Rafale VS f-22

[FR. CONNEXION]

I wanted to know that you think of of Rafale :petting: and of f22 and who(which) would be the strongest both. Argue thank you.

[usa320]

Definately the F-22.

Its more expensive yes, but the weapons, avionics, stealth technology, speed and thrust vectoring just dominate the rafale.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

the F- 22 has my money

[He219]

the F- 22 has my money

Qute Literally, taxpayer! Hehehe
:D

[usa320]

Id gladly give a few bucks outta each paycheck if thats whats needed to maintain aerial supremecy.

[MolliG]

The F22 in an air dominance situation would most likely come out top, but, the Rafale has the edge when it comes to hitting targets, and protecting it's self at the same time, with weapons such as the Scalp and APACHE. And then theres the fact that the M and N models can travel the world, easily, on the deck of the Charles de Gaulle.

:)

[Uncle Chô]

The F22 in an air dominance situation would most likely come out top, but, the Rafale has the edge when it comes to hitting targets, and protecting it's self at the same time, with weapons such as the Scalp and APACHE. And then theres the fact that the M and N models can travel the world, easily, on the deck of the Charles de Gaulle.
Can't say better ;) The F-22 is one step ahead but is not versatile enough when compared to the Rafale. Problem : the Rafale is Made in France thus -like Haute Couture- a nice looking product but very expensive and poorly marketed (once again it's origin is it's own enemy on the international market) :roll:

[usa320]

ATHe F-22 isnt an air dominance fighter anymore. Its the F/A-22, and its capabilities are comparable to the F/A-18E... It has both strike and air combat capabilities.

I believe its cleared to launch the JDAM, JSOW, JASM, and the Paveway III series of laser guided bombs, thus giving it quite an AG punch as well.

[MolliG]

Does the Raptor have a Scalp style (stand-off cruise missile) weapon available? Also what are the total loads both aircraft can carry? (I'm thinking the Rafale can carry more as it doesn't have the Raptors restrictions.)

:)

O, the Rafale, also has the edge in looks... Especially when painted in the black scheme, just like all the sexy Mirages... :lol: ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The F22 in an air dominance situation would most likely come out top, but, the Rafale has the edge when it comes to hitting targets, and protecting it's self at the same time, with weapons such as the Scalp and APACHE. And then theres the fact that the M and N models can travel the world, easily, on the deck of the Charles de Gaulle.

:)
While the F/A-22's main role is air superiority, it also has A-G capability (hence the official "F/A" designation). It will internally carry the latest highly accurate JDAMs. To retain it's stealth advantage, carriage is designed to be internal. A fighter with 10k lbs. of bombs racked onto the outside presents a large radar target. So while the Rafale is certanly very capable (and a lot better looking in my opinion), I wouldn't say it has any edge when it comes to protecting itself.
As to the de Gualle - well it can travel the world, so long as the propeller doesn't fall off again :lol: I couldn't resist.

[fantassin]

As to the de Gualle - well it can travel the world, so long as the propeller doesn't fall off again I couldn't resist.


Want to discuss the first years of the USS Enterprise....? or the jinxed USS Iwo Jima?


;)

[Operation Ivy]

I wanted to know that you think of of Rafale :petting: and of f22 and who(which) would be the strongest both. Argue thank you.

Once again never herd of the Rafale :( i dont know my french military stuff to well, excpet for the LeClerc woot

[MolliG]

For Ivy :)...

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/documents/media/ACF15.jpg

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/documents/media/ACF39.jpg

[2Sheds_Jackson]

As to the de Gualle - well it can travel the world, so long as the propeller doesn't fall off again I couldn't resist.


Want to discuss the first years of the USS Enterprise....? or the jinxed USS Iwo Jima?


;)

Hey, just a good natured poke. :hug: It's just been a horribly plauged development for that ship. I guess the US has been building carriers so long that we take it for granted. Then again we do have the V-22 Osprey to deal with...

[Operation Ivy]

Thxs for the Pics woot
Looks pretty awsome, but i know jack crap when it comes to planes so i couldnt say which one is better :D

[mustamato]

I wanted to know that you think of of Rafale :petting: and of f22 and who(which) would be the strongest both. Argue thank you.

Once again never herd of the Rafale :( i dont know my french military stuff to well, excpet for the LeClerc woot

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/images/rafale_1.jpg

A picture of the beauty. Personally I don´t doubt that the F/A-22 is better.
But on the other hand, if we take to account that the meeting would take
place on french soil, (or rather above it) then the F/A-22 would probably
have been detected before the F/A-22´s radar sees the Rafale
intercepting it.

Then the real question is, which one is better, american of french
missiles?

"RAFALES WEAPONS"
The Rafale can carry payloads of over nine tons on 14 hardpoints for the
Air Force version, and 13 for the naval version. The range of weapons
includes Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air
missiles; Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100
air-to-ground missiles; and Exocet/AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti
-ship missiles. For a strategic mission, the Rafale can deliver the MBDA
(formerly Aerospatiale) ASMP stand-off nuclear missile. Main weapons
are expected to be the MBDA (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics) MICA air-
to-air missile, MBDA Storm Shadow/Scalp EG stand-off cruise missile and
the MBDA (Aerospatiale) AS 30 laser-guided missile.

