Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StarOfAfrica2 on March 02, 2006, 02:01:34 PM
-
Everybody kinda made a big deal about the F-14 being phased out, and the F/A-18 taking over. I noticed a general consensus that the newer plane is not the equal of its predecessor.
Now today I'm reading in the local paper how Hickam AFB is supposedly getting 18 of the F-22 Raptors to replace our current 18 F-15 Eagles (15 active, 3 reserves). Ok fine. The F-15, while one of my favorites of all time, is getting a bit dated I suppose. The F-22 has had alot of hype about it over the last few years, so I thought perhaps it was a worthy successor. I did some comparing. And yes I know you cant really compare fighters on paper, theres other things that are harder to measure. But the specs can give somewhat of an indication.
It was no surprise that in most dimensions, the Raptor comes in smaller than the Eagle. Only in Wingspan does it exceed the dimensions of the previous bird. I also noticed the engines put out 10000 lbs more thrust each. Impressive. But thats as far as the favorable stuff went.
The Raptor may be smaller, but its heavier. 4000 lbs heavier. And despite having bigger engines, the two planes have the same top speed, the same service ceiling, and the F-22 has LESS range than the Eagle by a good 1400 miles. Of course they compared an Eagle with DTs to a Raptor on internal fuel only. Does the Raptor HAVE any useable DTs? They list the range as 2000 miles. They cant even reach the mainland without refueling.
All this has me wondering. If the F-14 and F-15 are such incredible platforms (and there are plenty of people willing to attest they are), then WHY are we replacing them with planes that perform worse and cost more to build? I know the fleets of F-14 and F-15 are aging, but why cant they just build more of them? Why replace them with a design that does less, doesnt do it nearly as well, and costs more to build?
What am I missing?
-
TEH tHRuST VeKtARS wILL pWnZORZIZ!!!!!!!111111five
-
Super Tomcat.
But noooooo:mad:
-
I maybe wrong but I think the only things that will be put on the Raptor is what they can fit in its bombbay. By doing this they hope to keep the stealth on the plane and if putting missles or DTs, etc. on the wings it will decrease its stealth.
Cant find the book in my closet but read the Raptor was supposed to cost close to $100 million.
This site I googled to check the price I find to be interesting on its detail on the F22. F22 Raptor Site (http://www.f22fighter.com/Specs.htm)
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
What am I missing?
Pork.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
It was no surprise that in most dimensions, the Raptor comes in smaller than the Eagle. Only in Wingspan does it exceed the dimensions of the previous bird. I also noticed the engines put out 10000 lbs more thrust each. Impressive. But thats as far as the favorable stuff went.
The Raptor may be smaller, but its heavier. 4000 lbs heavier. And despite having bigger engines, the two planes have the same top speed, the same service ceiling, and the F-22 has LESS range than the Eagle by a good 1400 miles. Of course they compared an Eagle with DTs to a Raptor on internal fuel only. Does the Raptor HAVE any useable DTs? They list the range as 2000 miles. They cant even reach the mainland without refueling.
What am I missing?
As far as favorable ratings go, stealth vs non stealth is a big one.
On that subject, I would think drop tanks on a stealthy aircraft would be a bad idea.
Short of looking it up, I was under the impression the raptor could go as fast as the eagle without AB's (I could be wrong)
As much as I like the Eagle, Tomcat and F16, as far as fighters go, they are getting old. If it was up to me every country would be using prop planes :)
-
From what ive read the JSF can do everything the F22 can except possibly "supercruise"....And unlike the F22 it can be deployed from a Carrier.
-
I cant see the f16 being replaced for some time now as it is a very cheap plane to make and effective.
Just as a perspective what country does not have a f16 besies 3rd world countries?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
As far as favorable ratings go, stealth vs non stealth is a big one.
On that subject, I would think drop tanks on a stealthy aircraft would be a bad idea.
Short of looking it up, I was under the impression the raptor could go as fast as the eagle without AB's (I could be wrong)
As much as I like the Eagle, Tomcat and F16, as far as fighters go, they are getting old. If it was up to me every country would be using prop planes :)
I dont know. All I know is the side by side comparison I was looking at gave the same top speed for both planes.
