Cutting the F-22 from the US budget

[Darth_Yuthura]

In fact in force on force manuvers VS F-16's and F-15's they are undefeated.

 

Are you kidding? A pair of F-22's could engage ten F-15's and still expect victory. Twelve even, assuming every missile hits its target.

 

The problem is that you rarely need an aircraft to take on odds like that. Just because you can take out five F-15's doesn't exactly make it five times as valuable. The F-15 still has a 92:0 kill ratio, so it is still good enough that you won't have to worry about having another fighter that can outperform it. Just in case there is, then that's when you call in the F-22 and F-35 to do the job.

 

Either way, if you cancel just four fighters, that's a billion taxpayer dollars saved. I don't know about you, but I am glad to see it not spent on something so expensive and impractical as an F-22. Even the F-35, still a much better value, is hideously expensive and not highly demanded.

[JediAthos]

"On 6 April 2009, as part of the 2010 Pentagon budget announcement, Secretary of Defense Gates called for production of the F-22 to be phased out by fiscal year 2011, leaving the USAF with 187 fighters.[7] Spending on F-35 acquisition would be increased. Gates noted that although the US was currently engaged in two wars, the Raptor had yet to fly a single mission supporting either one. Said Gates, "It was not a close call. There is no military requirement for numbers beyond 187."[39][40] In an editorial in the Washington Post on April 13, 2009 USAF Secretary Michael Donley and his Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz stated that they supported Gates' decision, saying "The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on."[41][42]

 

In June 2009, Gen. John D.W. Corley stated in a letter to Senator Saxby Chambliss that, "To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy," "(a limit of 187 F-22s) puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near- to mid-term", and added, "(research) shows a moderate risk can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft" while opining that 381 Raptors would be the "ideal inventory".[43][44] On 17 June 2009 the House Armed Services Committee inserted $368.8 million in the budget markup as a down payment for a further 12 F-22s in FY 2011"

-From Wikipedia

 

 

The Raptor isn't quite dead, but it appears it may be on its way to being so. Secretary Gates doesn't seem to think any further purchases are necessary. Of course the Air Force would like more...as has already been stated its a superb fighter and far superior to anything in the world, but add that to a budget that is already paying for two wars, and the fact that the planes have yet to fly a combat mission, and I tend to agree with Secretary Gates.

 

As I've already said, the current fighter inventory is already vastly superior to much of what we could potentially encounter.

[Totenkopf]

Are you kidding? A pair of F-22's could engage ten F-15's and still expect victory. Twelve even, assuming every missile hits its target.

 

You read it wrong. He was saying the F22 was victorious vs the F15s/16s.

[Darth_Yuthura]

You read it wrong. He was saying the F22 was victorious vs the F15s/16s.

 

Yes... 2 F-22's vs. 10 F-15's would seem to imply that. The F-22 was tactically oriented to fight against much larger groups of enemy forces. However that doesn't exactly mean that a pair of F-22's, which can defeat 10 F-15's can do the job of even four of those fighters.

 

If any potential enemy represents little threat to an F-15, then there is no point in enhancing performance by sacrificing numbers

[Totenkopf]

Well, 2 successfully vs 10 would imply that. I agree that if you souped up the F15s and equipped them with the same types and #s of missles that you could take out 4-5x as many fighters from a distance. Only real problem is how vulnerable those 10-12 would be to enemy radar due to lack of stealth technology. It would still be less expensive in $$ costs to simply upgrade, on which you should get no real argument from anyone. As long as a lead is maintained in avioics and fire control systems, the F15 could still remain king of the hill for the forseeable future.

[Darth Avlectus]

What's wrong with high powered chemical excimer lasers? Those things rule! I'd hella mount one on my car. (This is, after all, NOT a serious thread! )

[mattig89ch]

hey, aren't they cutting the F-22 to make the next gen stealth fighter? I belive the designation is the F-35, but I could be wrong about that.

[JediAthos]

hey, aren't they cutting the F-22 to make the next gen stealth fighter? I belive the designation is the F-35, but I could be wrong about that.