The Rafale has a twin-gun pod and a GIAT 30mm DEFA 791B cannon
which can fire 2,500 rounds per minute.

The Rafale is equipped with laser designation pods for laser guidance of
air-to-ground missiles."

[fantassin]

horribly plauged

Actually it is not that bad.

The propeller incident was embarassing but it's not terminal; the lengthning of the deck was made necessary by the fact that the E2F were ordered after the deck had already been designed...when the conservative party was in power and ordered the Hawkeyes before the Socialist party could cancel the order!

It's working as well as a brand new (and unique) design should and it's operating 9 Rafale at the moment alongsides super Etendards Modernisés (SEM), E2F and Panther helos.

Try this link for some really good pics of the French Navy:

www.netmarine.net

[Uncle Chô]

Then the real question is, which one is better, american of french missiles?
I bet our friends from Israel will say : none of them ! :D

And they might be right ;)

[DE_Six]

Does the Raptor have a Scalp style (stand-off cruise missile) weapon available? Also what are the total loads both aircraft can carry? (I'm thinking the Rafale can carry more as it doesn't have the Raptors restrictions.)


The AGM-154 JSOW has a range of 75 km. It is smaller than both the SCALP and Apache.

The AGM-158 JASSM is a bit larger, has a range of 100 km.

Of course, those figures are speculative. The DoD hasn't released their exact specs.

The F/A-22 will carry both, probably something like 2 JSOW or 2 JASSM.
The projected FB-22 will carry even more.
The Rafale is also limited to either two SCALP or two Apache.

The Rafale is sexier and very agile, but all around, I'd put my money on the F/A-22.

The JSOW
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/990219N0800C005.jpg

The JASSM
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/docs/991599a.jpg

[MolliG]

More info' which will help us :)...

Specifications Dassualt Rafale
Max. take-off weight: 26000kg
Fuel: Internal: 4700kg External: 7500kg
Max. speed at altitude: Mach 1.8
Max. speed at low level: 1389km/h
Take-off distance: 400m air defence sortie, 600m ground attack sortie
Operational ceiling: 15240m
G limits: +9/-3.6g
Combat radius: 1094km typical strike mission, 1852km typical air defence mission
Powerplant: 2x Snecma M88-2 turbofans, each rated at 50kN thrust dry and 75kN thrust with afterburning

Taken from 'Air Combat Collection' No. 6. Content is cut to fit in with topic.

:D

[fantassin]

I bet our friends from Israel will say : none of them !

So I suppose they must love the fact that the UAE are able to operate the Black Shaheen...

Now ordered by 4 European countries (France, UK, Italy and Greece) and UAE (Black Shaheen), STORM SHADOW / SCALP EG is a long range, conventionally armed, cruise missile, optimized for use in pre-planned attacks against heavily defended, hardened and high value fixed targets whose positions are accurately known before the mission. The STORM SHADOW / SCALP EG is a stealth missile and is fully independent after firing. The only difference between the SCALP EG and STORM SHADOW is in the peripherals around the missile itself.
[NOTE: The United Arab Emirates ordered the “Black Shaheen,”(named after a peregrine falcon) which is the export version of the Storm Shadow.]

[DE_Six]

2.0 General specifications

Weight empty : 14,365kg 31,670lb
Max take-off weight : 27,216kg 60,000lb
Max external stores : 2270kg 5000lb
Wing span : 13.56m 44ft 6"
Tail Span : 5.74m 18ft 10"
Horizontal tail span : 8.84m 29ft
Wing Area : 840 sq ft
Length overall : 18.90m 62ft 08"
Height overall : 5.08m 16 ft 67"
Track width : 3.23m 10.60ft
Engine thrust class : 155 kN 35.000 lb
Performance Supercruise : Mach 1.58
Performance afterburning mode : Mach 1.7
Level speed : 921 mph 800 kts
Ceiling : 15,240m 50,000 ft
G limit : +9 G




Critical specs are classified, and all others are speculative.

http://www.f-22raptor.com/index_airframe.php

[AFACadet]

Oh boy, I'm not even going to start in this one right now.


I can see it turning into such a flame fest.





Overall, what's the point?


There is so much that's classified about the Raptor, that 99% of you don't even know the 1/4 of what it can do (p.s. that's not an insult--its just the way it is). To a lesser extent, the same is true of of the Rafale.

Also:
When is the Rafale and F/A-22 EVER going to duke it out with eachother?




Plane vs plane discussions are just plain (pun intended) stupid.



Now, if you want to talk about the specifics of EACH aircraft seperatly and unrelated to the other, that would be AWESOME and people will actually learn something.

