The vaunted Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor is less a nimble, sharp-eyed bird of prey than a sluggish, half-blind buzzard, according to noted fighter designer Pierre Sprey. He cites several figures to support to his claim:
* The F-22 has higher wing loading than the Boeing F-15A, meaning more weight on the wing and less maneuverability
* The Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 50 with a General Electric 110 engine out-accelerates the F-22 with its two Pratt & Whitney 119s — at any altitude
* The F-22 has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-15A
* The F-22 pilot’s rearward and downward visibility is inferior to the F-16 pilot’s
The result, Sprey contends, is that the F-22 will lose in dogfights against older, supposedly inferior aircraft.
The fighter jocks of the first operational Raptor unit, the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, scoffed at the notion during my Aug. 10 visit.
“I don’t know what people have been reading, but this thing is a monster,” Brigadier General Burton Field said. “It’s more maneuverable than anything out there.“
“We will turn inside anybody,” Captain Phil Colomy seconded.
Exercises have tended to corroborate these pilots’ contentions. At Northern Edge in Alaska in June, the 27th Fighter Squadron’s Raptors killed 108 F-15s and F-16s for no losses. In one four-hour engagement teaming F-22s and F-15s against other U.S. aircraft, the Raptor team killed 83 and lost just one Eagle.
To explain this apparent disconnect between the Raptor’s flight performance and its exercise results, Field and Colomy point to aspects of the F-22’s design that Sprey ignores, such as:
* An advanced flight control system that renders smarter aircraft reactions to control inputs: The F-22, like the F-16, is an aerodynamically unstable aircraft that relies on computer systems to stabilize it in flight and translate pilot inputs into aircraft movements. The sophistication of the computer is a factor in the maneuverability of the aircraft.
* Large control surfaces: The F-22 features some of the largest elevators, flaps, fins and stabilizers on any fighter aircraft ever built. The single-piece stabilizers are as large as an F-16’s entire wing. Control-surface design is another key factor in maneuverability.
* Thrust vectoring: The P&W-119s terminate in vertical thrust-vectoring nozzles that can direct 35,000 pounds of thrust apiece 20 degrees up or down, improving turning ability. Confronted with the criticism that these nozzles incur a weight and drag penalty, Colomoy laughed and pointed to a nearby F-15’s large, unmoving nozzles. “You’ve got to have nozzles,” he said. “The only difference with these is that they move.” In other words, they’re no heavier or draggier than any other nozzle.
The one criticism that the Raptor fliers can’t counter is that the jet’s canopy affords poorer visibility than the F-16’s. It’s true: the F-22’s canopy is slightly obstructed by the intakes and the spine, but this flaw hasn’t resulted in any lost dogfights in recent exercises.
–David Axe
This is the biggest argument FOR the raptor: it really should be a superb Air to Air fighter, as this is what it was actually designed for, not ground pounding.
Thrust vectoring counters the wing-loading issues (you need less lift/weight to turn at a given rate with thrush vectoring), its heavily armed in the Air to Air stakes (gun + 10 missiles), and the clean profile really does help: what it loses in thrust it can claw back in low drag.
But one has to wonder if its just not way way way too costly for this role! With only a fleet of less than 200 fighters, it really doesn’t make sense in the coming environment of swarms of lower cost drones.
Look at it this way. The biggest cost for a UAV is probably the engine. A Honda/GE HF118 is 27″ wide, 54″ long, and puts out 1700 lbs of thrust, at a price tag of <$300k/each. Assume the Chinese can copy this at 1400 lbs of thrust and $200k/each, at a fuel consumption of say 0.5-.7 lb/hr/lbf.
This should easily allow a 5000 lb UCAV with a 800-1000km combat range and a subsonic speed of ~400 knots (Mach .7).
Now figure that carbon fiber is now a garage technology, fiberglass is even cheaper, computers are almost free, stealth is about shape and EM emissions as much as anything else, CNC machines are plentiful, and Chinese engineers are brilliant, cheap, and creative…
To counter the next generation threat, you need anti-air technologies that can deal with very stealthy, large number UAVs.
UAVs are also much more vulnerable to electronic jamming. Stealthy or not, they rely on a constant flow of transmissions back and forth between the drone and the operator.