 

The F-22 is strictly an air superiority fighter designed to replace the F-15 and the program, as has already been discussed, is largely being phased out due to the enormous expense of manufacturing and maintaining the aircraft.

 

The F-35, while it does indeed use stealth technology, is designed with multiple variants to replace the current F-16, A-10, and F-18 aircraft which all serve multiple roles.

 

Both aircraft were designed by the same company, but the F-35 is not necessarily the next generation fighter. It is more the same generation with a different purpose.

[Darth_Yuthura]

The F-22 is strictly an air superiority fighter designed to replace the F-15 and the program, as has already been discussed, is largely being phased out due to the enormous expense of manufacturing and maintaining the aircraft.

 

Both aircraft were designed by the same company, but the F-35 is not necessarily the next generation fighter. It is more the same generation with a different purpose.

 

It should also be known that the F-35 is by no means a match for its air-superiority counterpart. It cannot not so much as achieve mach 2. Nor can it supercruise, so using afterburners to achieve mach speeds further reduces its range (which is significantly less than F-22 due to the proportionately smaller internal fuel supply) The F-22 is like an F-15 with stealth capability with some added advantages in terms of range and tactical abilities, where as the F-35 is more like a stripped down variant who's performance is far inferior to that of most fighters. It is superior to the harrier in most ways, but it would not be able to match the performance of any other fighter it is destined to replace.

 

What do I mean by that? It can only carry two air-to-air missiles and two guided munitions in its internal bays. And its range its not that great in comparison to other fighters, so the F-35 has many shortfalls compared to the F-22. Its ability to fight undetected is really the only thing that makes F-35 worthwhile for the Air Force. It does make more sense than the B-2 in modern warfare, but that still means that you would need more fighters to achieve the same job as if you used non-stealth generation four fighters.

[JediAthos]

"The F-35 includes a GAU-22/A four-barrel 25 mm cannon.[35] The cannon will be mounted internally with 180 rounds in the F-35A and fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B and F-35C.[36][37]

 

Internally (current planned weapons for integration), up to two air-to-air missiles and two air-to-ground weapons (up to two 2,000 lb bombs in A and C models; two 1,000 lb bombs in the B model) in the bomb bays.[38] These could be AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) — up to 2,000 lb (910 kg), the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) — a maximum of four in each bay, the Brimstone anti-armor missiles, and Cluster Munitions (WCMD).[38] The MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile is currently being adapted to fit internally in the missile spots and may be integrated into the F-35. The UK had originally planned to put up to four AIM-132 ASRAAM internally but this has been changed to carry 2 internal and 2 external ASRAAMs.[39] It has also been stated by a Lockheed executive that the internal bay will eventually be modified to accept up to 6 AMRAAMs.[40]

 

At the expense of being more detectable by radar, many more missiles, bombs and fuel tanks can be attached on four wing pylons and two near wingtip positions. The two wingtip locations can only carry AIM-9X Sidewinder. The other pylons can carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM, Storm Shadow, AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) cruise missiles, guided bombs, 480-gallon and 600-gallon fuel tanks.[41] An air-to-air load of eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9s is conceivable using internal and external weapons stations, as well as a configuration of six 2,000 lb bombs, two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s.[38][42] With its payload capability, the F-35 can carry more air to air and air to ground weapons than legacy fighters it is to replace as well as the F-22 Raptor.[43] Solid-state lasers were being developed as optional weapons for the F-35 as of 2002"

 

At the risk of being wordy I copied the entire section of the wikipedia article on armament of the F-35 but the key I think is in the second paragraph where the article states the additional armaments the F-35 will be capable of carrying which will give it more capacity than the F-22 and the current group of fighters even if it is at the risk of being more detectable to radar.

[Darth_Yuthura]

The F-22 could have been modified to carry external weapon loads as well, but in so doing would have made it too impractical for combat. Bombs and air to air ordinance are strong radar reflectors, which is why they are always housed internally for stealth fighters. The instant that you leave such weapons exposed, they don't simply detract from an aircraft's stealth signature; they make an otherwise invisible target detectable to radar.

