Raptors on the Prowl | F-22 Stealth Fighters deployed to South Korea
74 replies, posted
[IMG_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Raptor_and_TU-95.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
[url]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a8164cddd6fa434da1bdb37281514a08/south-koreas-leader-warns-north-korea-collapse[/url]
[QUOTE]OSAN AIR BASE, South Korea (AP) —
Four U.S. F-22 stealth fighters flew low over South Korea on Wednesday in a clear show of force against North Korea, a day after South Korea's president warned of the North's collapse amid a festering standoff over its nuclear and missile ambitions.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Pyongyang will likely view the arrival of the planes flown from a U.S. base in Japan as a threat as they are an apparent display of U.S. airpower aimed at showing what the United States can do to defend its ally South Korea from potential aggression from North Korea.[/QUOTE]
MiG-29 very likely won't detect a Raptor before it gets within engagement distance, anything below like a MiG-23/21 definitely won't. Unless NK gets some help, if we ever got into an air war with the North it would literally be the equivalent of Seal Clubbing.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;49758804]
MiG-29 very likely won't detect a Raptor before it gets within engagement distance, anything below like a MiG-23/21 definitely won't. Unless NK gets some help, if we ever got into an air war with the North it would literally be the equivalent of Seal Clubbing.[/QUOTE]
Do they have [I]anything[/I] that could sniff out an F-22 before its too late to react?
hell yes over engineered unreliable floating wastes of money
hell YES
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759001]hell yes over engineered unreliable floating wastes of money
hell YES[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing it with the f-35.
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759001]hell yes over engineered unreliable floating wastes of money
hell YES[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that's not this.
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759001]hell yes over engineered unreliable floating wastes of money
hell YES[/QUOTE]
Nah man the F22 is dope as fuck. The F35 is the waste of money.
That's a damn fine plane gj guys
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759001]hell yes over engineered unreliable floating wastes of money
hell YES[/QUOTE]
its a very expensive, and very specific piece of technology used for those moments when you really need them
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49758992]Do they have [I]anything[/I] that could sniff out an F-22 before its too late to react?[/QUOTE]
The only fighter / interceptor in service at the moment that has a fair chance against it would be the MiG-31 because of it's very powerful radar.
As said before, unless they get some backup Raptors could just walk right in and start snipping anything of strategical value with SDBs and would face little to no threat.
Fun fact my uncle when he worked for Boeing helped design the computer systems on the F-22. Hes now a contractor in Ohio
[QUOTE=Antlerp;49759070]its a very expensive, and very specific piece of technology used for those moments when you really need them[/QUOTE]
Like when people you don't like show up in planes with actual missiles.
[QUOTE=sj72004;49759019]I think you are confusing it with the f-35.[/QUOTE]
nah when you have have a plane that can literally fall apart mid-air due to shitty adhesive glue in their airframes and pilots literally refusing to even fly the aircraft i'd say that it's a pretty shitty plane
it's usually what happens when you have an unlimited budget and a lot of political pressure ("we want this thing to do EVERYTHING conceivable in air combat AT THE SAME TIME, heres a bunch of money make it happen lads") to create something so fucking overburdened with technology that you can't even properly fly the thing let alone engage with it effectively
also don't forget how prone this makes it to mechanical failure. a light dust storm can literally ground this plane immediately.
for this plane to function properly there needs to be specific conditions, specific weather, and specific, predictable targets. the stars themselves need to align to make this shit even remotely combat effective.
its only winning gimmick is that "it can shoot you down before you even know its there!!" but that's the fucking point of a stealth fighter and the fact that they're proud of the only thing that literally defines the machine is laughable.
edit: all this is true for the f-35 doubly so of course
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759086]nah when you have have a plane that can literally fall apart mid-air due to shitty adhesive glue in their airframes and pilots literally refusing to even fly the aircraft i'd say that it's a pretty shitty plane[/QUOTE]
Care to share that source?
Also if you want to be picky it's frame + thrust vectoring makes it highly maneuverable, and the internal weapon bays reduce drag greatly.
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759086]nah when you have have a plane that can literally fall apart mid-air due to shitty adhesive glue in their airframes and pilots literally refusing to even fly the aircraft i'd say that it's a pretty shitty plane
it's usually what happens when you have an unlimited budget and a lot of political pressure ("we want this thing to do EVERYTHING conceivable in air combat AT THE SAME TIME, heres a bunch of money make it happen lads") to create something so fucking overburdened with technology that you can't even properly fly the thing let alone engage with it effectively
also don't forget how prone this makes it to mechanical failure. a light dust storm can literally ground this plane immediately.
for this plane to function properly there needs to be specific conditions, specific weather, and specific, predictable targets. the stars themselves need to align to make this shit even remotely combat effective.
its only winning gimmick is that "it can shoot you down before you even know its there!!" but that's the fucking point of a stealth fighter and the fact that they're proud of the only thing that literally defines the machine is laughable.
edit: all this is true for the f-35 doubly so of course[/QUOTE]
Source on this? As far as I'm aware there's never been build problems with the F-22 minus a mysterious oxygen issue that's kept some of the top pilots wary to fly it. There have been a couple of crashes involving mechanical error too.
