What do you think about the USAF Purchasing the F22 Raptor ?
- Thread starter sidewinder101
- Start date
The US military's requirements are their own folly, and only getting worse ...
As far as "AWACS," almost everything these days is integrated with US Command'n Control, the primo #1 reason why militaries and countries want to be US/NATO allies. The US can track and respond to anything. But yes, the on-board controls of the F-22 make it extremely easy for a pair of F-22s, not even flying together, to engage dozens of targets in the airspace.
We're well beyond the '70s concept of AWACS, and '90s concepts of JSTARS today. Total battlefield situational awareness is absolute, and the more we can put it in the pilots in a digestable way, the better. The phased arrays on-board US planes since the '90s are nothing like the "TV/movie radar" with the "slow moving line doppler" that most people think is radar. I can't say much more than that publicly available info.
In any case, the F-15s will be upgraded for the Air National Guard roles so they can be deployed, especially the F-15Es that are still one hell of an ****** aircraft. The Japanese still have their F-15Js and the South Koreans their F-15Ks which are the same, base model and still be made today.
The Navy is already happy with the F/A-18E Super Hornet with similarly upgarded avionics and control packages. They will be evaluating the F-35C as appropriate. In all honestly, much like the MV-22, the F-35B is really the staple model for the Marines (and our allies like the Royal Air ***** and Fleet Air Arm), with the other V-22 and F-35 being lesser considerations. The Harrier design is 50 years old -- a testament to British ingenuity and "forward thinking," but even the redesign by UK-US engineers mid-life and for '80s+ was not enough.
Lack of sticking to standards in the US military has always been a major integration issue.
Take the F-35 for example, along with various "NATO standards" the US seems to have no end if fucking up. I mean, the alleged "standard" since the '70s has been 25mm for all new, NATO rounds. Yet the US has continued to use the 20mm on aircraft, and now is trying to "*****" the 25mm on the F-35 with the GAU-12. Yet the 5-barrel GAU-12 has issues, so they redesigned it with a 4-barrel in the GAU-22.
Yet in the Gulf War, we learned that 30mm -- the full 30x173 (not to be confused with the AH-64's shorter, 30x113 round) -- is far better than 25mm (let alone 20mm). The Marines are moving away from their 25mm Bushmasters to 30mm Bushmasters, the full 30x173 round. And the 25mm was supposed to be better than 20mm, yet it's not as capable as 30mm.
And yet still, someone realized this when the A-10 was developed with the 7-barrel, 30x173 GAU-8, that we may want a 4-barrel version. So they came up with the GAU-13 for a *** pod, which proved almost disasterous in use some 15 years later during the Gulf War (where F-16s had major vibrations, a test program to see if they could replace A-10s with those *** pods). Have you seen the specs of the GAU-13 v. the new GAU-22? Similar size, weight, rate of fire, not much more recoil, totally makes you wonder if they shouldn't have use gone with the 30 year old, already 4-barrel GAU-13 instead of bothering with a redesign of the 5-barrel GAU-12 into the 4-barrel GAU-22?
Especially after everyone in the US, especially the US Marines, believes that 30mm should be the standard, not 25mm. I mean, blowing up gas tanks on T-72s to disable with those 25mm Bushmasters them was not the same as taking out directly, as they could do far better with 30mm Bushmasters now. Yet we're still pushing the GAU-22 for the F-35 -- a *** that is solely for the F-35, with ammo shared by no other US airborne platform, which are all 20mm and 30mm. Even the AC-130 gunship is going 30mm, replacing its 25mm and 40mm! WTF?
This is the US military. Requirements that are nuts. The M2 Bradley is a perfect example of over-management. Hell, the F-4 a perfect example of "missing the mark." The F-4 was well beyond the specifications called for by the US Air *****, an utter testament to engineering exceeding specifications, and it sucked for what it would do. This was not solved until the F-15.
And need we even remotely visit the British .280? I mean, the US is "no, no, no, we're .308 (7.62) only." The US is already set on it M14, and the UK abandons the .280 round which was really the "western version" of the German 7.92x33 (shortened from their 7.92 rifle round) and, later, Russian 7.62x39 (shortened from their rimmed 7.62). The FAL was originally designed for the German, and then British, rounds, then "stretched to its limits" as the .308 version for US allies outside the US and its M14. Heck, even the M1 Garand was designed for the .260 Pederson before WWII! Everyone knew that 300m or less was the common engagement, verified by WWII!
