has a high/low mix of aircraft. One is an expensive air dominance fighter while the other is a cheaper, less capable multirole aircraft.

F-22 and the F-35
F-15 and the F-16
F-14 and the F-18 (now it's the F-18E/F and the F-18C/D)

you have them backwards... multirole aircraft like the F22/15/14 are the expensive, air superiority craft F35/16/18 are expendable, simple, and cheap.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Fighter Jets are for the most part merely a weapons delivery system. Better missiles/radar/guidance/countermeasures = win. Doesn't matter so much whether the missiles are launched from an F15 or an F22 or a hypothetical F44, so long as they can be launched first, and fly further, faster, and with accuracy towards their target. Dogfighting in the classical sense died in the Vietnam war, and even then it was rare. It was mostly dodging SAMs and firing short and medium-range AAMs.

thats why we lost vietnam... classical dogfighting is still very important.
whoever designed the F22 seems to have ignored this simple concept, which is another reason this plane will fail.

the F22 is amazing, but it cant take on 32 F14/15/16s all at one time.
which is about what its out numbered by.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Maintenance issues make F-22's hourly flight cost skyrocket

Obama threatens F-22 veto

Well of course the F-22 has a high maintenance cost, its new. Procedures change as crews become familiarized with the new systems over the first few years and the maintenance cost is reduced.

The same thing occurred when the F-15 was introduced, but now its our main air-superiority fighter.

One also has to take into account that a single F-22 can play the role of multiple other aircraft, say 3 F-15s, and keeping 3 F-15s in the air is more expensive than a single F-22.

not a chance.
for the cost of 1 F22, $361 million per aircraft...

i could have
9x F14 A/B $38million
12x F15 C/D $30million
20x F16 C/D $19million
11x F18 C/D/E/F $32million
or
4x F35 $83million

 

[arcenite]

Is the US really considering taking a step backwards?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Maintenance issues make F-22's hourly flight cost skyrocket

Obama threatens F-22 veto

Well of course the F-22 has a high maintenance cost, its new. Procedures change as crews become familiarized with the new systems over the first few years and the maintenance cost is reduced.

The same thing occurred when the F-15 was introduced, but now its our main air-superiority fighter.

One also has to take into account that a single F-22 can play the role of multiple other aircraft, say 3 F-15s, and keeping 3 F-15s in the air is more expensive than a single F-22.

not a chance.
for the cost of 1 F22, $361 million per aircraft...

i could have
9x F14 A/B $38million
12x F15 C/D $30million
20x F16 C/D $19million
11x F18 C/D/E/F $32million
or
4x F35 $83million

You're ignoring inflation and operating costs. You can't get 9 F14s, and if you want to see something scary, look at its what it costs to maintain. Not just in dollars, but in hours of downtime to operating time.

Pilots are very expensive to train and maintenance crews aren't cheap either. Not to mention fuel.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Maintenance issues make F-22's hourly flight cost skyrocket

Obama threatens F-22 veto

Well of course the F-22 has a high maintenance cost, its new. Procedures change as crews become familiarized with the new systems over the first few years and the maintenance cost is reduced.

The same thing occurred when the F-15 was introduced, but now its our main air-superiority fighter.

One also has to take into account that a single F-22 can play the role of multiple other aircraft, say 3 F-15s, and keeping 3 F-15s in the air is more expensive than a single F-22.

not a chance.
for the cost of 1 F22, $361 million per aircraft...

i could have
9x F14 A/B $38million
12x F15 C/D $30million
20x F16 C/D $19million
11x F18 C/D/E/F $32million
or
4x F35 $83million

You're ignoring inflation and operating costs. You can't get 9 F14s, and if you want to see something scary, look at its what it costs to maintain. Not just in dollars, but in hours of downtime to operating time.

Pilots are very expensive to train and maintenance crews aren't cheap either. Not to mention fuel.

once again, all of these require pilots, training, and maintenance...
AND all three of those are far more costly on the F22 than any of the afore mentioned jets.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

As for the F22 vs F35 debate, IIRC since the F35 is being sold to other countries we wanted a way to be able to maintain our stance of (air) dominence against anything including the F35.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Maintenance issues make F-22's hourly flight cost skyrocket

Obama threatens F-22 veto

Well of course the F-22 has a high maintenance cost, its new. Procedures change as crews become familiarized with the new systems over the first few years and the maintenance cost is reduced.

The same thing occurred when the F-15 was introduced, but now its our main air-superiority fighter.

One also has to take into account that a single F-22 can play the role of multiple other aircraft, say 3 F-15s, and keeping 3 F-15s in the air is more expensive than a single F-22.

not a chance.
for the cost of 1 F22, $361 million per aircraft...

i could have
9x F14 A/B $38million
12x F15 C/D $30million
20x F16 C/D $19million
11x F18 C/D/E/F $32million
or
4x F35 $83million

You're ignoring inflation and operating costs. You can't get 9 F14s, and if you want to see something scary, look at its what it costs to maintain. Not just in dollars, but in hours of downtime to operating time.