I wonder how many people in this thread have been blessed with the divine words of defence savior Pierre Sprey
[editline]17th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Novangel;49759162]Source on this? As far as I'm aware there's never been build problems with the F-22 minus a mysterious oxygen issue that's kept some of the top pilots wary to fly it.[/QUOTE]
That's raptor cough, the G-suits the pilots were using on the F-22 caused respiratory problems - now they know it's a thing they should hopefully fix the problem
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;49759146]Care to share that source?
Also if you want to be picky it's frame + thrust vectoring makes it highly maneuverable, and the internal weapon bays reduce drag greatly.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://gizmodo.com/373205/f-22-raptor-airframes-falling-apart-due-to-bad-glue[/url]
[url]http://www.wired.com/2012/05/stealth-pilots-mutiny/[/url]
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759214][url]http://gizmodo.com/373205/f-22-raptor-airframes-falling-apart-due-to-bad-glue[/url]
[url]http://www.wired.com/2012/05/stealth-pilots-mutiny/[/url][/QUOTE]
And the F-15 had an issue where its engines would literally fall apart mid flight. It went on to never be shot down in air to air combat in decades of service. It is one of the best fighters ever made.
This is how aircraft development works.
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759214][url]http://gizmodo.com/373205/f-22-raptor-airframes-falling-apart-due-to-bad-glue[/url]
[url]http://www.wired.com/2012/05/stealth-pilots-mutiny/[/url][/QUOTE]
Both sources are fairly old, both issues have very likely been resolved already
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;49759245]Both sources are fairly old, both issues have very likely been resolved already[/QUOTE]
Can't even find the source on the first one, and according to the Air force the oxygen issue has been resolved and I can't really find anything else afterwards that seems to contradict that
The F22 is literally the best airplane every created by mankind.
Also I am biased because my dad was a chief engineer on it when I was a child so...
Was always fascinates me is HOW long aspects of these planes remain classified. The SR-71's true capabilities are still top secret.
The only serious problem was that it's an expensive 5th gen air superiority fighter in an era where 4th gen multirole fighters have proven to be more than enough for 90% of modern combat. It's a niche fighter ahead of it's time.
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759214][url]http://gizmodo.com/373205/f-22-raptor-airframes-falling-apart-due-to-bad-glue[/url]
[url]http://www.wired.com/2012/05/stealth-pilots-mutiny/[/url][/QUOTE]
Both are old, one is about the oxygen issue, and both issues have been fixed. Every aircraft has issues, they get worked out and then they go on to do their service. The F-15 had issues, and now has a kill ratio of 104/0, and a long last superb record. The F-14 Tomcat had issues, it has a superb kill ratio and service record. I could literally go on here. The F-35 is littered with issues, but even it can be made to be better.
So I personally doubt the North could make any push past the DMZ. What are the chances that an early American/ROK strike against North Korea's nuclear facilities could disable them to the point where the only concern would be a land invasion? Assuming they get no backup from china, how much damage could the North do to the south?
well there was rumor that Australia is unhappy with F-35
and asked for more new F-22 (100-150 pieces) and modernized and improved old ones...