And what happens in Vietnam? Oh yeah, the US goes to a .22, even weaker! Yeah, it's more of a 500m+ range, which helps US soldiers get "head shots" when insurgents only show their tops, and "gets lucky" with tumbling, but it sucks compared to the 7.62x39 Russian up close and personal. And it's still not as good as a sniper round as the 7.62x51 NATO, not remotely. But the US fucks the rest of NATO in '71 (IIRC) by changing, acting like, "oh, this is better" while everyone else can only, and virtually, flip the bird saying, "oh yeah, well we told you .308 wasn't it, you insisted we needed that big, and now you're going even smaller than us?"
Jungle and urban combat is what we keep getting into. So we shorten the 20" M16 into the 14.5" M4, and bring the 5.56 effective range down closer to 300m, less than half the 7.62 NATO. WTF? Weren't we arguing this before?
And then guess what the US does now? The 6.8x42 SPC which is basically the damn British .280 reincarnated! 60+ years later, some 80+ years after everyone agrees that intermediate is the way. Hell, even the SAW had a 6mm intermediate round, and the SAW only went 5.56mm in the end for "compatibility" with existing, newfound US, military stupidity.
And you want to add insult to injury? Now it's looking like a Russian parent case necked down to 6.5mm at the 38mm length is the most ideal of all cases. It started with a design in the mid-'70s at 6mm, and then a redesign about a decade ago into the Grendel. It flies flatter than anything, retains energy (and is still supersonic) at a full kilometer (at least in most 16"+ barrels with sniper rounds, definitely at 18"+ let alone when you go out to 20-24"), tumbles in flesh like the 5.56, yet kicks better than the 7.62x51 NATO or even the 6.8 SPC sans within 50m. It's the "all around round," weighing only 33% more than the 5.56, but still 33% less than the 7.62. But that's not going to happen either.
That's probably the greatest US folly of all-time, and we manage to drag all of our allies in with us, despite their warnings.
So is it really the defense contractors? Or defense contractors ****** to deal with every changing requirements, most of the time ones that are not only misguided, not only ineffective, but often based on reasons that are "better" and yet turn out not in the end? Like a 5.56 in the 14.5" barrel M4 that is not good for much range more than all the alleged "short ranged" 300m rounds offered prior by German, British and Russian designers?
That capability could be put in the F-15 as well, and some upgrades will. But the full capability is already developed for the F-22. The development of the airframe and engines are already done, and it's that integration that is major cost, but already done.
As far as "AWACS," almost everything these days is integrated with US Command'n Control, the primo #1 reason why militaries and countries want to be US/NATO allies. The US can track and respond to anything. But yes, the on-board controls of the F-22 make it extremely easy for a pair of F-22s, not even flying together, to engage dozens of targets in the airspace.
We're well beyond the '70s concept of AWACS, and '90s concepts of JSTARS today. Total battlefield situational awareness is absolute, and the more we can put it in the pilots in a digestable way, the better. The phased arrays on-board US planes since the '90s are nothing like the "TV/movie radar" with the "slow moving line doppler" that most people think is radar. I can't say much more than that publicly available info.
Unfortunately, the cost of the F-22 has already been eaten, and now it's just a matter of number of units to spread out that cost. The fewer F-22s they build, the more they cost per unit. I think people utterly forget that. It's a 15 year development program, not a 15 month.
In any case, the F-15s will be upgraded for the Air National Guard roles so they can be deployed, especially the F-15Es that are still one hell of an ****** aircraft. The Japanese still have their F-15Js and the South Koreans their F-15Ks which are the same, base model and still be made today.
The Navy is already happy with the F/A-18E Super Hornet with similarly upgarded avionics and control packages. They will be evaluating the F-35C as appropriate. In all honestly, much like the MV-22, the F-35B is really the staple model for the Marines (and our allies like the Royal Air ***** and Fleet Air Arm), with the other V-22 and F-35 being lesser considerations. The Harrier design is 50 years old -- a testament to British ingenuity and "forward thinking," but even the redesign by UK-US engineers mid-life and for '80s+ was not enough.