-
The raptor can indeed have external DTs. It does loose alot of stealthyness but the it does have hardpoints on it's wings. The thinking behind that was that once the intial attack is over and we have air superiority on the battle field there will be less need for the stealth.
The thing about replacing old A/C is the fact that they are old. The older an A/C gets the more mait. hours per flying hours required. The F15 while being a superior aircraft is at it's limitations as far as what they can do with it. It has peaked so to speak. Don't get me wrong the eagle is a great bird but some of the older B and C models are dated and need to be replaced.
I read about the raptor participating in Red Flag a year or two ago in janes or something. From what I read it OWNED a couple of Eagles that KNEW he was out there. Stealth and speed kill. The eagle may be fast but it has to go into AB to keep up.
This is from FAS.org so i'm not sure of it's accuracy.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-weaps-mg27.gif)
The F-15 fleet is experiencing problems with avionics parts obsolescence, and the average age of the fleet will be more than 30 years when the last F-22 is delivered in 2013. But the current inventory of F-15s can be economically maintained in a structurally sound condition until 2015 or later. None of the 918 F-15s that were in the inventory in July 1992 will begin to exceed their expected economic service lives until 2014
The guard will probably start to replace their F15As and Bs over the next few years with news Cs and Ds. I know a guy that works Egress in St.Louis for the guard and he said they still had Plenty of F-15As.
We just turned one into a static display not to long ago that rolled out from the factory in 1978.
-
The USAF will most likely just have a tanker nearby so they can refuel rather then having to carry DTs and losing its stealth.
-
WHile I am not a Raptor fan, I do know that the Raptor can "super cruise" over the speed of sound, not in after burner, and remain there for a longer time than does a F-15 or F-14 which both require burner to get there.
As for cost per plane, I think a lot of that reflects the development cost as well, and not so much the actual price per unit.
Either way, I doubt we ever get to the point where Raptor's are ever needed to the level that some people think, but hey, I'd rather be prepared.
-
UAV's and cruisemissiles combined with special forces will prolly take out (atleast in theory) most defences on the ground and kill planes before they get up. Not saying that the F22 is a waste, but i doubt there will be a need for a large number of them. I would think that more F35's and planes like the old but rugged A10's would be a good mix.
I cant see USA taking on any country with high-tech systems anyway.. who would that be?
-
I dont necessarily think the Raptor is a lesser aircraft Its built for a similar, yet different mission than the Eagle. The extra weight seems to be nulled out given the additional engine power, stealth, air/ground capacity and so forth.
I'm not sure about the range issue. Since adding tanks kills your radar profile. Like someone else said, if they are going to be hunting deep, I'd bet on a KC-10/KC-135 being strategically placed for ingress/egress.
Also...who knows what the *real* range is versus published.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I cant see USA taking on any country with high-tech systems anyway.. who would that be?
You never know. Could be China, could be North Korea...Kosovo had some pretty extension radar/SAM systems that took down an F-16 way back when
-
I wouldn't assume that they are publishing it's true capabilities with regards to range, speed, etc. just yet either.
-
The F-15 and F-14 already pwn everything in existance... I'll grant that Europe, China, and Russia are putting out amazing aircraft, but they still don't match the Eagle or Tomcat yet...so if you ask me the F-22 is a waste.
The Raptor began it's development when the Soviet Union was a threat... and with the USSR out of the picture, I really don't see why the Raptor needs to exist...
If you ask me, continued development of the Eagle and Tomcat would have had us covered for the next 20 to 30 years (at least)... but that's just my opinion.
The Super-Cruise of the Raptor is pretty sweet though.
:aok
-
Originally posted by LePaul
You never know. Could be China, could be North Korea...Kosovo had some pretty extension radar/SAM systems that took down an F-16 way back when
China? never.. Not even if they go for Taiwan.
-
Dont get me wrong, I'm happy to see the new birds coming. I mean, 18 F-22's is like, 10% of their operational birds I think. Plus we just got the C-17's last month, so thats alot of big money rolling into the bases here. Add to that another sub in our pens, and promises of a new carrier strike force sometime in the next decade, thats making alot of people here happy. There's alot of details to work out before that last one can happen, but the rest is already here or on its way. Financially I'm glad to see it. And I'm not above being jazzed at seeing one fly overhead and thinking about all the cool gadgets and gizmos in one of those things. I'm gonna miss seeing those F-15's flying over though. I still think one of my favorite memories is standing in Lambert Airport in St Louis back in the late 70's or early 80's and watching an F-15 roll out of the McDonnell Douglas facility and take off straight up from the runway standing on its tail like a rocket launching.