[URL]http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/02/australia-should-buy-f-22s-not-f-35s-says-retired-raaf-wing-commander/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a19056/sorry-the-f-22-production-line-is-dead/[/URL]
most of people failed to realize that twin-engine air-superiority or multi-role planes
like F-22 and SU-34 are perfect for long range missions and over-sea patrols
technically any issue with F-35 engine or fan means dead weight and crash, plane lost and rescue op needed
while twin-engine plane can suck bird, lose one engine power for w/e reason or eat hit into and still return to base
or even lose whole wing till engine root and keep flying thanks to raw power of engines duo
same goes for control surface, altering power of each engine can help with RTB
IMHO while F-22 and F-35 got nice technologies, both were money wasted
(F-22 would be great as long term evolutionary project toward next-gen)
one of worst decisions was to deny F-14 Tomcat major upgrade program(s),
which would ensure those planes could fly until 2030
on faster speeds (including 1.3 mach supercruise efficient mode)
more fuel, better fuel efficiency, modern avionics and even use thrust vectoring
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Projected_variants[/URL]
loss of reliable F-14 as long-range twin-engine fast (2.4 mach) fighter-plane was mistake
that was obvious even before F-22 rolled out
yet it was covered that opt-in for cheaper F-18 Hornets (1.9Mach) twin engine multi-role-fighter
even with CFL [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_fuel_tank[/URL] it has lower range than F14 upgraded
now considering the F-22 program has only 1/4 of planned airplanes and was put to ice (no more built)
it feels like double facepalm
note all the machinery and plans to manufacture new F-22 are preserved in case of need
Seeing the F22 perform at an airshow was the coolest thing I ever saw in life. Don't wanna fuck with that
[QUOTE=Saxon;49761130]Seeing the F22 perform at an airshow was the coolest thing I ever saw in life. Don't wanna fuck with that[/QUOTE]
just watched this video of one
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-22_Raptor.ogg[/url]
holy shit the way it can fly directly upwards and turn like that
it's thanks to thrust vectoring ... it does wonders to agility :)
[QUOTE=Melnek;49759086]nah when you have have a plane that can literally fall apart mid-air due to shitty adhesive glue in their airframes and pilots literally refusing to even fly the aircraft i'd say that it's a pretty shitty plane
it's usually what happens when you have an unlimited budget and a lot of political pressure ("we want this thing to do EVERYTHING conceivable in air combat AT THE SAME TIME, heres a bunch of money make it happen lads") to create something so fucking overburdened with technology that you can't even properly fly the thing let alone engage with it effectively
also don't forget how prone this makes it to mechanical failure. a light dust storm can literally ground this plane immediately.
for this plane to function properly there needs to be specific conditions, specific weather, and specific, predictable targets. the stars themselves need to align to make this shit even remotely combat effective.
its only winning gimmick is that "it can shoot you down before you even know its there!!" but that's the fucking point of a stealth fighter and the fact that they're proud of the only thing that literally defines the machine is laughable.
edit: all this is true for the f-35 doubly so of course[/QUOTE]
So basically any plane/helicopter ever? Weather has been always a major factor when it comes to air support.
[QUOTE=Dwarden;49760404]well there was rumor that Australia is unhappy with F-35
and asked for more new F-22 (100-150 pieces) and modernized and improved old ones...[/quote]
we've had a no sell policy for the f-22 since day 0 and that's not going to change any time soon
[quote]one of worst decisions was to deny F-14 Tomcat major upgrade program(s),
which would ensure those planes could fly until 2030
on faster speeds (including 1.3 mach supercruise efficient mode)
more fuel, better fuel efficiency, modern avionics and even use thrust vectoring
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Projected_variants[/URL]
loss of reliable F-14 as long-range twin-engine fast (2.4 mach) fighter-plane was mistake
that was obvious even before F-22 rolled out
yet it was covered that opt-in for cheaper F-18 Hornets (1.9Mach) twin engine multi-role-fighter
even with CFL [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_fuel_tank[/URL] it has lower range than F14 upgraded[/QUOTE]
wrong, canning the f-14 was the right decision
1) the tomcat was made as a fleet defense interceptor during a time where reliable long range SAMs and CIWS were unavailable, hence the powerful engines used to catch up to russian aircraft with powerful anti-ship missiles. once the cold war died and fleet defense improved, a long range interceptor became obsolete in favor of a true multirole (which was put to good use in recent conflicts).
2) old airframes are naturally unstealthly (a-10). if you change it enough that it doesn't even resemble what it used to be, you might as well make another plane. eventually your motherboard gets so old that it can't keep up with cpu/gpu upgrades, same for fighters. then it's time to just build a new computer from scratch.
3) the superbug may have a lower max speed and range than the f-14, but it has better instantaneous and sustained maneuverability, higher thrust-to-weight, a wider array of interfaceable ordinance, and over 3000 lbs of more carrying capacity. it's worse at high speed interception (kind of moot these days), but is stealthier, a better dogfighter, and a better bomber. not to mention variable sweep wings are complex, hard to maintain, and drastically limit where you can put hardpoints.
the f-14 was good for its time, but the f-15, f-16, and f/a-18(e) could turn circles around it.
[QUOTE=Jund;49762276]we've had a no sell policy for the f-22 since day 0 and that's not going to change any time soon[/QUOTE]
Yep, Japan has had a massive hard on for buying a very large fleet of F-22s for the longest time, but couldn't get the US to budge. Which is why they invested so heavily in their own 5th Gen stealth fighter the F-3 and also why it shares a lot of similarities with the F-22.
[editline]18th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jund;49762276]fleet defense improved....[/QUOTE]
Fleet defense is still terrible tbh, Mk 15 is notoriously hard to maintain (from personal experience) and is still unproven against Russia's Ultra High Performance AShM such as sizzler and sunburn. We even know that, if you knew the Hard kill percentage that they brief us on against one for a Burke or Ticonderoga you'd be depressed too. Soft kill (i.e. Chaff) is much better though but not by a lot
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.