| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| F-22 Struts Its Stuff |
| 2006-08-08 |
| August 7, 2006: In recent exercises over Alaska, the F-22 has been put to the test. The results have been staggering. F-22s notched an impressive 108 to 0 "kill ratio" – often when outnumbered by as much as 8 to 1 by simulated Su-27/30 aircraft. In a very real sense, this is a preview of what is to come for forces facing the F-22. The F-15 and F-18 scored a 2:1 kill ratio against the simulated Flankers. This is not the only time that F-22s have shown their capabilities. Eight F-22s faced off against 33 F-15Cs earlier this year, and "shot down" all of the F-15Cs with no loss to itself. Why does the F-22 dominate? The answer lies in the two biggest rules of air combat. The first rule is, "Speed is life." The F-22 has speed – reaching nearly 2,600 kilometers per hour, and having the ability go faster (up to 1,830 kilometers per hour) than the speed of sound without using its afterburners. It is faster than a Eurofighter, Flanker, or Rafale. It can catch its target, or get out of a situation, should that rare occasion arise. The second rule is, "Lose the sight, lose the fight." The F-22 is very capable of making an opponent "lose sight" of it – often through its stealth features that cause enemy radars to perform poorly when looking for an F-22. This means the F-22 will "see" its opponent far sooner than it will be seen itself. In aerial combat, 80 percent of those planes killed in air-to-air combat never knew the opponent that killed them was there. In a very real sense, the F-22 is the superfighter of the 21st Century. The F-22 is emerging as a long-range fighter (with a range of over 3200 kilometers), capable of fighting when outnumbered 4 to 1 (or more), and it also has significant edges in the areas of speed and stealth. The F-22 is proving to be a very reliable plane (with less than 7 percent of sorties being aborted). Some problems have emerged as the F-22 joins the operational force, most notably with a titanium boom on the first 80 planes, but these problems are being fixed. The F-22's high speed and performance also gives weapons like the AMRAAM and JDAM much more range than from the F-15E or F-16. The F-22's biggest weakness seems to be its price tag ($361 million per plane). But it is quickly proving it is capable of clearing the skies against as many as eight opponents per F-22. When you consider that the Eurofighter costs $58 million per plane, and the Rafale pushes $66 million, while the F-35C pushes $61 million, the F-22 isn't that bad, particularly when two F-22s at $274 million can easily wipe out eight Eurofighters at $464 million. While the U.S. Air Force may be engaging in some puffery when it comes to describing the F-22, the track record of new American combat aircraft over the last few decades, indicates that the F-22 is, indeed, an impressive combat aircraft. But, as with any warplane, it won't be until the aircraft actually experiences combat, that it's reputation can be established as more than just potential. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #9 My father was. I'm in consumer electronics. It's not that much different, just faster cycles and less BS. I doubt the AF will let go of manned aircraft until UCAVs are proven in combat. One reason is that the cost differential is not that great yet. Remember that the Army still had a horse cavalry unit in 1943 and in 1944 was planning on how to use horse cavalry in the invasion of Japan. The B-52 is now 54 years old and the last one was built 44 years ago. Given procurement cycles I should not be surprised to see the F-22 still flying in 2030 or 2040. Still wish the F-23 had won. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-08 21:33 |
| #8 "fraid the end is nigh for flyboys. Do (heart) F-22s though. 2020 fly force is bots in space...sorry flyboys |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-08-08 21:06 |
| #7 NS, you in the industry, kind of sounds like it. Note, the first buy is usually SRIP, short range initial production (not range in the plane, but range in terms of length of mgf activities). Then there will be LRIP, long range, which indeed drops production cost significantly. A second or even third round of NRE will be included for LRIP as well as design and ME refinements. Finally spares and repair will enter into the picture and much of the cost will be recouped. Too bad most don't understand this as it makes unit cost much cheaper and even generative to the companies involved due to the long term maint and spares required. We can build many, many of the plane and should! But SRIP to LRIP gap allows the decision you point to, do UCAVs give us enough. |
| Posted by: bombay 2006-08-08 21:01 |
| #6 makes sense to me - I'd replace all manned flying units |
| Posted by: SkyNet 2006-08-08 18:34 |
| #5 Unit cost is a big deal. Note the price on the initial buy is $360 million because it absorbs NRE, R&D, etc. Next buy is $137 million. At volume could go to $115-120 M per unit. I hope they can keep the line open long enough to find out if the UCAVs are good enough to fully replace manned aircraft. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-08 18:30 |
| #4 Let's build many hundreds to drive the unit cost down! |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2006-08-08 18:05 |
| #3 2000km from ISrael to Teheran. Refuel over Iraq. mmmmm...... F-22 |
| Posted by: j. D. Lux 2006-08-08 15:26 |
| #2 Just how far is that route from Israel to Tehran? |
| Posted by: Sherry 2006-08-08 15:24 |
| #1 Hear that China? Wanna continue to piss and moan over Tiawan? You have been put on notice. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-08-08 15:16 |