clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
>> 
>> I'm seriously doubtful about the USAF planning regarding these aircraft.
>> The F-22 specifically, it is so HORRIBLY expensive, and they have bought
>> much less than the Air Force generals wanted. If they get into a fight
>> with, say, China, which has got thousands of Mig-21s and comparable
>> aircraft, I think they'll get whipped.
> 
> Even given that the MiG-21 pilots would "see" the F-22 at all before
> being hit by some long-range AA missile, that would be a problem only if
> the U.S. of A. had nothing else to bring into the air besides their F-22s.

Isn't this the way it is going? According to what I read on strategypage.com
recently, F-16s, F-15s and F-18 are wearing out and are not being replaced.
Additionally, much funding is being "saved" by decommissioning many
(hundreds, apparently) of these aircraft early as well, in order to spend
money maintaining the F-22 and F-35?
 
>> What happens next? The F-22s go "Winchester" - they have to engage in gun
>> to gun duels, at low level (where the 60+ year old Chinese Mig-17, for
>> example, is a KING of maneuverability.) The F-22 now has to go "low and
>> slow" in the weeds, against a fighter that was DESIGNED for that, while
>> itself is a beyond-visual-range 30 000 feet plus rather neurotic
>> thoroughbred.
> 
> You're having some misconceptions here:

Ok.
 
> (A) Besides being able to carry BVR AIM-120 AMRAAMs, the F-22 is
> designed to bear much cheaper AIM-9 Sidewinders into battle.

Of which there'll be how many? As far as I know the AIM-9X is not in
production anymore, and funding is being cut for buying it - again to be
able to afford "enough" AIM-120's and to feed the budgetary monster that
the F-22 has become.
 
> (B) Are you aware of what the F-22 can do in slow flight? Just take a
> look at this one - especially from 1:25 to 2:45:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTK3zeFRLO8&feature=related
> 
> (Thrust vectoring is the key to this, by the way.)

That's damn impressive! No, I didn't know that. That could come in very
useful in a low and slow situation. Though I wonder what the price is in
fuel consumption? High-alpha maneuvers like that probably need a lot of
thrust to be applied to keep from stalling?
 
> (C) As long as it's missiles against missiles, the MiG-21 will have a
> hard time getting a lock on the target. And when it comes to guns, the
> F-22 can always just outclimb or outrun the MiGs. Being good in a
> dogfight may be one thing, but being able to choose whether or not to
> enter into or leave one is another.

True, but that is a mark against the F-22 in my book. I was thinking when I
said that of the situation where US ground forces are under attack from the
air, and need to be protected against MiG strikes. So, the USAF sends the
F-22. It -has- to go low and slow to get at the MiGs, assuming it is out of
missiles. Sure, it can outclimb and outrun the MIGs, but it has no choice
now - it has to tangle with them on their terms, low and slow, to protect
US ground forces. Wouldn't that obviate its enormous speed and rate of
climb? (Though the slow maneuver you pointed me to above would obviously
help I readily agree.)

Also, that is if they have decommissioned all those F-16s and F-15s by that
time, of course - which seems to be the way they are going.
 
> (D) You're forgetting about the countless F-15s, F-16s and F-18s (and/or
> the F-35s to come), that would fight side by side with the F-22.

See above - it seems to me (I'm possibly wrong) that they are getting rid of
all those thousands of excellent aircraft in order to have F-22s and F-35s
as the largest percentage of available fighters. They can't do it
otherwise, the F-22 is simply too expensive to have it AND other fighters,
and still have enough $$$ for missiles, fuel, crews, training, etc.
 
>> It's the Vietnam paradigm all over again, losing a tens of millions of
>> dollars price F-4 Phantom in blowing up a bamboo bridge that is
>> reconstructed that very night, with $3 Chinese bicycles once more
>> carrying ammunition across it for the Viet Cong.
 
> That's a totally different point. The U.S. of A. did have air
> superiority in Vietnam, and they will have it again and again and again,
> in whatever war you like.
 
Ok. I meant it in the sense that, for the same effect, the United States
spends a billion on 10 aircraft of superlative quality, while China speds a
billion on a thousand aircraft of mediocre quality. But then those 10
aircraft only have 10 missiles each, because they themselves and their
missiles are so unbelievably expensive.

> The problem in Vietnam was that air superiority is only half the job
> when it comes to wrestling down an opponent in his own home country. But
> that doesn't make the F-22 inferior against MiG-21s.

I wouldn't consider it inferior - I fully agree that at BVR ranges (as long
as the missile supply lasts) it will probably knock anything flying out of
the sky, or just fuse enemy flight control computers with its radar. Where
I think it -might- have trouble though is when it is forced to move out of
its "comfort zone" - instead of high-altitude BVR, it is forced to go low
and slow, and use guns, against older aircraft that were specifically
designed to do that (while of course, being useless in the F-22's "comfort
zone").
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message