They are not allowed to profit more than 10%, far, far less than ... say ... back in WWII. A major issue with defense contracts today are the rediculous constraints and administration that goes on, as well as "spreading the wealth" around to many companies.
Lack of sticking to standards in the US military has always been a major integration issue.
Take the F-35 for example, along with various "NATO standards" the US seems to have no end if fucking up. I mean, the alleged "standard" since the '70s has been 25mm for all new, NATO rounds. Yet the US has continued to use the 20mm on aircraft, and now is trying to "*****" the 25mm on the F-35 with the GAU-12. Yet the 5-barrel GAU-12 has issues, so they redesigned it with a 4-barrel in the GAU-22.
Yet in the Gulf War, we learned that 30mm -- the full 30x173 (not to be confused with the AH-64's shorter, 30x113 round) -- is far better than 25mm (let alone 20mm). The Marines are moving away from their 25mm Bushmasters to 30mm Bushmasters, the full 30x173 round. And the 25mm was supposed to be better than 20mm, yet it's not as capable as 30mm.
And yet still, someone realized this when the A-10 was developed with the 7-barrel, 30x173 GAU-8, that we may want a 4-barrel version. So they came up with the GAU-13 for a *** pod, which proved almost disasterous in use some 15 years later during the Gulf War (where F-16s had major vibrations, a test program to see if they could replace A-10s with those *** pods). Have you seen the specs of the GAU-13 v. the new GAU-22? Similar size, weight, rate of fire, not much more recoil, totally makes you wonder if they shouldn't have use gone with the 30 year old, already 4-barrel GAU-13 instead of bothering with a redesign of the 5-barrel GAU-12 into the 4-barrel GAU-22?
Especially after everyone in the US, especially the US Marines, believes that 30mm should be the standard, not 25mm. I mean, blowing up gas tanks on T-72s to disable with those 25mm Bushmasters them was not the same as taking out directly, as they could do far better with 30mm Bushmasters now. Yet we're still pushing the GAU-22 for the F-35 -- a *** that is solely for the F-35, with ammo shared by no other US airborne platform, which are all 20mm and 30mm. Even the AC-130 gunship is going 30mm, replacing its 25mm and 40mm! WTF?
This is the US military. Requirements that are nuts. The M2 Bradley is a perfect example of over-management. Hell, the F-4 a perfect example of "missing the mark." The F-4 was well beyond the specifications called for by the US Air *****, an utter testament to engineering exceeding specifications, and it sucked for what it would do. This was not solved until the F-15.
And need we even remotely visit the British .280? I mean, the US is "no, no, no, we're .308 (7.62) only." The US is already set on it M14, and the UK abandons the .280 round which was really the "western version" of the German 7.92x33 (shortened from their 7.92 rifle round) and, later, Russian 7.62x39 (shortened from their rimmed 7.62). The FAL was originally designed for the German, and then British, rounds, then "stretched to its limits" as the .308 version for US allies outside the US and its M14. Heck, even the M1 Garand was designed for the .260 Pederson before WWII! Everyone knew that 300m or less was the common engagement, verified by WWII!
And what happens in Vietnam? Oh yeah, the US goes to a .22, even weaker! Yeah, it's more of a 500m+ range, which helps US soldiers get "head shots" when insurgents only show their tops, and "gets lucky" with tumbling, but it sucks compared to the 7.62x39 Russian up close and personal. And it's still not as good as a sniper round as the 7.62x51 NATO, not remotely. But the US fucks the rest of NATO in '71 (IIRC) by changing, acting like, "oh, this is better" while everyone else can only, and virtually, flip the bird saying, "oh yeah, well we told you .308 wasn't it, you insisted we needed that big, and now you're going even smaller than us?"
Jungle and urban combat is what we keep getting into. So we shorten the 20" M16 into the 14.5" M4, and bring the 5.56 effective range down closer to 300m, less than half the 7.62 NATO. WTF? Weren't we arguing this before?
And then guess what the US does now? The 6.8x42 SPC which is basically the damn British .280 reincarnated! 60+ years later, some 80+ years after everyone agrees that intermediate is the way. Hell, even the SAW had a 6mm intermediate round, and the SAW only went 5.56mm in the end for "compatibility" with existing, newfound US, military stupidity.