 

If you are going to equip an F-35 to carry weapons externally, then there is absolutely no sense in using that fighter at all. An F-16 would be more logical than an F-35 that's got external weapons because it is cheaper and more capable. Only when the F-35 is fully invisible to radar does it make the most sense to have a stealth fighter.

[vanir]

There's a couple of points I can think of.

 

The first I've brought up before, but is always cast aside in the overshadowing light of mass media marketing.

Stealth is not stealth. It isn't. It is high survivability technology.

 

You can find any stealth aircraft using civilian telecommunication networks. You cannot hide an aircraft of any sort from detection, that simple.

 

The F-22 and its counterpart, the F-35 are not designed, let me repeat that, they are not designed to be invisible to radar. They aren't even designed to be hard to detect and the simple fact is they aren't either.

 

Here is what they do, what their "stealth" features actually mean. They can reduce a visible profile to a missile seeker head.

They are "high survivability" aircraft. Not stealth. Stealth is a misnomer in military circles, any defence network on the planet today would laugh at the suggestion, you may as well start talking about anti-gravity engines and invisibility. But these features do indeed make a modern missile seeker head less effective, whilst older models have a pretty hit or miss chance of striking the target at all. It's harder to get and maintain weapons lock, not to detect. Not these days, not with the current generation of commercially available hardware (multiphased array pulse-doppler with digital interpretation).

 

An Su-34 can detect a periscope in rough waters at over 200km range reliably (demonstrated), you think it can't spot a "bird" flying at ~1.6 Mach in clear skies? Not to mention the RCS of a Raptor or an F-35 is much more like a Cessna than a swallow, certainly about 20 tons underweight to its actual size but you get the point.

 

But most secondary powers (Iran for example) are still using stockpiles of Cold War materiel. That means the seeker heads on those R-27s and second generation SAMs haven't much of a chance at striking a manoeuvring US jet, let alone one that's actually taking dedicated evasive action with full logistical support (AWACS and EW escorts following a series of ELINT sorties and ground based local infrastructure).

 

 

This brings us to the second point.

Let's say you were outside the US and considering its continuing arms build up. Let's say the USA of today was Nazi Germany of yesteryear. Wouldn't you be asking, "Now just why are they continuing this arms build up? Just whom are they targeting? Or do their ambitions know no bounds?"

 

Is the rest of the world just supposed to accept US assurances they are Godlike in benevolence? Bullcrap.

 

 

I'm also going to mention for DY that the F-35 was conceived under similar circumstances to the main reason for success of the F-16, parts commonality with the main US fighter type of the day, in a high combat turnaround package capable of operating with minimal logistical support from forward bases near the combat zone. Its value, like the F-16 is almost completely fiscal, otherwise a French Mirage is about as good as an F-16 (but due to US industrial strength actually turned out more expensive in service).

Its main secondary requirement was as a supersonic Harrier replacement for the Marine Corps, as well as being capable of taking up slack from discontinued F-16 Block 50, A-10 and F/A-18C production for the USAF and USN, and F/A-18D production for the USMC. The SuperHornet takes over from the Tomcat as well as half the F/A-18C USN role. This is all about centralisation of existing fighter production, replacing all current

US fighter/attack production with three new types.

The high survivabilty emphasis is both extremely expensive (both economically and in terms of maximum performance capabilities) and orientated technologically to deal with secondary military powers such as certain nations in Africa, the Middle East and the Black Sea region, the world's wealth resources in other words, which are oddly protected from (politically self righteous and I think concocted) exploitation by mostly older Cold War era military technologies.

An F-22 has demonstrated no better combat capability than the current generation of Russian Sukhoi for example. An open invitation to mock dogfight at any international forum is still maintained by the Russian interior ministry, so far ignored.

 

 

I'd also suggest this is indeed a Kavar's thread.

[JediAthos]

"The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology"

 

"Stealth technology also known as LO technology (low observable technology) is a sub-discipline of military tactics and passive electronic countermeasures, which cover a range of techniques used with personnel, aircraft, ships, submarines, and missiles, in order to make them less visible (ideally invisible) to radar, infrared, sonar and other detection methods."