[Whistler]

Any national pride etc aside, the Rafale and Eurofighter are great aircraft, but at the moment there is NOTHING that can even compare to the F/A-22. Its simply a class ahead of anything else offered. Its by far the most advanced fighter out there with the best performnace, although it also has the highest price.

The main problem is that its so big and expensive only the USAF can really operate it. The only countries I can think of with the ability to handle them would be maybe Israel or Japan... I dount the US wants to export that technology anyway though.

If you want to make comparisons, the Rafale and EF2000 should be grouped with the new JSF and the latest F/A-18 and F-16 Es.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think that a more accurate comparison would be between the Rafale & the various versions of the JSF.

[FallenAngel]

I think that a more accurate comparison would be between the Rafale & the various versions of the JSF.

The JSF is supposed to be a smaller version of the F22 basically since the price tag for F22s is so high. The F-18E/F seem just as capable (if not more so, they can carry more ordinance) but lack that stealth capability. I think the Eurofighter, F18E and the F16I are pretty comperable to eachother generally speaking.

[fantassin]

I think the Eurofighter, F18E and the F16I are pretty comperable to each other generally speaking


Almost; the F18E and F16I, as well as the Rafale of course, are all flying AND operational.

Eurofighter, on the other hand, remains a nonflying, non operational embarassment.

[FR. CONNEXION]

More info' which will help us :)...

Specifications Dassualt Rafale
Max. take-off weight: 26000kg
Fuel: Internal: 4700kg External: 7500kg
Max. speed at altitude: Mach 1.8
Max. speed at low level: 1389km/h
Take-off distance: 400m air defence sortie, 600m ground attack sortie
Operational ceiling: 15240m
G limits: +9/-3.6g
Combat radius: 1094km typical strike mission, 1852km typical air defence mission
Powerplant: 2x Snecma M88-2 turbofans, each rated at 50kN thrust dry and 75kN thrust with afterburning

Taken from 'Air Combat Collection' No. 6. Content is cut to fit in with topic.

:DWith the turbojet engine Rafale p-) can reach(affect) Mach 2,5!

[Eviscerator]

Eurofighter, on the other hand, remains a nonflying, non operational embarassment.

Non-Flying?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/images/ef2000_4.jpg

I suppose that Typhoon is superimposed onto the image then?

It's also already flying in two RAF operational evaluation/conversion squadrons:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/squadrons/h17.html
http://www.raf.mod.uk/squadrons/h29.html

Doesn't quite fit the description 'nonflying, non operational embarassment'.

[fantassin]

The first Eurofighter Typhoons, as they are now called, are being handed over to air forces in the four manufacturing countries. The RAF has at last got its hands on a few machines but they are still being tested and have merely been moved at the BAe factory in Lancashire into a different hangar with an RAF flag outside. All Eurofighters were grounded recently because of problems with the landing gear and brakes. The manufacturers described these as "teething troubles".




http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7039&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Typhoon, aka Air Farce One, the plane that's so good the RAF is desperate to cancel its last batch....

[US_Frogman]

I agree that you cant really compare the Raptor and Rafale. The fact is that when it comes to modern combat aircraft, the Raptor is in a league of its own. The Rafale is an excellent aircraft and is definitely in the elite catagory of modern combat aircraft, but the technological advances of the Raptor, mainly stealth technology, put it in a catagory that no other known aircraft can touch.

The sad fact is that the F22 will probably never go into mass production. I dont think it was ever meant to. The F22 is really just a platform made to test the structural design and technologies that will go into the JSF.

[DLodge]

The sad fact is that the F22 will probably never go into mass production. I dont think it was ever meant to. The F22 is really just a platform made to test the structural design and technologies that will go into the JSF.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. When the F/A-22 was being conceived and built the JSF did not even exist. It certainly is NOT a test bed for anything. In fact, the USAF is betting the proverbial farm on the F/A-22 and underfunding just about everything else in an effort to acquire as many as possible. As far as I know, the Air Force has allocated $43 billion to Raptor procurement, which will get them somewhere between 295 and 331 aircraft (there are differing estimates over exactly how expensive the buy will be). In terms of operational requirements, the USAF would like 381, but that is probably unrealistic.

Also, there is a world of difference between the F-35 and the F/A-22. Just because they look alike does not mean they are similar planes, or will be used in similar roles. It is difficult to speculate because the operational airplane is nowhere near production, but suffice it to say that if the Raptor is a Ferrari, the F-35 is a Chevy. The F/A-22 will be an amazing plane and be untouched in its ability to perform a very limited set of tasks (air superiority, SEAD, deep strike). The JSF is supposed to be a cheap, jack-of-all trades multirole fighter, similar to the F-16s and F-18s it was designed to replace.

[US_Frogman]

My point was that the Raptor is the first plane of its kind, which makes it the test dummy for all similarly designed aircraft to follow and improve upon. The stregnths and sucesses of the Raptor will be duplicated and become common place in this next generation of US combat aircraft that are being built. The F35 is a direct result of the success of the F22. Lockheed has taken everything that worked in the Raptor and put it into the F35 which will be produced in much larger quantities then the F22 because the F35 is more practical then the F22.