Hordes of drones? Doubtful. Each of those drones requires a real-time video feed to the operator. Multiply the problems with JTRS by a hundred and you’ll see the difficulty in coordinating mass UAV assaults. Certainly, they’re a useful weapon, but they aren’t going to revolutionize air combat anytime soon.
I am not that sure it outmanoevers evertything out there in dogfights all the time.… Mig 29OVT Su-37??? But it definitly has the best electronics,lowest RCS,of any other fighter in service. Great (best in the world right now) for air-air (especially for BVR combat) and SEAD but for other missions there are better suited aircraft.
I’d like to know more about how many aircraft were involved in the excercises, and the ratio of older fighters to f22s. The most interesting bit of Stevenson’s presentation in my view is the part that says, “An increase in the total number of aircraft in aerial combat drives the exchange ratio toward parity”.
If that’s true, I’d be curious to know how the F-22 would fare if outnumbered, say,4– or even 6– to one by f-16s, Grippens, or some of the newer lead-in jets like T-50s or Makos. If Stevenson’s cost calculations are correct, we could buy roughly 10 shiny new F-16s for the cost of a single Raptor.
It seems to me the F-22 is only really worth the money if the advantage of fielding one F-22 is greater than that of fielding 10 F-16s. That may be the case, but its kind of hard to swallow, especially when factoring in issues like simultaneous targeting and multiple, serial engagements. Even if those per-unit figures are higher for the f-22, are they higher by a factor of 10? I wonder.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1916.html
This says they were outnumbered by as much as 8 to 1. Fairly impressive, I’d say.
Where are these “drones” you all yabber about?
Seriously, some of you here think theyre better than sliced bread. Yet you dont see the reality of their operation.
Simply put, drones will never supplant manned fighter combat and even ground missions. A human being is infinitely more intelligent at problem solving than any computer can possibly be.
1. For autonomous drones, these units will rely on set mission paths and have great difficulty in dealing with rapid changing threat environments. Even if you want to change the target or something, you need to relay data.
2. For remote drones, you need communications bandwith for the video feeds, telemetry, etc.
So, you have to rely on remote aircraft which can enter immense jamming. And rely on satellite bandwith systems for long distance control.
When we are in fact, coming into a time where our enemies can knock out satellites by “dazzling” them with lasers, or even using ASAT weapons.
Its all about saturation.
UCAVs will fail miserably when entering an area with numerous ground based jamming system and weapons available to knock out satellites.
This is the natural dead end of UCAV technology.
In fact, we are reaching the dead end sooner than ever! UCAVs costs are also increasing immensly as well.
They are far from “cheap” and definitely not as “foolproof” as a man at the controls.
UCAVs will only hold the niche role in super-dangerous missions where attrition is key. They will be nothing better than a Tomahawk which can come home.
F-22A Economics:
I’m hearing alot of crap about how expensive this plane is.
Frankly, its just that: crap.
At this very moment in time, the USAF can order 200 more F-22As. The first of these 200 will cost $130million. The last one, hopefully before the F-22B begins, will probably cost as much as a brand new F-15C today.
The difference? We have a design which can potentially last 100 years.
The F-22A is an investment in our future. To fail to buy more is to sell our pilots short.
More like 350 some million…
The $350+ million figure comes up when you add in development costs, which interestingly is not done for the cost of any aircraft the F-22 is being compared to, as far as I can tell. Also most of the development cost has already been paid, so using that as a figure for future purchases doesn’t make much sense.
There is also the point that the cost per plane goes down with more being built. Which is one of the reasons that some of the Air Force brass want’s to sell Raptors to Japan.
The development costs are already sunk. Its been paid already.
We can cancel the 183 right now, and still be in the hole the billions we paid.
The F-22A in reality costs $115~135 mil approx. Also, if the production order is like 200 more for the USAF, then costs decrease even more.
In the end, the F-22A can even cost as little as $90million if enough additional units are procured.
Production is to run from now until 2011 I think. It is in this time, the USAF will secure funding.
Frankly, Congress should give in and just pay for it all. Its a travesty to waste the F-22A program. It has so much potential.
Noah, your wrong. The cost is justified.
The F-22A is an investment for the next 50 years, minimum. Can we even keep our old-ass F-15 air frames going that long? Can we keep them up to date?
Basically you offer no alternative. It seems to me, buying more newer F-15Cs is a step in the wrong direction.
And thankfully. I’m glad the USAF will thumb its nose at you naysayers and sacrifice everything to buy this aircraft.