Pilots are very expensive to train and maintenance crews aren't cheap either. Not to mention fuel.

once again, all of these require pilots, training, and maintenance...
AND all three of those are far more costly on the F22 than any of the afore mentioned jets.

On a per plane basis or total cost basis?

IOW, are you saying it costs more for 1 pilot in one F22 vs 1 pilot and 1 RIO in an F14? Or 9 pilots and 9 RIOs and 9 flight crews, servicing 9 airframes with 18 engines?

Again, look up the maintenance of F-14s, how many hours of maintenance are required per hour of flight? I've read as high as fifty. link The F-22 is apparently somewhere around 30 right now, which is much higher than it's supposed to be. Much of that is skin repairs... It should, hopefully, come down as it matures. We'll see.

Also, keep in mind an F-22 can do things that none of the above can even hope to do, so you don't necessarily get equal capability just by putting more A/C in the air.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Maintenance issues make F-22's hourly flight cost skyrocket

Obama threatens F-22 veto

Well of course the F-22 has a high maintenance cost, its new. Procedures change as crews become familiarized with the new systems over the first few years and the maintenance cost is reduced.

The same thing occurred when the F-15 was introduced, but now its our main air-superiority fighter.

One also has to take into account that a single F-22 can play the role of multiple other aircraft, say 3 F-15s, and keeping 3 F-15s in the air is more expensive than a single F-22.

not a chance.
for the cost of 1 F22, $361 million per aircraft...

i could have
9x F14 A/B $38million
12x F15 C/D $30million
20x F16 C/D $19million
11x F18 C/D/E/F $32million
or
4x F35 $83million

You're ignoring inflation and operating costs. You can't get 9 F14s, and if you want to see something scary, look at its what it costs to maintain. Not just in dollars, but in hours of downtime to operating time.

Pilots are very expensive to train and maintenance crews aren't cheap either. Not to mention fuel.

once again, all of these require pilots, training, and maintenance...
AND all three of those are far more costly on the F22 than any of the afore mentioned jets.

On a per plane basis or total cost basis?

IOW, are you saying it costs more for 1 pilot in one F22 vs 1 pilot and 1 RIO in an F14? Or 9 pilots and 9 RIOs and 9 flight crews, servicing 9 airframes with 18 engines?

Again, look up the maintenance of F-14s, how many hours of maintenance are required per hour of flight? I've read as high as fifty. link The F-22 is apparently somewhere around 30 right now, which is much higher than it's supposed to be. Much of that is skin repairs... It should, hopefully, come down as it matures. We'll see.

Also, keep in mind an F-22 can do things that none of the above can even hope to do, so you don't necessarily get equal capability just by putting more A/C in the air.

I didnt say equal capabilitiy.
I said ADAQUATE with substancially reduced cost.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: sao123

I didnt say equal capabilitiy.
I said ADAQUATE with substancially reduced cost.

How do you know what's adequate?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer

Originally posted by: iFX
It's bullshit. You don't think the US Military tests for these things before they take delivery?

Are you kidding?

When is the last time you heard of the US government (or military) developing something?? They don't. They look to contractors to do the work, and the contractors are the ones supplying the experts and data.

Absolute utter bullshit. I'm in a room full of people right (including myself) that beg differ.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Fighter Jets are for the most part merely a weapons delivery system. Better missiles/radar/guidance/countermeasures = win. Doesn't matter so much whether the missiles are launched from an F15 or an F22 or a hypothetical F44, so long as they can be launched first, and fly further, faster, and with accuracy towards their target. Dogfighting in the classical sense died in the Vietnam war, and even then it was rare. It was mostly dodging SAMs and firing short and medium-range AAMs.

thats why we lost vietnam... classical dogfighting is still very important.
whoever designed the F22 seems to have ignored this simple concept, which is another reason this plane will fail.

the F22 is amazing, but it cant take on 32 F14/15/16s all at one time.
which is about what its out numbered by.

lulwut?

dogfighting doesn't matter if you can just put the plane down 100+km away. Modern war is about power projection, and then boots on the ground. Aircraft have diminished in importance since WW2, and have become less of a fighting machine, and more of just a way to carry and launch missiles / drop bombs.

And the more accepted answer for the "loss" in Vietnam was that the Vietnamese were fighting a civil war, and they would not accept a western occupation, even with 2+ million civilian dead, and 1.1+ million dead enemy soldiers. That's comparing to our ~60k KIA and virtually zero U.S. civilian casualties.

So :

~2,000,000 to 3,000,000 Dead Soldiers and Civilians

vs

~60,000

It doesn't any more lopsided than that, but they just wouldn't let go.