 

-From the Wikipedia articles on both the F-22 and Stealth Technology.

 

 

Yes, stealth aircraft are designed to better avoid missiles, but are also designed to "hide" from enemy radar and other electronic detection methods by using radar absorbent material and other various design contributions. Obviously they're not meant to hide in plain sight...I would hope that's understandable by most folks.

 

The design of the new fighters isn't so much a build up Vanir as it is a replacement for the currently inventory of aging aircraft. Most countries develop new military technology all the time, and that is really no big secret, its simply the natural evolution of technology.

 

Frankly, no one truly knows how the F-22 would perform in combat given that it hasn't flown a single, solitary combat mission. I'd be interested to read more about this open invitation Vanir, could you direct me to a source?

 

At any rate...the fact remains that the F-22 is likely to be phased out of production in the next couple of years. The current U.S. administration sees no point in continuing to purchase the aircraft.

[Darth_Yuthura]

In mock battles, the F-22 has shown itself to be so tactically superior to the F-15 that there is virtually no way for one to be shot down. At the same time, its targeting computers are supposed to achieve almost a 100% missile hit ratio. Of course that's all taking into consideration that it has always been simulated and not actually proven. It would be safe enough to say that any aircraft with 'high survivability characteristics' will have a strategic edge over those that don't.

 

This edge does come at a price, both to cost to aircraft and performance. If the F-22 were designed w/out stealth in mind, it could perform way better than it already does. The F-35 is by no means a match for some generation four fighters when it loses its most significant defense by taking on external missiles.

 

I knew that a radar cross signature the size of a bird isn't 'invisible,' but the difference in performance and survivability is so greatly impacted that it doesn't make sense to equip a low-observability plane with external missiles. The penalty they pay to be 'stealth' planes is too great that it makes no sense to use an F-35 to do the job if a Mirage or Tornado could do it better. If F-16's and F-15's are good enough to do the job before them, then it would almost make more sense to develop newer versions of those planes than to invest excessive funding to create fighters that aren't really expected to be of any practical use unless there is a WWIII scenario.

[JediAthos]

The Senate voted Tuesday to halt production of the Air Force's missile-eluding F-22 Raptor fighter jets in a high-stakes, veto-laden showdown over President Barack Obama's efforts to shift defense spending to a next generation of smaller, single-engine F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

 

The 58-40 vote reflected an all-out lobbying campaign by the Obama administration, which had to overcome resistance from lawmakers confronted with the losses of defense-related jobs if the F-22 program is terminated.

 

"The president really needed to win this vote," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said. Levin said it was important not only on the merits but "in terms of changing the way we do business in Washington."

 

The top Republican on the committee, John McCain of Arizona, agreed that it was "a signal that we are not going to continue to build weapons systems with cost overruns which outlive their requirements for defending this nation."

 

He said the margin of victory was "directly attributable" to Obama, his opponent in the last presidential election, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has pushed for the termination of the F-22 and other weapons systems he says have outlived their usefulness.

 

The vote removed $1.75 billion set aside in a $680 billion defense policy bill to build seven more F-22 Raptors, adding to the 187 stealth technology fighters already being built.

 

The Senate action also saved Obama from what could have been a political embarrassment. He had urged the Senate to strip out the money and threatened what would be the first veto of his presidency if the F-22 money remained in the defense bill.

 

Immediately after the vote, Obama told reporters at the White House the Senate's decision will "better protect our troops."

 

White House officials said Vice President Joe Biden and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel lobbied senators, as did Gates, who both publicly and in conversations with lawmakers stressed that the Pentagon has enough F-22s for its operational needs and can put the money to better uses.

 

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Tuesday that spending on the stealth fighter would "inhibit our ability to buy things we do need," including Gates' proposal to add 22,000 soldiers to the Army.

 

"The Senate has heard from the senior leadership of the Defense Department both civilian and military that we should end F-22 production. The recommendation is strong and clear, as strong and clear as I have ever heard," Levin said.