Your no expert. Can you even find me an F-22 pilot who can legitimately agree with you? Huh?
We have more qualified people in charge for a good reason.
Next fifty years? You must be joking.
How many manned aircraft do you think there will be in the danger zone in ten years time? And how many a couple of years after that when DE weapons make dogfighting obsolete?
The desperate attempts to sell this thing, coupled with the hopeful nostalgia of figher pilots, are beginning to look a little pathetic.
It’s history, just let it go and start looking to the future.
Wembley,
Please tell me which stocks to invest in. I want to retire before I’m 40. I’d like a yacht, a small island, and a harem of hotties. And a solid gold house. And a diamond lamborghini. Since you see the future with perfect clarity, I’d like to know what company will become the next Microsoft. So I’ve got 12 years if I’m going to retire by 40. Please, help a brother out.
Now, for those of us without perfect future sight, I’d suggest investing in technologies we know will work, instead of banking our future security on the latest new fad.
Hahaha.
Do you have any idea how much UCAVs will end up costing per unit after R&D?
Chances are, with the way the gov’t does things, more than F-35s are slated to cost!
People always talk the UCAVs are the next big thing, that they will replace manned flight. But people in the Air Force, who actually fly and operate these aircraft don’t agree.
A human pilot in the sky flying the aircraft is always infinitely more capable then some robot.
Please tell me which stocks to invest in. I want to retire before I’m 40. I’d like a yacht, a small island, and a harem of hotties. And a solid gold house. And a diamond lamborghini. Since you see the future with perfect clarity, I’d like to know what company will become the next Microsoft. So I’ve got 12 years if I’m going to retire by 40. Please, help a brother out.
Oh how droll. But Wembley isn’t the guy spewing gas about how F-22’s are going to be an “investment” good for 50 or 100 (!!!) years. I guess we”d better hope that your gold-plated Raptor can aim better than you.….
“A human pilot in the sky flying the aircraft is always infinitely more capable then some robot.“
A quick google didn’t turn it up, but there’s gotta be some equally certain comment from 1910 or so, assuring doubters that the battleship would rule the seas for the next century.
Hey, sglover, you’re right. Absolutely. They also didn’t think the airplane would be useful at all for military purposes. But there were also people back then who thought that… umm… something ridiculous sounding would be all the rage in the future.
Blimps. That’s one of them. Had to think a minute. They thought blimps were going to be the dominant form of air travel, and that they’d be a dominant military force.
People make all kinds of stupid predictions. That’s why it’s a good idea to hedge your bets and research multiple defense systems. Sure, if you guess right, you look like a genius. But what if you guess wrong? Then you go the way of Austria-Hungary.
The worst case scenario with the F-22 is that we get a kick-ass expensive fighter that we don’t need. But given that other countries ARE investing in their future fighter fleets (is fleet the right word there?–anyway, just look at Pakistan, Europe, China, and all the other nations who keep purchasing more jets), we’ll probably have SOMETHING to shoot at.
The UAV-thumpers are trying to guess where the next revolution in warfare is going to come from. As I said, that’s dangerous if you guess wrong.
“The worst case scenario with the F-22 is that we get a kick-ass expensive fighter that we don’t need. But given that other countries ARE investing in their future fighter fleets (is fleet the right word there?–anyway, just look at Pakistan, Europe, China, and all the other nations who keep purchasing more jets), we’ll probably have SOMETHING to shoot at.“
The history of aerial warfare suggests very strongly that training and institutional culture are rather more important than world-beating technology. Training and institutional culture, in turn, require flying hours and training and practice, practice, practice. And this, of course, requires money.
By now we’ve seen so many Third World air forces with a fleet of rusting late-model jets that it’s almost a caricature. On paper these were menacing forces, but invariably, when an actual conflict started, their capabilities have been laughable. The fiercest, newest jet is useless without highly skilled pilots backed up by extensive logistical networks.
Yet this is the pretty much the “threat” that the F-22 is supposedly going to “protect” us from.
F-22 proponents love to dredge up the latest wiz-bang prototypes from Sukhoi or Europe or wherever, but they never seem to bother to look past the surface, and consider the “enemy” states that will line up for these wares. Assuming that American diplomacy doesn’t remain so boneheaded that we actually end up in a war with China — in which case the type of fighter we have will be the very least of our worries — there’s simply no plausible rival out there that comes close to matching our aircrew training, or our industrial support. Even the marketing of the F-22 admits as much: “Air superiority” is simply taken as a given; the new “requirement” is something called “air dominance”.