Its a good point though, just because I'm reading published data on the F-22, who's to say its right? These guys just publish what the military issues them.
I am curious though, what the maintenance costs would be of a brand new F-15 or F-14 vs a F-22?
-
I belive the maintenance cost of the F22 and the F35 are alot lower than those of the previous generation. Cant quote anyone on it but i recall it beeing said on Discovery something (not that those programs are accurate) and various other places
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I am curious though, what the maintenance costs would be of a brand new F-15 or F-14 vs a F-22?
ALOT less. Even more so the older the 14 or 15 is. The more hours you put on an Air Frame, especially out at sea, the more inspections are required, the more fatigue you get.
The Raptor has a bunch of interesting mait. features that I don't want to get into but with that said I know the F15 is a pretty mait. friendly bird as well. The more you fly them though the more you have to fix them.
Then you also have availablity of parts. There were only so many parts made for the air frame and eventually you are going to have shortages.
That's just my take anyways. I stand by my conviction that the F22 and F25 are going to be the last "manned" combat fighter aircraft procured in my lifetime.
-
Originally posted by gnubee
The F-15 and F-14 already pwn everything in existance...
...The Raptor began it's development when the Soviet Union was a threat... and with the USSR out of the picture, I really don't see why the Raptor needs to exist...
Ya know, there were folks that said pretty much that same thing when we were developing the F-14 and F-15.
Sometimes it's nice to have an airplane already flying that can meet any anticipated adversary BEFORE that adversary makes its first takeoff.
In short, when the competition has caught up, it's time to deploy something new.
I submit to you that the competition has essentially "caught up" to the F-14 and F-15.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
What am I missing?
F-22 has way better maneuvarability than F-15 or F-16.
Way better accleration and climb.
Way better endurance in supersonic flight.
Way better radar, fire control, avionics.
And oh yeah, it's basically invisible to radar.
-
<------ Big Tomcat fan here... I was reading a couple of threads down about the trap of the last Tomcat in a combat mission... Someone said that the maintenence time for a Tomcat is like 8 times longer than for the Super Hornet.
I still think that a kickin fighter like the T-cat is worth the maintenence time, but in a world that is so hell-bent on preserving the almighty dollar, the only logical thing would be to make the Tomcat everybody's favorite static display... Sad times...
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
That's just my take anyways. I stand by my conviction that the F22 and F25 are going to be the last "manned" combat fighter aircraft procured in my lifetime.
I agree. UAV's are the future and I think the next fighter will be unmanned.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ya know, there were folks that said pretty much that same thing when we were developing the F-14 and F-15.
Sometimes it's nice to have an airplane already flying that can meet any anticipated adversary BEFORE that adversary makes its first takeoff.
What he said.
Considering how long it takes to develop a new aircraft, I'd rather be ahead of the game than playing catch up. We sure didnt foresee needing all the high tech planes and smart bombs after Russia crumbled. But they sure made fast work of Saddam in the Gulf War in 90-91, 15 years ago
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Add to that another sub in our pens
Only thing we have in CT is the Groton sub base and E-Boat which has been threatened several times to being closed. Least we have the 1st nuclear sub located here.
-
You go to war with what you have.
The US isnt interested in tech parity with other world powers so they have invested in a fighter that is signifigantly better then the Eagle or any SU27 variant in the air to air role.
Its radar is far more agile, its tactical speed is far greater, its radar cross section is far lower. You wouldnt want to get into dog fights with it but it is better at that too.
-
The F-14B is the ****ing ****. The eagle is the ****ing ****. One is gone. When both die, so does fighter spirit.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Pork.
republicracts can't tell it's not bacon.
the airframe jigs, the wing box fixtures, the 20 million dollar milling machine that cut the titanium for the TomCat...
destroyed.
The amazing company that built it..
devoured.
*sigh*
no way than can build a TomCat again. the men that designed it and the machines that made it... history.
Same for the Eagle.
*sigh*
-
...and I can't recall a single flight sim dedicated to the Tomcat.
pfft.