 

"I've never seen the White House lobby like they've lobbied on this issue," said Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, an F-22 supporter whose state would be hit hard by a production shutdown.

 

Supporters of the program cited both the importance of the F-22 to U.S. security interests — pointing out that China and Russia are developing planes that can compete with the F-22 — and the need to protect aerospace jobs in a bad economy.

 

Gates and other Pentagon officials have determined that production of the F-22, which is designed for combat in a war where the enemy has an air force and has not been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, should be stopped at 187 planes in order to focus on the F-35, a smaller next-generation plane that would also be available to the Navy and Marine Corps.

 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, countered that the F-35 is designed to supplement, not replace, the F-22, "the "NASCAR racer of this air dominance team." Supporters of the F-22 have put the number of F-22s needed at anywhere from 250 to 380.

 

The defense bill has funds to build 30 F-35s. The plane is currently being produced in small numbers for testing purposes. The single-engine plane will eventually replace the venerable F-16 and the Air force's aging fleet of A-10s. Its primary purposed is to attack targets on the ground.

 

The twin-engine F-22 Raptor is a jet the Air Force would use for air-to-air combat missions.

 

According to Lockheed Martin Corp., the main contractor for both planes, 25,000 people are directly employed in building the F-22, and another 70,000 have indirect links, particularly in Georgia, Texas and California.

 

Levin suggested that some workers might be shifted to F-35 production. "We have to find places for people who are losing their jobs," he said, adding that F-22 production needs to be cut off because "we have to do what's best for our nation."

 

The House last month approved its version of the defense bill with a $369 million down payment for 12 additional F-22 fighters. The House Appropriations Committee last week endorsed that spending in drawing up its Pentagon budget for next year. It also approved $534 million for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, another program that Obama, backed by the Pentagon, says is unwarranted and would subject the entire bill to a veto.

 

The defense bill authorizes $550 billion for defense programs and $130 billion for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other anti-terrorist operations.

 

-From the AP via Yahoo! News

 

Looks like the debate is pretty much over.

[vanir]

Hi Jedi Athos.

Low observability technology is a media term (also used by the Senate). The US military calls it high survivability technology (also used by the Pentagon). Engineers refer specifically to low RCS airframe features and low heat signature engineering.

 

The doctrine of all aerial services in the US is high survivability, although it maintains the secondary doctrine of high transonic performance formulated during the FX fighter requirement which led to the F-15 (as it was presumed Soviet fighters had achieved an unrealistic upper envelope performance capability in terms of economics, which later proved erroneous). Lightweight fighters of course have a difference performance requirement of high combat turnaround and rough field performance, whilst the Navy maintains good take off and low speed performance with a good transonic and BVR capability.

 

Point being the shift from large numbers of high performing aircraft to small numbers of lesser performing aircraft which are very difficult to shoot down. The LO technologies are entirely reflective of this high survivability doctrine.

 

Here is the thing to know about low RCS airframes: they are only effective against point source transceivers. That means they only work as intended when the antenna is the same source as the signal and it is independent. Works great against a US jet, any Cold War jet and even powerful sets like AWACS or a single ground defence station like a mobile SAM site.

However it all gets thrown out the window when dealing with networked radar defences. That means all Russian jet interceptors datalinked since the mid-90's and any national defence system of a developed nation. Quite simply the signal source comes from a variety of transmitters across several kilometres or hundreds of kilometres, with about as many receivers all functioning in a networked datalink specifically designed to counter not only low RCS scenarios (cruise missiles are inherently low RCS targets for example) but poor weather and other meteorological influences. Among four datalinked Russian interceptors spread out among several kilometres for example, say three Su-27M and one Su-30SKI controller, you have transmitters and receivers working to simultaneously

sweep a wide range of airspace under varying degree of deflection and a dedicated crewmember examining the digitally interpreted transmission. Any aircraft in the flight can use the sensor interpretation of any and all other aircraft for his own weapons fire. Ground defence stations work on the same basis, the objective was initially intended as a cruise missile defence network (which have become much higher performing in recent years and as mentioned inherently have a low RCS).