It’s pretty useless to talk about every worst-case fever dream. The F-22 program admits to needing more than 60 BILLION dollars, for something that can charitably be described as an incremental improvement over what we’ve already got. For that amount of money, it had better deliver some substantial benefits that are perceptible in THIS reality, instead of an imaginary one plagued by sky armadas of superhuman Pakistanis or Iranians.
Question for all you guys.
It appears the USAF is going to purchase the new F/B-22. They want a bomber by 2018. They’ve indicated it will be manned. They’ve mentioned the problem current gen bombers have with evading defenses and not being able to strike quickly enough. All of which points to a supersonic stealth bomber which can be acquired within 10 years. I only know of one aircraft which meets those requirements (it also has the advantage of keeping much of the F-22 production lines open, in case you get to buy more later).
So the question is, if we go ahead and buy the F/B-22, much of the design work and technology work is already completed. Do you think the $30B we spent on the Raptor for R&D will be worth it? If we get two different aircraft out of it?
–
sglover, I understand the difference between “need” and “want”. But don’t you agree that we do need to replace our current generation of aircraft with something? At least due to the age of the planes themselves? I’m a hawk, and I’m all for widening the military gap between us and “them” as much as possible. But I understand that others may be more reluctant to spend the bling-bling. But our current gen of aircraft are requiring more and more maintainance. Might as well replace with the best stuff you can.
I wouldn’t count out a design based on the YF-23…
All of that design work…
Couple of airframes sitting in a Caifornia storage yard…
SuperCruise capable…
Remember how the F-15 was designed; intelligence (which turned up faulty) made the new Russian Mig-25 out to be a monster of speed AND manueverability, hopelessly outclassing anything the West had conceived in a fighter. The AF, running scared, drew up a demand for something that matched the shadowy Russian superfighter, and we got the F-15, which outclassed everything for thirty years. The Mig intelligence turned out to be overblown. So, was the F-15 more than we needed? No. Would it have been worth it at twice or thrice the cost. Probably, if not resoundingly , yes.
This is simple. We need to leverage F-22 development costs into a “B” model, as we did with the F-15 in the spectacular “E” version, and an “N” or “B/N” model, if at all possible. We need a naval air superiority fighter generations better than the Sukhoi 30 family on our carriers, because carrier-borne fighters will face future enemies first, most likely. Losing Super Hornets by the dozen to advance Sukhois will make us look back on this talk of excessive costs for the F-22 and laugh, just like we could laugh now about the R&D money spent on the F-15, even if it were three times the amount it actually was.
Remember how the F-15 was designed; intelligence (which turned up faulty) made the new Russian Mig-25 out to be a monster of speed AND manueverability, hopelessly outclassing anything the West had conceived in a fighter. The AF, running scared, drew up a demand for something that matched the shadowy Russian superfighter, and we got the F-15, which outclassed everything for thirty years. The Mig intelligence turned out to be overblown. So, was the F-15 more than we needed? No. Would it have been worth it at twice or thrice the cost. Probably, if not resoundingly , yes.
This is simple. We need to leverage F-22 development costs into a “B” model, as we did with the F-15 in the spectacular “E” version, and an “N” or “B/N” model, if at all possible. We need a naval air superiority fighter generations better than the Sukhoi 30 family on our carriers, because carrier-borne fighters will face future enemies first, most likely. Losing Super Hornets by the dozen to advance Sukhois will make us look back on this talk of excessive costs for the F-22 and laugh, just like we could laugh now about the R&D money spent on the F-15, even if it were three times the amount it actually was.
Remember how the F-15 was designed; intelligence (which turned up faulty) made the new Russian Mig-25 out to be a monster of speed AND manueverability, hopelessly outclassing anything the West had conceived in a fighter. The AF, running scared, drew up a demand for something that matched the shadowy Russian superfighter, and we got the F-15, which outclassed everything for thirty years. The Mig intelligence turned out to be overblown. So, was the F-15 more than we needed? No. Would it have been worth it at twice or thrice the cost. Probably, if not resoundingly , yes.