-
Some analysts expect the global oil reserves to deplete in 30 years anyway. Do these things fly without kerosene?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
...and I can't recall a single flight sim dedicated to the Tomcat.
pfft.
Fleet Defender (Microprose, circa 1993)
Link (http://www.ibiblio.org/GameBytes/issue18/misc/f-14.html)
(http://www.ibiblio.org/GameBytes/issue18/misc/f141.gif)
-
Turn and Burn: No Fly Zone for the Super Nintendo
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/BlueFox2007/tab.jpg)
Tomcat Alley for the Sega CD
Just to name a couple more...
-
(http://www.hh.iij4u.or.jp/~yoshiken/usnf97.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
...and I can't recall a single flight sim dedicated to the Tomcat.
pfft.
After the last posts you shoulda stopped this one right after you said "I can't recall"
:p
-
I should have qualified that... :)
Nothing since 1997. Nine years of advances in computer processors and graphics and you name it. With the networking capabilities we have today, wouldn't it be nice to have a game where a couple of us could get together on line, you take the front seat and I'll take the back and go kill stuff.
It's time for a really GOOD Tomcat sim. ;)
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
What am I missing?
Stealth
Vectored thrust
Supercruise
Phase-array radar
Stealth
Datalinks, making for extremely fast target sorting
Guaranteed first look, first shoot capability
Did I mention stealth?
On paper, the only thing that could hang with it in a knifefight are Su-37s (iirc, only 1 exists, as a demonstrator). However, it wouldn't already eaten a volley of slammers before it knew it an F-22 was anywhere close. How do you fight against something that can outrun you, can't even be bugged, let alone engaged with radar guided missles, and can turn 9g's instantly at a much wider range of airspeeds? It could probably do alot more if it didn't need a pilot onboard :) Last I read, they were running 2 vs 8 engagements against F-15s and "clubbing them like baby seals". One of the problems they've run into is they have an aircraft so capable, they're still making up new missions as they go along.
-
Originally posted by gnubee
The F-15 and F-14 already pwn everything in existance... I'll grant that Europe, China, and Russia are putting out amazing aircraft, but they still don't match the Eagle or Tomcat yet...so if you ask me the F-22 is a waste.
The Raptor began it's development when the Soviet Union was a threat... and with the USSR out of the picture, I really don't see why the Raptor needs to exist...
If you ask me, continued development of the Eagle and Tomcat would have had us covered for the next 20 to 30 years (at least)... but that's just my opinion.
The Super-Cruise of the Raptor is pretty sweet though.
:aok
The pilot makes the aircraft perform. Put our best in a Tomcat or Eagle against their best...in anything....game, set, match.
The 22 is more govt overkill.
-
<------ Big Tomcat fan here... I was reading a couple of threads down about the trap of the last Tomcat in a combat mission... Someone said that the maintenence time for a Tomcat is like 8 times longer than for the Super Hornet.
I still think that a kickin fighter like the T-cat is worth the maintenence time, but in a world that is so hell-bent on preserving the almighty dollar, the only logical thing would be to make the Tomcat everybody's favorite static display... Sad times...
Well, I think that as you add on more maintenence time per hour of flight, you introduce more opportunities to go wrong. Especially since it's still man that is making the repairs. I don't believe all the restrictions and rules governing the military could prevent all problems.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
The pilot makes the aircraft perform. Put our best in a Tomcat or Eagle against their best...in anything....game, set, match.
The 22 is more govt overkill.
But what about the "other guys" newest, best plane. It takes decades to develop a new weapons platform and I'd hate to have our pilots get outclassed by the other guys plane.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
The pilot makes the aircraft perform. Put our best in a Tomcat or Eagle against their best...in anything....game, set, match.
The 22 is more govt overkill.
Who are "they" and why do you think "their" pilots are so much inferior to american pilots? ;)
-
No matter what you think of the current gen of fighters, the fact of the matter is airframes do not last forever. Combat a/c have to be replaced eventually. It doesnt make sense to not improve the designs when you do that. Thats why despite the F-86 Sabre being a fine fighter, the USAF and NATO countries no longer use it.
The F-15, F-14, F-16, Harrier, Tornado, et al will have to be replaced eventually, no matter how good they may be currently.