 

In addition to this the multiphased array antenna system used by modern Russian fighters spreads signal interpretation over the entire airframe, wing leading edges are used as part of the radar dish, which is slewed by digital interpretation of wide array sensor data (ie. the dish is virtual, with a diameter equal to wingspan and can be slewed to any angle except directly behind the aircraft using digital-virtual technology, and on several models there is a small radar facing directly behind the aircraft anyway for additional sensor purposes). This terrifically advanced system is even old hat, the Soviets developed it in the MiG-31 and it's been in service since the mid-90s, a demonstrated success. They weren't exactly twiddling their thumbs when Kelly Johnson was mooting the Have Blue project.

 

 

The link for the Russian minister's open invitation to the USAF I'll try to hunt down for you. IIRC it was part of an article about the last Farnborough show I saw about a year ago, should be laying around one of my sites, but it's not much more detailed than I've already mentioned. The articles goes something along the lines, "..when asked what he thought of the new generation F-22's high alpha capability the Russian interior minister said he has publicly extended an open invitation for any US fighter to show up at any international air meet for a mock dogfight against the latest Flanker, any time, any place. So far the invitation has gone unanswered.."

It's just a small thing, the real point is that the latest Flanker types (Su-30MKI and second generation Su-35) have already displayed on video manoeuvrability and low speed handling capabilities which far exceed anything yet displayed by the F-22 on video.

There is even a YouTube video comparing the two, footage taken from recent air shows of each performing similar manoeuvres (the Flanker easily trumps the Raptor).

Not to mention time to altitude and upper envelope performance is clearly the realm of the Flanker.

And the new MiG-35 (basically a rebuilt and updated MiG-29 with 360 vectoring) is said to have achieved unattainable manoeuvring and dogfight performance capability, placing the Fulcrum right back to number one for the world's most dangerous close range transonic performer. Plus consider the avionics lead of the late Cold War simply doesn't apply anymore, most especially not in a free market current world climate, but not anymore in any case due to Russia finally reaping the benefits of destroying their own economy with military funding back in the 80s.

 

 

The simple fact is the F-22 and F-35 were designed to dominate the Middle East with a view to moving into the Black Sea region (avoiding any direct conflict with Russia and the Ukraine but certainly playing the part of a bully over regional oil interests), and the need has become superfluous with the end of that neo-Nazi Bush's reign of domestic terrorising the entire world. Obama has even managed to repair almost unsalvagable relations with Turkey, electing him was probably the smartest thing the US has done since Woodrow Wilson.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Although the Mig 35 may out turn an F-16 doesn't exactly mean it's superior. Virtually any aircraft wielding the advanced medium range air to air missile (AMRAAM), would have a keen tactical advantage over any other enemy. That missile is designed specifically to overcome offensive countermeasures, which allows it to achieve a 90% or greater kill ratio.

 

Unless enemy fighters are equipped with a similar class of missile or stealth design, they will have a major disadvantage against fighters like the F-16 (with AMRAAM) and the F-22 (Having both) If they went head to head with guns alone, then the F-22 loses both advantages and agility becomes the major advantage.

[Q]

You know, they thought that missiles and all of that "gee whiz" 1950s-era electronic wizardry were the answer to all of problems in air caombat and that guns and dogfighting were obselete 50 years ago. They even went to the extreme of neglecting to arm fighters with guns and train pilots in dogfighting.

 

Vietnam changed all of that. They found out the hard way that in the real world electronics are sometimes about as reliable as a $2.00 watch. Radar and missles can be jammed and spoofed, no matter how advanced they are. Eyeballs and guns can't. That hasn't changed, and I doubt that it will in the forseeable future.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Things have changed in 50 years.

 

Even back in the 1950's they knowingly designed missiles to take down bombers and not meant to track smaller fighters with greater agility. Older missiles did also have the tendency not to fire at all... the AIM-7 Sparrow never got better than a 33% hit ratio, but in Vietnam it got less than 9%. Most planes could be taken down by a single missile, but the majority of sparrows were launched in pairs.