And you want to add insult to injury? Now it's looking like a Russian parent case necked down to 6.5mm at the 38mm length is the most ideal of all cases. It started with a design in the mid-'70s at 6mm, and then a redesign about a decade ago into the Grendel. It flies flatter than anything, retains energy (and is still supersonic) at a full kilometer (at least in most 16"+ barrels with sniper rounds, definitely at 18"+ let alone when you go out to 20-24"), tumbles in flesh like the 5.56, yet kicks better than the 7.62x51 NATO or even the 6.8 SPC sans within 50m. It's the "all around round," weighing only 33% more than the 5.56, but still 33% less than the 7.62. But that's not going to happen either.
That's probably the greatest US folly of all-time, and we manage to drag all of our allies in with us, despite their warnings.
So is it really the defense contractors? Or defense contractors ****** to deal with every changing requirements, most of the time ones that are not only misguided, not only ineffective, but often based on reasons that are "better" and yet turn out not in the end? Like a 5.56 in the 14.5" barrel M4 that is not good for much range more than all the alleged "short ranged" 300m rounds offered prior by German, British and Russian designers?
How does the thrust : weight ratio of the F22 compare to the F15? I heard the F15 was the only US fighter that could accelerate during a vertical climb.
A question about 2-3 decades behind the times dude ...
It's now about efficiency. Delivering almost as much power at military power than afterburner prior, will still offering afterburner for that 50% boost. Especially for "cruise" where you can be well into supersonic while at possible as low as 60-70% power at the most efficient altitude.
Ferry efficiency, Loiter time, etc... are most important. No longer do you even remotely need to kick the afterburner to take off vertically. The F-22, with no ordinance, can climb balllistic without afterburner last time I checked.
Again, engine power is long removed from consideration. It's now efficiency at near and full military power.
Although if you want to hear a powerful engine at afterburner, I recommend you go to an airshow with both a F-15 and F-22. There's a shitload of difference between the two when they open up full burner under 500'. You will feel the F-22 when it kicks it, although it purrs quite sweetly at sub-military.
The F-22 to F-35 power plant relationship is much like the F-15 to F-16. Wikipedia has a nice intro to each:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_F119
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_F135
You're about 2-3 decades behind in thinking. The thrust-to-weight ratio of the engine, net and gross weight is long gone. There's not even that argument. Engines are light, efficient, fewer parts than ever.
It's now about efficiency. Delivering almost as much power at military power than afterburner prior, will still offering afterburner for that 50% boost. Especially for "cruise" where you can be well into supersonic while at possible as low as 60-70% power at the most efficient altitude.
Ferry efficiency, Loiter time, etc... are most important. No longer do you even remotely need to kick the afterburner to take off vertically. The F-22, with no ordinance, can climb balllistic without afterburner last time I checked.
Ummm, the F-18 and, depending on load-out, even the single engine F-16 have the same, as anything TFX and later, go back to the '70s.
Again, engine power is long removed from consideration. It's now efficiency at near and full military power.Although if you want to hear a powerful engine at afterburner, I recommend you go to an airshow with both a F-15 and F-22. There's a shitload of difference between the two when they open up full burner under 500'. You will feel the F-22 when it kicks it, although it purrs quite sweetly at sub-military.
The F-22 to F-35 power plant relationship is much like the F-15 to F-16. Wikipedia has a nice intro to each:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_F119
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_F135
Prof, I stand in awe. That was a great discourse on a multitude of subjects. Great posts.
Re: The US military's requirements are their own folly, and only getting worse ...
Part of the big reason why they went with a smaller cartridge is for the sake of supply lines, which matter more for the US than any other nation because we travel around everywhere. A little bit of weight and size for a small cartridge over a larger one might not seem that big of a deal, but when you multiply that by billions it adds up. It also allows ammo bearers and supply trucks among other things to supply and carry more rounds of ammo. Of course the ammo is weaker and they probably went too far when they cut down to the 5.56, and pretty much every infantry assault rifle they ever made to shoot it sucks. As far as accuracy when you have automatic weapons and your using group tactics pinpoint accuracy and flat trajectory as great of a concern. You just need to dial in an area. Tight tolerances for an infantry assault rifle will just make it malfunction more when there is bad weather or dirt gets in it.