[usa320]

Does the Raptor have a Scalp style (stand-off cruise missile

AS earlier said, the AGM-154 and AGM-158.

Also, there were plans to add pylons as an option for deep strikes where stealth wasnt as necessary, thus allowing and extra 4 LGB's.

[tony6]

Rafale vs F-22: Which is better?
The only proper answer is: depends on pilot!

(But there's no doubt that Rafale is much more beautiful:)

[AFACadet]

This whole cruise missile debate is moot as well.

Why does the Rafale carry large long range curise missiles? Because that's all they got to do it.


Last time I checked, France didn't have a cruise missile truck named the B-52.

Why chock an F/A-22 full of very long range cruise missiles when a B-52 can carry 16 of 'em and launch them from hundreds or thousands of miles away.


Once again, if you want to look at these missiles, look at them on their own merits by themselves.

[soma]

The f22 has the best weaponry. You can't beat the billion dollar friendly fire missle. 40-50 comrades dead, no time!

f22.

[usa320]

what attracts these douchebags to this site?

[Midav]

As was said, it depends on the pilot.

If we're talking two equal pilots, I'd put my money on the F/A-22.

Sure, it's mostly a guess because little info is out about the F/A-22 and I speak of only what I have heard of.

The F/A-22 sounds like it will have better LO (low observable) capabilities. Plus, it will be only one of two aircraft in the world using a towed decoy in the situation there is a problem with detection.

The other aircraft using this capability is the Typhoon.

Close in, it's hard to tell. I know the F/A-22 will be using a helmet mounted site. Complement that with the Aim-9X and it sounds like it should be a nasty weapon.

I'm almost positive I've heard that the Rafale will be (is) using a helmet mounted site. Anyon ehave the latest on the Magic AA missile by chance?

Off boresite capabilities etc...

In which case, if it has similar systems as the F/A-22, as said, it will come down to pilot quality.

Just my two cents :)

[AFACadet]

The F/A-22 sounds like it will have better LO (low observable) capabilities. Plus, it will be only one of two aircraft in the world using a towed decoy in the situation there is a problem with detection.

The Raptor will not use a towed decoy--it defeats the whole purpose of its stealth.

The B-1b and F/A-18 E/F Super Bug have both used towed decoys for a number of years (of course the Super Bug for a shorter amount of time).

[Seiyuuki]

The sad fact is that the F22 will probably never go into mass production. I dont think it was ever meant to. The F22 is really just a platform made to test the structural design and technologies that will go into the JSF.

Uhmmm...




F-22 Raptor Deployment

The F-22 air superiority fighter is being developed to replace the aging F-15 aircraft with Initial Operational Capability projected for December 2005. The Air Force is projected to obtain a total of 339 aircraft. 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 Pentagon's Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate [PA&E] had concluded that the Joint Strike Fighter can assume the air-to-surface attack role, and that service life can be further extended on the F-15Cs to continue their air-to-air function as the F-22 enters service. The F-15Cs will reach an unprecedented 40 years of age before retiring.

Low rate production was initially scheduled to begin in FY99. The aircraft production rate was to gradually increase to 36 aircraft per year in FY 2004, and will continue that rate until all 339 aircraft had been built (projected to be complete in 2013). Initial Operational Capability of one operational squadron was slated for December 2005.

In August 2001 a total Raptor procurement of 295-to-339 aircraft was approved by defense acquisition chief Pete Aldridge.

The Defense Acquisition Board approved the F-22 Raptor to enter low-rate initial production, Pentagon officials announced 15 August 2001. The decision means Lockheed-Martin will build 10 F-22s using fiscal 2001 funds, and 13 in fiscal 2002. There were currently eight F-22s already flying. The board's decision requires the Defense Department and the Air Force to seek a lift in the F-22's current $37.6 billion budget cap. The production budget would rise to $45 billion. Research, development and testing of the aircraft cost about $18 billion, raising the total cost to about $63 billion. The acquisition board also cut the total number of F-22s to be produced from 331 to 295. The board reached this decision because of a difference in the cost estimates between the Air Force and the independent Cost Analysis Improvement Group. The Air Force estimated greater savings than the independent group once the F-22 enters high-rate production. Low-rate production is set to rise to 30 aircraft in fiscal 2005. High-rate production calls for 90 aircraft per year beginning in fiscal 2006.

A September 2002 Air Force study suggested a need for 381 F-22 fighter jets, rejecting a suggestion in early 2002 the Office of the Secretary of Defense that 180 Raptors would suffice. A total of 381 F-22s would provide one F-22 squadron per AEF, along with the aircraft for training, testing, backup aircraft inventory and peacetime attrition reserve. Earlier in 2002, Air Force officials began citing 381 as a more usable force size. As of late 2002 there was speculation that Secretary Rumsfeld might order a cut to 239 planes, while leaving the F/A-22 production schedule through 2009 unchanged, with the decision on whether to exceed 239 planes would falling to a successor defense secretary.

