“Stealth” isn’t equipment.
The reason I queried that statement is that for a “stealthy” aircraft, the lack of a passive IRST system is a glaring omission from the F-22, but something the Eurofighter has. Will be a problem if LPI radars don’t remain LPI for very long (likely).
Off the top of my head I can’t think of equipment that the F-22 has but Eurofighter doesn’t.
ok, thank you and sorry for my ignorance. :lol:
Festamus, about the equipments that the Raptor has, I was talking about equipments that can do different actions to the Raptor while the similar equipments inside the Typhoon cannot… examples
*A radar with a range +400km, the APG-77. Its capabilities are unique, the Typhoon doesn’t have a radar with the similar range at all
*The best RWR joint system in the world, the ALR-94. This equipment has technologies so advanced that it can locate another aircraft even used on passive system, by triangulation. The Typhoon cannot do this.
*The same equipment, the ALR-94 allows to the pilot to launch an AIM-120 without using its radar. The Typhoon cannot launch a missil succesfully without the radar.
*The Raptor has a joint system of Navigation/Comunications/WEW with unique capabilities. The Typhoon doesn’t have these systems together, and they are by far lower.
*The electronic system of the Raptor allows it to be used as an electronic attack aircraft with a jamming that is enabled to cause more damages than an specialized aircraft, as the EF-111 or the EA-6. The Raptor has good jammers, but never would be better than an specialized EW aircraft.
Eagle, all good points were it not for them sounding remarkably like Lockheed Martin marketing! 
I’ll be the first to say that F/A-22 will probably win in a 1v1 fight. It’s a bigger, more powerful, more expensive platform and while it has some capabilities Typhoon does not - thrust vectoring for instance (although if you get to the stage where you need it, things have gone badly, badly, badly wrong) - it also lacks some capabilities Typhoon has, such as IRST and latest generation BVRAAM weapons such as Meteor.
While the F/A-22 is an awesome bit of kit, I don’t buy into a lot of what is said about it. I think a lot of the capabilities are talked up whereas for other platforms which may possess them they are not. F/A-22 is a politically charged program - it’s survival has long been questioned until recently. I believe those involved felt the need to talk up and exaggerate it as much as possible and much of what is popularly believed about it is a product of the “hype” created to justify the spiralling costs and perceived lack of relevance to modern conflict.
However, survive it has, and very good it is too. Even so, only the USAF can really afford Raptor (and other than the UK, I don’t see who else would ever be allowed any) and outside of air-to-air, it’s multi-role capabilities are minimal. I think the low numbers being purchased would support claims that F/A-22 is too specialised and that it’s much shouted about capabilities can not justify a purchase anything near the scale originally envisaged.
As an example, the RAF is buying a fleet of +200 or so cheaper aircraft which only have the F/A-22 to fear - but they will NEVER face F/A-22 in a real shooting war. In Typhoon, the Eurofighter nations have a fighter with similar capabilities to F/A-22 except stealth - although even so, the Typhoon has a reduced RCS. If the RAF were to buy F/A-22, they’d have much less aircraft with capability in the air-to-air arena far in excess of what we could need or use, but grossly deficient in other areas. After all - quantity has a quality all of its own.
When was the last time the USAF or RAF actually NEEDED a fully-fledged air superiority fighter? They haven’t faced an opponent where AMRAAM equipped F-16’s wouldn’t do the trick for some time. And with the limited purchase quantity of F/A-22, you have to bear in mind that an aircraft can only be in one place at a time, and has to spend a significant part of its time on the ground just the same as any other aircraft. For most operations you won’t need it as an air-to-air fighter at which point F/A-22 is a very expensive way to deliver a tiny number of small diameter bombs considering they already have another very expensive stealth platform designed specifically to truck bombs. You also face the problem of having to give up your expensive stealth advantage if you want to carry a more useful weapon load.
And for a war where you would need it for air-to-air (North Korea perhaps), you’d probably need far greater numbers than would ever be available in theatre on time.
For these reasons, Typhoon and better still, F-35, fit the part of 21st century fighters far better than F/A-22. Light, affordable(ish), versatile while remaining sophisticated. Yet strangely JSF funding is in danger of being cannibalised to pay for more F/A-22’s. Worrying.
Typhoon for USAF! 
