Comments on: Raptor Fight Shows Limits of Procurement Reform

By: strider

strider — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:07:52 +0000

sorry curtis, didn't catch the sarcasm, read it again in that light and cracked up. With all this other nonsense flying around I guess I got trigger happy :) Also liked the comment about the vitality of comms in regard to uav's. hadn't thought about that before. one more reason to keep those "obsolete pilots" around longer in there "fighters of the stone age." Byron Skinner: Please make sure you know what you are talking about before you post. One step would be to find what good a sidewinder would be in a AG role, as SMSGT MAC so astutely pointed out. Congrats though, you cracked me up with that one. I'm sure it would crack up the taliban too, to see some sidewinders blowing up on the ground. The main issue however, is the question of roles! we're not buying the raptor for its AG capabilities. You can blow and puff all you want about it but its relatively irrelavent because the Raptor's role is to shoot down enemy fighters. This is what the Eagle was designed to do originally too. Remember not a pound for air to ground? there's a reason we're buying a whole lot of F-35s, and that is for bomb trucking. So yell and scream about the raptor's bomb load all you want but just realize that it isn't critical to it's role in our plan of warfare. As for the predator, its role is armed recon. It has no bearnig on the raptor issue because it has no bearing on the role of the raptor. THe predator has a role that it fills well. THe mistake is to shoehorn it into roles it is not capable of performing, like high threat environment strike missions or air supiriority.

By: Drake1

Drake1 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:00:09 +0000

With more money for upgrades, I’m sure they will get it right in time for the F35 roll out.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:19:53 +0000

By: citanon

citanon — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:52:53 +0000

Drake,
The DEW post omitted some critical details:
The first 34 F-22s were supposed to be for operational evaluation and testing. Thus they were not built to the fully upgraded configuration. This, once again, exposes the sheer folly of cutting a 700 aircraft program down to 187.
Furthermore, the AF is looking into incorporating software based capabilities into these aircraft. In other words, they may not get the full capabilities, but will have a significant subset of them.
The first 90 or so cannot currently fire high off bore sight missiles because of the rail carrying system. However, the AF is working with Lockheed and others to figure out how to back fit this capability onto the aircraft.
The lack of HMCS does not prevent the Raptor from exploiting the high off boresight capabilities of the missile.
The ability to dynamically re-target the SDBs is scheduled for increment 3.2, and the article did state that the early jets will not have increment 3.2 capability, but it also states that the AF will add as much of the 3.2 capability as they can. In other words, other than the off-boresight missile capability and others requiring new hardware, one has no idea which capabilities will not make it into the “old” jets.
The dynamic SDB capability is slated to be in 3.2, but it may well be added to the old jets if only a software upgrade is needed.

By: drago

drago — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:33:03 +0000

“These aircraft will never be able to fire high off bore sight missiles, which are swiftly becoming the standard for aerial combat. “
unless the Raptor mounted its missiles externally… oops, no more stealth… Silent Eagle anyone?

By: mike j

mike j — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:06:57 +0000

Thanks for pointing that out, Drake.
Now the raptor cheer squad is going to show up saying “See? See? We gotta buy more so they’ll all be up to 3.2!” Another interesting tidbit was the F-22 using a “proprietary” data link that can’t communicate with the –15s and –16s, well, except through voice, like they’ve been doing for about 80 years.
That “$140–145 million” seems like it buys less every time I look. Anyone want to explain how exactly these people are being good stewards of our tax dollars?

By: Drake1

Drake1 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:14:19 +0000

I see some of what Byron was getting at after reading this article linked on the Dew Line Blog.
Dave Majumdar’s aerospace blog on examiner.com illuminates some stunning omissions in the US Air Force’s upgrade plans for the Lockheed Martin F-22 fleet. My list of highlights from Dave’s recent interview with the F-22 SPO:
1. The first 34 F-22s can not be upgraded with the Increment 3.1 air-to-ground and electronic attack and Increment 3.2 advanced air-to-air and networking upgrades.
2. The next batch of 63 F-22s will be upgraded to carry eight small diameter bombs, but they can only attack two targets at a time. These aircraft will never be able to fire high off bore sight missiles, which are swiftly becoming the standard for aerial combat.
3. The final batch of 91 aircraft are programmed to receive both the air-to-ground and advanced air-to-air hardware, but these do not include helmet-mounted cuing, also standard kit for latest-generation dogfighters.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/the-f-22-cant-do-what.html#comments

By: Drake1

Drake1 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:50:18 +0000

And please, the F-22 & the Predator C are completely different aircraft for completely different missions. Comparing them clearly shows how cueless & desperate you are.
Posted by: pfcem at June 22, 2009 05:41 PM
______________________________
Air superiority no, but the targeting of sam sites seems better suited to a UAV.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:41:31 +0000

Byron Skinner,
The F-22 is a $140–145 million jet. And would be significantly less expensive if any of the last 2–3 SecDef were worth a crap.
Today (& for some time) the F-22 is capable of utilizing the ‘1,000 lb’ JDAM (GBU-32 or GBU-35) and if so desired virtually any similar sized munition could be integrated. Although obviously for the type of air-to-ground missions the F-22 is likely to perform (DEAD) the ‘250 lb’ SDB (GBU-30 or GBU-40) will be the preferred munition.
And please, the F-22 & the Predator C are completely different aircraft for completely different missions. Comparing them clearly shows how cueless & desperate you are.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:21:34 +0000

RE:“Of course the general fails to say how the F-22 can do this since it lacks any AG weapon systems, but hey what are facts.“
’facts’? Pffft.
1. the Air Force began the process of actually modifying the F-22 for Air-to-Mud in 2002. See: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6023065_ITM
2. F-22 Air-to-Mud capability entered flight test in 2007. See: http://defense-update.com/newscast/0307/news/080307_f22a.htm
3. The F-22 dropped the first SDB in September 2007. See: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123070053
4. The F-22 completed the first supersonic SDB drop in August 2008. See: http://defense-update.com/newscast/0808/f22_sdb.html
THOSE are facts. There are more, but the point is made.
Again.