Two F-22 development aircraft are at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., where the F-22 Combined Test Force is located. Nellis AFB, NV, was selected as the location for the F-22 Force Development Evaluation program and Weapons School.

In 2002, the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) received F-22 aircraft to establish advanced pilot training and begin qualifying F-22 fighter pilots to fly the F-22. To accomplish this training, AETC will establish two training squadrons at Tyndall AFB, Florida. First flight and delivery of Raptor 4018 to Tyndall AFB are tentatively scheduled for early 2003. Tyndall AFB is home to the Air Force's 325th Fighter Wing, the "schoolhouse" where future F-22 pilots will be trained to fly and fight in this 21st century air dominance fighter. The first squadron will be developed from 2003 through 2008, with most of the aircraft available for training by 2004. A second squadron would be established in 2007 and 2008. Members of these squadrons will complete advanced F-22 pilot training to fly and successfully perform the academic work and flying skills necessary to achieve instructor status. A number of these new instructor pilots will be assigned to operational units that will receive F-22s, such as the proposed Initial F-22 Operational Wing. Some will also become WS instructors. By 2004, a sufficient number of qualified pilots will be ready to comprise the first squadron of the Initial F-22 Operational Wing.

On 27 January 2000 the Air Force announced that Langley Air Force Base, VA, was the preferred alternative for the location of the first operational F-22 wing. The final basing decision will be contingent upon the completion of appropriate Environmental Impact Analysis Process actions. This analysis will include a look at reasonable alternatives to Langley--Eglin Air Force Base and Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.; Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; and Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho--as well as the "no-action" alternative.

Establishment of the initial Operational Wing would take place over a period of approximately 5 years and would involve the basing of 72 operational F-22 aircraft, along with the personnel needed to operate and maintain the aircraft and associated facilities for advanced training. The beddown of the 72-aircraft Operational Wing would take place in the following stages:

1st Operational Squadron in September 2004 to August 2005
2nd Operational Squadron in September 2005 to June 2006
3rd Operational Squadron in September 2006 to June 2007

Each of the three squadrons would be composed of 24 PAI F-22s plus 2 BAI F-22s. As such, the Initial F-22 Operational Wing would include 72 PAI and 6 BAI aircraft. PAI consists of the aircraft authorized and assigned to perform the squadron’s missions in training, deployment, and combat. BAI includes those aircraft additional to the PAI that are used as substitutes for PAI aircraft undergoing maintenance, repairs, or inspections. BAI aircraft, as substitutes, permit the squadron to be at its fully authorized strength (24 aircraft). All training, deployment, and other mission activities are based on the number of PAI aircraft in a squadron.

Beddown of the F-22 and drawdown of the F-15C would occur at Langley AFB, with part of a squadron of F-22s arriving and an equivalent number of F-15Cs from that squadron being removed until the full squadron is composed of 24 PAI F-22 aircraft. This pattern would apply for two of the three F-15C squadrons with 24 PAI aircraft. The third squadron would receive 24 PAI F-22s to replace its 18 PAI F-15Cs. In total, Langley AFB would support 6 additional PAI aircraft (66 F-15Cs versus 72 F-22s) as a result of the proposed beddown.

At Eglin, Elmendorf, and Mountain Home alternative bases, the operational F-15Cs would be replaced with operational F-22s. At Tyndall AFB, all F-22s for the Operational Wing would be additive to the base since there are no operational F-15C aircraft to drawdown. The three operational F-22 squadrons at Tyndall AFB would be under a new, separate wing. Personnel changes to support the beddown would follow the same sequence as the aircraft beddown.

[Midav]

The F/A-22 sounds like it will have better LO (low observable) capabilities. Plus, it will be only one of two aircraft in the world using a towed decoy in the situation there is a problem with detection.

The Raptor will not use a towed decoy--it defeats the whole purpose of its stealth.

The B-1b and F/A-18 E/F Super Bug have both used towed decoys for a number of years (of course the Super Bug for a shorter amount of time).

Not saying you are right or wong, but last I heard, it was planned to add towed decoys to the B-1, F/A-18 E/F and F-16.

BAE was slated as the winning contractor to add the ALE-55 to the F/A-22. Of course, things can change and they may have cancelled it to cut cost.

I realize the F/A-22's decoy wouldn't help with its stealth, but it wouldn't fly around with it sticking out 24/7 :)

In the event of if, or rather, when, it's detected, the AF wants to guarantee the survival of its aircraft and more important, its pilot.

[cold0]

The F22 carries the Integrated Electronic Warfare System (INEWS). INEWS provides warning of radar, IR and laser threats, it processes the incoming signals and produces the necessary jamming response and, in a novel departure, it also handles the plane's communications.