 

Poor kill ratios in early missile-era fighters was due in part to the poor strategies they used in Vietnam's opening years. Once they changed their tactics, they improved the kill ratio enormously. A part of that included adding a cannon to the F-4, but missiles have since become more reliable for modern fighters.

 

I don't know the ratio of guns/missile kills from Desert Storm, but the majority of kills were due to improved AIM-9's and Sparrows. Very few engagements resulted in the need for cannons. That wasn't so in earlier years, but the missiles had improved so significantly that guns almost were never needed.

 

AMRAAM isn't what I'd call a silver missile, but it is one designed specifically to overcome chaff. It doesn't mean it's perfect, but it would take a very skilled pilot to spoof an AMRAAM.

[Q]

I'm not talking about pilot skill when it comes to spoofing missiles, although it does play a small part; I'm talking about defensive countermeasures, which advance in technology just like missiles do.

 

And if you think that the kill ratio numbers from the Gulf War are in any way indicative of what we could expect against a highly trained air force with modern equipment, I'll invite to please think again.

[Darth_Yuthura]

During Korea, the kill ratio was 10 to 1. For every F-86, ten Mig-15's were shot down. Considering that the Mig was technically equal or superior to the F-86, that goes to the credit of the American pilots. In Vietnam, that kill ratio dropped enormously to an insultingly low 1:1 against technically inferior fighters... AAA and SAM's being a major advantage though.

 

Then in the next major conflict, the kill ratio exploded to an amazing 92:0 for the F-15. That's before AMRAAM was even introduced, which means that it would be more effective against superior fighters. The AMRAAM isn't a magic bullet, but it was designed from the start not to be easily confused by chaff. There have been tests done where drone fighters use every means to confuse the missile, but even if a fighter had jammers and dropped all the chaff they carried, the homing system could continue to distinguish the fighter's radar signature from that of the plume of chaff. Really the only offensive countermeasure to evade an AMRAAM is a stealth design. It might be able to lock on to an F-22, but because of its ability to scatter radar; AMRAAM can't distinguish the F-22 from the chaff as effectively.

 

And there actually is a lot of skill required to spoof a missile. Maneuvers aren't made so much to dodge, but to confuse the homing system. That tied with chaff makes a small target appear much larger than it actually is.

 

If another nation's air force were to design something similar to the AMRAAM, then it would almost make any fighter capable of taking on an F-15.

[Q]

1) The 10:1 kill ratio claimed in Korea is highly disputed to this day. The F-86 had some great advantages over the MiG-15 that the US pilots put to good use.

 

2) The 92:0 kill ratio in favor of the F-15 has been against woefully under-trained pilots using woefully inferior equipment.

 

3) Both the MiG-29 and Su-27 are already capable of taking on an F-15, and have been since they were introduced in the early 80s, which is why the F-22 was designed in the first place.

 

4) AMRAAMski.

[mattig89ch]

meh, what good is an advanced Fighter if you've got no one to use it against?

 

As far as i'm concerned, Obama did the right thing.

[Darth_Yuthura]

2) The 92:0 kill ratio in favor of the F-15 has been against woefully under-trained pilots using woefully inferior equipment.

 

Won't argue with that. Mig-25's aren't exactly the best fighters in the world, despite being the fastest. Although it has engaged and taken down numerous Mig-29's with veteran pilots among the 92 kills. Mig-29's are comparable in performance, and thrust vectoring would give it several edges over the Eagle. The radar/tactical systems still remain in debate, but during Desert Storm, the Eagle had the edge.

 

4) AMRAAMski.

 

What of the missile's homing systems? The AA-10 Alamo could also be equipped with active radar, but it could easily be confused by chaff and jamming systems.

 

Although the missile design is quite impressive, the tracking system is really the AMRAAM's defining attribute. The site mentioned nothing about the Adder's estimated accuracy. I would be more in favor of a larger missile with the AMRAAM's homing system than what we have today.