I think the right question is how much better (and more expensive), do they need to be? and how does that fit with long term strategy of the services involved.
What makes a modern AF capable is not just the a/c they fly but the personnel that backs them up, the training, the combat support, the strategy and tactics involved, the weapons they employ. Despite being supposedly low tech and due for retirement the two of the most effective fighters in the 1991 Gulf War were the A-10 and the Jaguar. Neither cost 100 million dollars. Despite being subsonic the A-6 Intruder is widely regarded as the USNs best attack a/c for many decades, and so on.
Say, looking at the B-2, I think when you end up with a bomber that costs 1 billion dollars a copy, at that point it can be argued that a design is costing more than what you are getting in return, ie. value for the money.
-
Like I said above squire, I cant see the f16 being replaced in the near future. The plane is very cheap to make, think I read it being able to be made at $3 mil a plane. Its very manueverable and decent speed. Just name a country that isnt a 3rd world that doesnt have the f16.
-
Originally posted by Hoarach
Just name a country that isnt a 3rd world that doesnt have the f16.
UK and Germany... thats 2 but there are more :D
-
Near future? I agree, its a very decent fighter, and costs a reasonable ammount, it will be around for a very long time I think, and longer in foreign service.
-
"Some analysts expect the global oil reserves to deplete in 30 years anyway. Do these things fly without kerosene?"
They were saying the same thing 30 years ago.
30 years from NOW, I'd much rather see our guys flying F-22's than F-15's.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Hoarach
The plane is very cheap to make, think I read it being able to be made at $3 mil a plane.
Unit cost $FY98
[Total Program] F-16C/D, $26.9 million [final order]
-
Originally posted by Squire
Despite being subsonic the A-6 Intruder is widely regarded as the USNs best attack a/c for many decades, and so on.
A Pause for the Cause :D
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/145_1141434671_a6-intruder-03.jpg)
-
The Falcon was a good bird, actually it still is. It's a great weapons platform from the MANY MANY different missions and versions of the airframe still in service today. IIRC the last USAF F16 rolled off the line last summer. Lockheed is currently making them for Israel and south korea.
Again though there's only so much you can do with one air frame and it's at it's limitations. As far as cutting edge goes it's old news. It has one engine. It has limited space for new upgrades in it.
(personal note: it's one of the most time consuming EGRESS systems to work on)
again great fighter but old news.
-
(http://www.bredow-web.de/ILA_2000/Military/Eurofighter_2/Eurofighter.JPG)
this is europe's next-gen fighter
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
(http://www.bredow-web.de/ILA_2000/Military/Eurofighter_2/Eurofighter.JPG)
this is europe's next-gen fighter
Great plane. I hope we end up ordering that. 4 planes are still beeing considered.. JSF, EF, Jas and Rafale.
My favorite is EF.. great plane and it has 2 engines.
The Rafale is good but I'm afraid there won't be as many delivered around the world so future upgrades will be expensive.
The Jas Gripen is also a good plane but it too only has one engine and short legs.
The JSF was favored by the previous government and will be a great plane, but that too is singel engined and Lockheed has taken the sale for granted so they have not bothered to meet their obligations. Time to end the long history of buying from them.
-
Gents news flash from the RAF
3(F) Sqn my old squadron has traded its Harrier GR9s for Eurofighters they are currently working up to operational status ready to be the first Eurofighter Squadron at NATO operational status in April of 2006.
My old Boss said they are looking forward to Red Flag 2007 when they will be over to show just what a fully operational Eurfighter can do.
New Eurofighters are rolling of the production line at four per month one for each of the partner countries
By the way you can get three Eurofighters for the price of 1 F22 they also have Super cruse & AS an Extra when testing the Radar cross section guess what they have??? the radar cross section of a medium sized chicken when viewed from the front.
Must be all that hi tech composite!!!!
+ the pilots helmet mounted sight actually works so when he is close if he looks at you you are toast
:aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
But what about the "other guys" newest, best plane. It takes decades to develop a new weapons platform and I'd hate to have our pilots get outclassed by the other guys plane.
That's why we have the CIA...Oh, and cruise missles
Nilsen "They" is whoever we are likely to go to war against...and I watch movies, so I know Americans always win these knds of things
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I watch movies, so I know Americans always win these knds of things
Good answer :D