There' an interesting interview with Dr Hugo Poza, head of the Avionics Division at Lockheed/Sanders and heavily involved with INEWS, inWar in the Fourth Dimension of Dr Alfred Price:

The F/A-22 has many stealth features. But it is a myth to think that a stealthy aircraft does not need EW systems. It's importanta to blend the plane's stealth capability with its EX systems. There needs to be a passive EW system to detedt the direction from which the threatehing signals are coming. The n the pilot can present the plane's most stealthy aspest to that direction, to try to remain undetected. During an engagement it is likely that for most of the timethe pilot will not jam at all, preferring to stay passive. But occasionaly it may be necessary to jam and the INEWS includes a jamming system. On a stealthy airplane, a little jamming power at right time can achieve a great deal

This's the reason, I think, 'cause the F/A-22 doesn't use a towed decoy like the ALE-50.

Regards,

[aktarian]

ATHe F-22 isnt an air dominance fighter anymore. Its the F/A-22, and its capabilities are comparable to the F/A-18E... It has both strike and air combat capabilities.


The problem with this is that F-22 was designed as pure air dominance fighter and all characteristics were made to make it good in this field. Rafale was designed as multirole from beginning and had characteristics to match it.

F-14 will never be as good in attacking ground targets as F-16 is. Because it was designed as air dominance fighter and everything was designed to make it one. Hence F-16s air-air capabilities will never match those of F-14.

When you want to turn air dominance plane into multirole plane you run into troubles, like they did with flying trashcan, I mean Eurofighter. I think A in F/A-22 is just for birocratic reasons, so they can claim it's multirole plane when somebody wants to slash budget for it.

IMO US would be better off if they scap F-22 and concentrate on JSF. Which will not be as good in air-air engagements as F-22 but good enough and much better in multirole as F-22 will ever be.

[cold0]

I don't agree with you aktarian. The F/A-22 has some unique capacities that no any fighters of the last generation have, including the JSF. The F/A-22 can operate near the "double-digit" russian SAMs; I don't mean that the Raptor is complete invisible to the S300/400 family, but it can come closer to these systems that Eurofighter/Rafale, especially when the latter carry external payload (always in a war scenario). The Eurofighter/Rafale can launch different models of stand-off weapons against a target protected by a S-300/400 but this tactic has some limitation. For example a country X has a modern IADS based on some squadrons of Su-27 Flanker and some units of SA-10; an ipotetic agressor with Eurofighter/Rafale/F16 Block 60 ecc. can't penetrate the country X airspace for fear of the SA-10 and the Sukoi fighters deny the "near" airspace for all support aircrafts (tankers ecc). The only solution is to drop stand-off weapons out the range of SAM batteries, but the Sukoi fighters, especially if guided by early- warning aircraft, can track and shoot down a part of the incoming cruise missiles. In the same scenario an F/A-22 can penetrate and drop JDAM weapons before the defensor could react. Another scenario where the Raptor is far superior to the other last-generation fighters is a Deny-Fly operation but with a enemy equipped with modern SAM. Try to picture an air force the conduct CAP mission over an ostile country armed with SA-10/11/15 SAM; the enemy can prepare in every moment a "anti-aircraft" ambust with advanced weapon and fire the missiles without warning; in this situation the fighter pilots don't have the support of the jamming Prowlers and very brief time to shoot a SEAD missile (if the fighter has a SEAD missile). In few days the loss will became so high that only solution is to launch an all-out attack to the enemy IADS or stop the operation.
Yes, I have oversimplified these scenarios but the aim is to point out the differences between the F/A-22 and the other last generation fighters.
The JSF is less stealth than F/A-22, it can't go to supercruise speed and it rely more on "other aircraft sensors" (AWACs, E-8, others fighters).

Sorry, as always, for the bad english.

Regards,

[aktarian]

F-22 is good, LO plane, I never said it isn't. But my point was that it was made to be air superiority plane and has ground attack roles added later, not during design. That will be his limitation regarding JSF, which was designed as multirole from the start.

And about your scenarios. Every large scale attack would open with SEAD missions, not operate over operating IADS. That's standard procedure for every air force.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

ATHe F-22 isnt an air dominance fighter anymore. Its the F/A-22, and its capabilities are comparable to the F/A-18E... It has both strike and air combat capabilities.


The problem with this is that F-22 was designed as pure air dominance fighter and all characteristics were made to make it good in this field. Rafale was designed as multirole from beginning and had characteristics to match it.

F-14 will never be as good in attacking ground targets as F-16 is. Because it was designed as air dominance fighter and everything was designed to make it one. Hence F-16s air-air capabilities will never match those of F-14.

When you want to turn air dominance plane into multirole plane you run into troubles, like they did with flying trashcan, I mean Eurofighter. I think A in F/A-22 is just for birocratic reasons, so they can claim it's multirole plane when somebody wants to slash budget for it.

IMO US would be better off if they scap F-22 and concentrate on JSF. Which will not be as good in air-air engagements as F-22 but good enough and much better in multirole as F-22 will ever be.