Part of the big reason why they went with a smaller cartridge is for the sake of supply lines, which matter more for the US than any other nation because we travel around everywhere. A little bit of weight and size for a small cartridge over a larger one might not seem that big of a deal, but when you multiply that by billions it adds up. It also allows ammo bearers and supply trucks among other things to supply and carry more rounds of ammo. Of course the ammo is weaker and they probably went too far when they cut down to the 5.56, and pretty much every infantry assault rifle they ever made to shoot it sucks. As far as accuracy when you have automatic weapons and your using group tactics pinpoint accuracy and flat trajectory as great of a concern. You just need to dial in an area. Tight tolerances for an infantry assault rifle will just make it malfunction more when there is bad weather or dirt gets in it.
And yet we have small AND big, and others in between (mis-supply and supply hell)
We told the Brits that we wouldn't accept anything short of a .30 cal. We took the .30-'06 and made the 7.62x51 NATO that was just as good for *******, but with the idea that it would be controllable in full auto. And yet it was not, unlike the Brit's .280, which was.
Then we went to the .22, which was too much the other direction. And then we say back to them, as you just did, that everything else is too heavy. And now we're pushing this 6.8 SPC cartridge? Nuts!
The US is not merely a stead stream of mis-supply and multi-supply as well, because of all the different non-sense. It seems like with every standardization effort, we only go backwards. McNamara on the F-111, coming from the prior R-5 work, and the utter, additional rework that was virtually a new design that became the F-14. The F-16 v. F-17, the Navy decides to adopt what the Air ***** does, but then the Air ***** pics the F-16 which has a design that would require far more rework than the F-17 for carrier operations -- with the F-17 being more of the F-5 frame for power plant, unlike the F-16 for F-15.
The 20mm v. 25mm v. 30mm (let alone 30x113 v. 30x173) is yet another bungle. I mean, we can't get that straight at all.
North American on the Apollo Command Module v. Grumman on the Lunar [Insertion] Module -- the classic, Apollo 13 square peg in round hole for CO2 scrubbing. Now given the rush which went from design to first flight in 3 years, and then final moon landing in yet only 2 more years, I'm more likely to give NASA a pass. But even some early programs were that short or shorter.
But today? We're still pushing too many airborne *** platforms -- M61 v. GAU-12/22 v. GAU-8/13 v. others.
We've seen the resurgency of the 800m 7.62x51 NATO round in Afghanistan as the US solider with their M4 cannot engage accurately much beyond 400m while the PRKs that many of the Taliban have at times are 120 year-old 7.62x54 Rim that do a good 2-2.5x that.
So even there the 6.8 SPC won't be a standard, as it's designed for 300m or closer. And we'll have yet a 3rd standard in the US. I mean, how can they not consider the 6.5x38 Grendel when both size as well as punch inside of 300m and trajectory up to and beyond 800m without weighing as much as the 7.62 NATO is paramount?
Heck, the US went to the M9 with 9mm to standardize with NATO, probably a "concession" given all the ammo fuck-ups we've had, and now we're back to talking .45 and other improvements because the .45 is subsonic and it's far better for taking down insurgents who don't wear body arm (and the 9mm is not nearly as good for either, body armor or not).
I don't give the AK's a "free pass" because they "always work" because they suck in control an accuracy. There's something to be said for the AR-15 platform in general, as the HK416 proves. You can built one that works a hell of a lot better.
But what I'm saying is that we first insisted on the 7.62 in a long, rifle length when everyone said we were wrong, and then went way too far the other way! And now we're back to dusting off the M14s in Afghanistan because we need the range against PRKs and other things throwing those century-plus 7.62x54R down-range at us.
I was just merely pointing out the utter folly of the US military at times on themselves, as well as those of us who have worked as defense contractors. Makes me want to just ******** some people and say, "stop adding more standards!"
You missed my point.
We told the Brits that we wouldn't accept anything short of a .30 cal. We took the .30-'06 and made the 7.62x51 NATO that was just as good for *******, but with the idea that it would be controllable in full auto. And yet it was not, unlike the Brit's .280, which was.
Then we went to the .22, which was too much the other direction. And then we say back to them, as you just did, that everything else is too heavy. And now we're pushing this 6.8 SPC cartridge? Nuts!