This is simple. We need to leverage F-22 development costs into a “B” model, as we did with the F-15 in the spectacular “E” version, and an “N” or “B/N” model, if at all possible. We need a naval air superiority fighter generations better than the Sukhoi 30 family on our carriers, because carrier-borne fighters will face future enemies first, most likely. Losing Super Hornets by the dozen to advance Sukhois will make us look back on this talk of excessive costs for the F-22 and laugh, just like we could laugh now about the R&D money spent on the F-15, even if it were three times the amount it actually was.
Oof. Forgive me for the 3X post. I had thought it didn’t go through.
Speaking as someone who saw both the YF-22 and YF-23 fly, I think the Boeing plane was a much better option than the 22. In my mind, it was political concerns that lost the 23 the contract. Boeing already had received contracts for the B-2 and Lockheed couldn’t afford to be shut out again. Everything I saw flying, the 23 was just as good if not superior. In addition, it was simply a better looking, more elegant design.
I would love to see a resurrected F-23
Yeah, I’m sure you saw them both. Riiiiight.
I was stationed at Edwards starting in January of 1991 at the Air Force Research Laboratory (Then Phillips Lab). Contract for F-22 was awarded April 91. Not that I feel the need to defend myself to you by any means, but you do the math there. Besides, I’ve got no reason to lie. ::shrugs:: Take it for what it’s worth, an opinion.
1st: extremebio needs to do his homework before involving himself in these discussions. If you were at AFRL during that time, all you saw of the flyoff was these beasts passing overhead at your remote mountain site.
2nd: The YF-23 was not a Boeing product, It was a Northrop-McDonnell Douglas team product. Boeing and MacDac were not merged yet. Boeing is teamed with Lockheed on the YF-22 (now the F-22A). They make the center body section and ship to Georgia for final assy. Flt test is still ongoing here at EDW. Boeing is a still involved here with the program.
3rd: I am reluctant to think that a FB-22 acft will ever be capable of putting more than 2 ea. 1K lb. JDAM warheads on target. As well the weapon bay can also accomodate 8 ea. 250 lb SDB’s. The wing hardpoints are only 5K lb max rated and are designed to carry only A2A armament (AIM ordinance). Only option would be to design and manufacture a larger midbody and wing for the design. This would increase your internal payload and maybe up the hardpoints to 10k for external stores. But when you use external stores you sacrifice your stealth elements.
The basic doctrine of the bomber is to put a LARGE amount of explosives on a single or multiple number of targets(JDAMs — cruise example)and as deeply into enemy territory as possible. I can see only some variations to this doctrine which is evident by how the B-1 and B-2 baseline doctrine has evolved to their current multi-mission roles. Can a FB-22 ever be capable of doing that?
4: A single seat fighter bomber acft creates some problems. You have range limitations, single crewmember resource, ordinance payload and type limitations, subjection of many more highly skilled pilots committed to a target in a hostile enviornment/region/territory, than you would have with a single large/mid scale manned bomber. The F/B-111 had a 2 man crew and had a large payload capability that the F-22 just dont have right now. We should just resurrect the FB-111 (tongue in cheek).
I agree that a supersonic manned bomber is still needed that can provide stealth capabilites and get the payload on target quickly and effectively as well as provide as safe as possible passage to and from target for our sky warriors as possible.
Finally, I dont think Al Queda has the funding to buy or build 21st generation fighters and bombers. Last I recall, they just highjack very large and slow commercial aircraft. We can use a P-51 to bring down one of those if need be. Think we should put in a call to the Confederate Air Force?
extremebio; Please accept my sincere apology for making you feel unwelcome. You made some valid points and I was truely inconsiderate of your opinions and observations.
I hope you will forgive my shortsighted and rude manner. It is not indicative of this forum and the people that frequent it. I was out of place in my comments and hope you will feel welcome once again to participate in the discussions here. We are all here to share ideas, thoughts and experiences with an open mind.
Kind Regards
Chuckm90
Thank you for being big enough to apologize, truly something rare in the world today and especially with the anonymity of the internet. No worries and here’s to many more lively discussions!
Thank you for being big enough to apologize, truly something rare in the world today and especially with the anonymity of the internet. No worries and here’s to many more lively discussions!
Thank you for accepting my apology. That in itself is a hard trait to obtain and hold onto in these times.
Maintain those climbing turns mate!
GIVE ME AN SR 71 DECKED OUT WITH NEW AVONICS AND MISSILES ANYDAY .