Er..well, I agree with your point overall, but the F-16 really isn't a good example to use. It was designed as a low cost point defense fighter - a lot like the MiG-29. It's main design point was low cost, not performance. There's been all kinds of stuff scabbed onto it so it can function in the A-G mode, but it's still by no means an attack aircraft. Many people would argue that it's a crappy A-G aircraft due to its single engine, inherent instability (which is good on a fighter), poor low speed maneuverability when loaded, and lack of armor. Prolly better to use the A-10 (or Frogfoot etc.) for that example.

[cold0]

Yes, you are right aktarian, that in a major operation the destrution of enemy IADS it's the first objective of an air force.
But Deny Flight was a sort "air peacekeeping", so the NATO fighter can't shoot to the enemy troops on the ground (even because it wasn't clear "who'is the enemy"! ;) and during this operation the serbs of Bosnia took some SAM from Jugo Army and start to fire at the NATO fighters.
So the RN Navy loosed an Harrier hitted by a SA-16 and Scott O'Grady passed a beatiful week evading serb patrols after his F16 was shooted down with a SA-6!!!
If the serbs would have a more advanced some the loss for NATO in Bosnia between 1994-95 could be more high.
Probably Deny Flight is exception but it is not impossible to see a similar "operation" in the future.

Regards,

[RealUltimatePower]

F-22 ROCKS!!!!

[aktarian]

Yes, you are right aktarian, that in a major operation the destrution of enemy IADS it's the first objective of an air force.
But Deny Flight was a sort "air peacekeeping", so the NATO fighter can't shoot to the enemy troops on the ground (even because it wasn't clear "who'is the enemy"! ;) and during this operation the serbs of Bosnia took some SAM from Jugo Army and start to fire at the NATO fighters.
So the RN Navy loosed an Harrier hitted by a SA-16 and Scott O'Grady passed a beatiful week evading serb patrols after his F16 was shooted down with a SA-6!!!
If the serbs would have a more advanced some the loss for NATO in Bosnia between 1994-95 could be more high.
Probably Deny Flight is exception but it is not impossible to see a similar "operation" in the future.

Regards,

Deny Flight is bad example. It was ment as air policing and enforcing no fly zones. To compare it to major operation is like comparing peacekeeping operations to war. Better examples would be GW2, OIF or AF (altough at AF IADS wasn't neutralised and if NATO would follow their own doctrine on last day they would still be striking at IADS). Strike at enemy radars, SAM/AAA sites, airfields, nodes and communications, then go after other targets.

[cold0]

I agree with you that Deny Flight isn't a war but anyway it put the Nato fighters in "harm's way". I doubt to see a similar operation in future but it's not impossible that the air forces will be limited, for political reasons, in air campaign. For example, during the first months of Rolling Thunder in Vietnam the US AIR Force and Navy didn't attacked the SAM sites because the US amministration didn't want to provoke the North Vietnam (but they bombed other limited targets on the souther part of the North Vietnam)!
Result: the NV prepared a lot af SAM site and started to shoot down the US jets and the first raid against, moving the SA-s2 from a site to another.

Regards,

[aktarian]

I agree with you that Deny Flight isn't a war but anyway it put the Nato fighters in "harm's way".

True, but in any war IADS would be first target and air force wouldn't operate within such restriting ROE.



I doubt to see a similar operation in future but it's not impossible that the air forces will be limited, for political reasons, in air campaign. For example, during the first months of Rolling Thunder in Vietnam the US AIR Force and Navy didn't attacked the SAM sites because the US amministration didn't want to provoke the North Vietnam (but they bombed other limited targets on the souther part of the North Vietnam)!
Result: the NV prepared a lot af SAM site and started to shoot down the US jets and the first raid against, moving the SA-s2 from a site to another.

Regards,

I think reason for not attacking SAM sites was that they could kill some Soviet advisor. IIRC same restrictions were in force regarding Haipong harbor so US wouldn't hit and Soviet or Chines ship bringing suplies.

War is too serious matter to be left to generals but too complicated to be left to politicians.

[Russian Texan]

F 22 is simply in the league of its own, there is nothing else like it.
Rafale is a great aircraft, even beautiful from some angles, but it belongs to the realm of "generation 4+" fighters.

To AFACadet
Remember we had an argument about Su 37 crashing, well, you were right - it did crash, just like you have said. Very unfortunate, there is no other plane that can perform same manueovres.

[Midav]

My mistake.

I just got done talking to my bro in-law and he confirmed the F/A-22 won't be using a towed decoy... for the forseeable future.

It had been in talks in the past to use it, but officials say the stealth and EW package would suffice. Cost was another issue.

[DLodge]

The problem with this is that F-22 was designed as pure air dominance fighter and all characteristics were made to make it good in this field. Rafale was designed as multirole from beginning and had characteristics to match it.

F-14 will never be as good in attacking ground targets as F-16 is. Because it was designed as air dominance fighter and everything was designed to make it one. Hence F-16s air-air capabilities will never match those of F-14.