The US is not merely a stead stream of mis-supply and multi-supply as well, because of all the different non-sense. It seems like with every standardization effort, we only go backwards. McNamara on the F-111, coming from the prior R-5 work, and the utter, additional rework that was virtually a new design that became the F-14. The F-16 v. F-17, the Navy decides to adopt what the Air ***** does, but then the Air ***** pics the F-16 which has a design that would require far more rework than the F-17 for carrier operations -- with the F-17 being more of the F-5 frame for power plant, unlike the F-16 for F-15.
The 20mm v. 25mm v. 30mm (let alone 30x113 v. 30x173) is yet another bungle. I mean, we can't get that straight at all.
North American on the Apollo Command Module v. Grumman on the Lunar [Insertion] Module -- the classic, Apollo 13 square peg in round hole for CO2 scrubbing. Now given the rush which went from design to first flight in 3 years, and then final moon landing in yet only 2 more years, I'm more likely to give NASA a pass. But even some early programs were that short or shorter.
But today? We're still pushing too many airborne *** platforms -- M61 v. GAU-12/22 v. GAU-8/13 v. others.
We've seen the resurgency of the 800m 7.62x51 NATO round in Afghanistan as the US solider with their M4 cannot engage accurately much beyond 400m while the PRKs that many of the Taliban have at times are 120 year-old 7.62x54 Rim that do a good 2-2.5x that.
So even there the 6.8 SPC won't be a standard, as it's designed for 300m or closer. And we'll have yet a 3rd standard in the US. I mean, how can they not consider the 6.5x38 Grendel when both size as well as punch inside of 300m and trajectory up to and beyond 800m without weighing as much as the 7.62 NATO is paramount?
Heck, the US went to the M9 with 9mm to standardize with NATO, probably a "concession" given all the ammo fuck-ups we've had, and now we're back to talking .45 and other improvements because the .45 is subsonic and it's far better for taking down insurgents who don't wear body arm (and the 9mm is not nearly as good for either, body armor or not).
And yet we're back to more 7.62 NATO rounds being shipped too. So your argument falls on deaf ears to me. I mean, there are supply issues because we're not just using 5.56 anymore. HK417 and FN SCAR existing you know.
So why did we adopt 7.62 in the first place? That was our first folly! The British tried to tell us, even after the Germans and then the Russians showed everyone else too.
I utterly understand and respect the design of CnC milled versus stamped. There are benefits at costs.
I don't give the AK's a "free pass" because they "always work" because they suck in control an accuracy. There's something to be said for the AR-15 platform in general, as the HK416 proves. You can built one that works a hell of a lot better.
But what I'm saying is that we first insisted on the 7.62 in a long, rifle length when everyone said we were wrong, and then went way too far the other way! And now we're back to dusting off the M14s in Afghanistan because we need the range against PRKs and other things throwing those century-plus 7.62x54R down-range at us.
I was just merely pointing out the utter folly of the US military at times on themselves, as well as those of us who have worked as defense contractors. Makes me want to just ******** some people and say, "stop adding more standards!"
Honestly ...
Like putting a wing on a ballistic missile so it can do a 1G manuever and be considered a plane, just to appease the Russians? It's not appeasing anyone, much less the Russians. It's just a target missile for missile defense, not anything that we're going to use offensively at all. Hell, even Clinton had enough by the end of 1999 and was already giving them the finger by 2000.
We make so many stupid decisions during development. You'd figure they would have woken up after the M2 Bradley, that was really an epitome. Defense contractors don't milk this stuff, they get requirements and most of us just get pissed because they are not what we believe should be done, pragmatically.
Honestly, it's just touching the surface from the standpoint of a defense contractor. If people think we just rip off the government, it's not.
Like putting a wing on a ballistic missile so it can do a 1G manuever and be considered a plane, just to appease the Russians? It's not appeasing anyone, much less the Russians. It's just a target missile for missile defense, not anything that we're going to use offensively at all. Hell, even Clinton had enough by the end of 1999 and was already giving them the finger by 2000.
We make so many stupid decisions during development. You'd figure they would have woken up after the M2 Bradley, that was really an epitome. Defense contractors don't milk this stuff, they get requirements and most of us just get pissed because they are not what we believe should be done, pragmatically.
Similar threads