When you want to turn air dominance plane into multirole plane you run into troubles, like they did with flying trashcan, I mean Eurofighter. I think A in F/A-22 is just for birocratic reasons, so they can claim it's multirole plane when somebody wants to slash budget for it.

Ummm, the F-15E Strike Eagle comes to mind. One of the best, if not THE best, strike fighters in the world. I don't see the Eagle's air superiority roots hampering the Dark Greys. If anything, the Raptor has even more potential as a ground attack fighter than the original Eagle did.

Once the technology matures, I'd be willing to bet that the F/A-22 will be far superior to the Rafale at moving mud.

[cold0]

War is too serious matter to be left to generals but too complicated to be left to politicians.


..... damn right! :P

[usa320]

F-14 will never be as good in attacking ground targets as F-16 is

Not true. in OIF F-14's were often used for CAS missions in support of Special forces units because they have a longer loiter time over target, plus they can carry just as many bombs, i believe they can haul 5 GBU-24's, where as the F-16C can carry 4. Also the TARPS pod allows for real-time intelligence to be beamed back to ground control, where as with an F-16 a second BDA mission would be necessary.

Anyway, i think what we will see by 2005 for the air force is the F/A-22's replacing the F-15C's as front line fighters, i belive the 1st TFW at Langley is the first wing slated to recieve them. As 22's replace the F-15C's, the F-15C's will be sent down to the reserve units who are still using F-15A's and B's. Those will get either sold export or mothballed. The F-16C models will remain front-line until the F-35 is fielded, at which point the F-16C's will replace the F-16A and B models in Use by the reserves and air guard. the F-15E will remain in service for the forseeable future, as it has only been around half as long as the C models, and it is still the most capable fast strike aircraft around.

My undestanding is there is already an active F/A-22 wing at Tyndall AFB, Florida, training the 1st TFW pilots on the new plane that will replace their F-15's.

[AFACadet]

Yup, Tyndall trains first Raptor pilot (http://www.af.mil/stories/story.asp?storyID=123006374//url)

[Antepilani]

The F/A-22 is far supperior to the Rafale in Air Dominance role, and moderatly supperior as a first strike weapon because the F/A-22 is definatly better because of the stealth. The F/A-22 can carry a payload just as large as the Rafale, but it wouldn't be stealthy.

[StarvingStudent47]

Id gladly give a few bucks outta each paycheck if thats whats needed to maintain aerial supremecy.

Who is challenging our aerial supremacy?

This insn't a troll but a genuine question. Is China pushing the envelope of fighters right now? Another country? I don't see who we're in an arms race with for the best fighter/interceptor, but I don't deny my ignorance about many military issues.

[AFACadet]

A number of other countries are getting more advanced fighters than we have. The main ones are China getting their Su-30MKKs and India with their Su-30MKIs. Many other countries in Asia are starting to get into an arms race with eachother--which means they are getting the new aircraft. Many of these are Su-27s or its upgraded versions.

Saudi has F-15Cs, the UAE is getting F-16C Block 60s (much more advanced than any F-16 we have). SK is getting F-15Ks (much more advanced than our F-15Es) and Israel is getting F-15Is and F-16Is (both more advanced than our F-16s and F-15s).

Most of these countries are our allies, but it is still rather disconserting from an airman standpoint to be in second place in regard to aircraft technology and quality.


But more importantly, we need to be ready for the future. It takes an extremely long time to design and build a combat aircraft. Its one of the most complex and difficult engineering projects that a human can do.

The USAF want's to be ready for anything that will come in the next 20-30 years because that's how long it takes us to get a new fighter in service these days. Even with upgrades, the F-15 simply will not cut it that long.

Like I said before, the F-15C is already outclassed by the Su-30MKK and Su-30MKI and will be outclassed with the Russian PAK-FA. While russia is not our enemy anymore, they will be selling it to countries that are not exactly friendly to us.

We can't wait around and sit on our laurels. That's how wars are lost.



On another level, the air defense threat has vastly increased. The very high quality SAM systems are being sold around the world. Our current F-16s and F-15s will be hard pressed to counter them. The F/A-22 will play a large role in taking out these threats too.

You can never know what will happen in a few years--or even a few days. If something does happen, we don't have the time to sit around and design a new aircraft.

[FR. CONNEXION]

Check thank you the lads. I me go all in succession raporter to the waiters(servers) french of what you think of it. Goodbye the Yankees. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Antepilani]

The PAK-FA is more Indian then it is Russian and they don't have anywhere the funding we had/have for the F/A-22 or even the F-35.


The very high quality SAM systems are being sold around the world. Our current F-16s and F-15s will be hard pressed to counter them. The F/A-22 will play a large role in taking out these threats too.


That is what the X-45C will be used for. It will carry something like 16 SDB(250 lbs) and be used for SEAD missions. Since it is less then 1/3 the size of the F/A-22 and is being made stealthy, it will be hard as hell to take them out. They are less then 5 million dollars per aircraft(somewhere around there).