*A radar with a range +400km, the APG-77. Its capabilities are unique, the Typhoon doesn’t have a radar with the similar range at all
Maximum ranges of radars will be classified, although the Eurofighter radar is known to work well in excess of 320km. So 400km isn’t light years ahead, so I take issue with the last part of the above quote.
Granted, AN/APG-77 is an AESA system while CAPTOR is mechanically scanned. But then, maybe by the time the F/A-22 gets a decent weapon to launch with it, Typhoon will get AMSAR radar to launch it’s superior Meteor weapons with.
And I don’t see how the capabilities of AN/APG-77 are “unique” when there are other AESA radars out there. And more to the point, every man and his dog will have a data-link to his friendly neighbourhood AWACS.
*The best RWR joint system in the world, the ALR-94.
Ah. The good old BAE Systems AN/ALR-94.
This equipment has technologies so advanced that it can locate another aircraft even used on passive system, by triangulation. The Typhoon cannot do this.
Nonsense. For starters Typhoon - rather bizarelly since F/A-22 is meant to be the stealthy platform of the two - has more passive detection capability than the F/A-22 by virtue of having the superb PIRATE (the Infra Red Search and Track system). And in a similar vein to ALR-94, Typhoon has a thoroughly modern and sophisticated DASS.
From http://www.selex-sas.com/datasheets/EFADASS.pdf
[i]"Electronic Support Measures
All round coverage
Effective threat identification in high-density environment for automatic initiations of countermeasures.
Target identification with high accuracy direction finding"[/i]
The rest of that link is well worth a read as Typhoon’s DASS is pretty sexy stuff.
*The same equipment, the ALR-94 allows to the pilot to launch an AIM-120 without using its radar.
I’d question whether you need a radar to launch AMRAAM anyway. You only use the radar to give it intial guidance and mid-course adjustments. You could send the thing off either using another sensor for these adjustments - such as PIRATE or data-link from another platform… I’m not sure the weapon minds - or by just letting the missile’s own radar homing do the job. Envelope of the weapon would be much reduced by the latter option but I think it could still be done.
Besides which - sending mid-course adjustment to a missile is hardly a passive set up itself.
The Typhoon cannot launch a missil succesfully without the radar.
Entirely untrue, and if anything PIRATE makes Typhoon more capable in this regard.
And again we come back to which missiles are being used. Typhoon is flying with Meteor now which is a far superior weapon to AMRAAM. F/A-22 has to come well within Meteor’s envelope before it can attempt an AMRAAM shot. How confident are you that at such close range, no Typhoon-friendly sensors will pick you up (either on the Typhoon you’re targeting, or offboard on other Typhoons or AWACS) - especially considering that away from a narrow head-on arc, the radar cross section of even the F/A-22 will increase.
Another reservation about F/A-22 arises if you consider that AN/APG-77 is LPI - LOW probability of intercept. Not NO probability of intercept. F/A-22 either runs around emitting radiation from the radar in it’s nose - no matter how frequency agile, hoping that Typhoon’s DASS doesn’t work, or flies around with the radar off relying on the Typhoon having it’s radar on so that it’s ALR-94 can home in. But Typhoon has a much better passive capability than F/A-22 in the form of PIRATE allowing the radar to be turned off.
*The Raptor has a joint system of Navigation/Comunications/WEW with unique capabilities. The Typhoon doesn’t have these systems together, and they are by far lower.
Um, I hate to say it, but I detect BS. The avionics suite is higly integrated on Typhoon - probably as much or more so than on F/A-22. It also brings tricks to the party that F/A-22 does not, such as direct voice input. A tangible benefit in a modern single seat fighter.
Excelent post festamus, I even believe that the F/A designation has been dropped from the Raptor and its now back to the plain old F-22.
Politically motivated name change (again)?
It was re-designed as F-22A Raptor.
As in A for A model, like F-15A etc…
I found the trade site a little over the top, with the steely-eyed dealers of death protecting the nation and the innocent children. And if you do not support the introduction of this magnificent white elephant then you are a traitor.
The US arms industry has been selling kit to the US armed forces that does not always do what it said on the box. The early cruse missiles took a long time for them to do what had been advertised.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051215/us_nm/arms_usa_fighter_dc_1
(linked from the F22 page)
The F-22 also has a ground attack capability to drop 250-pound, small-diameter bombs or 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions while flying at supersonic speeds.
Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, has said the F-22 is needed against threats such as Russian-built surface-to-air missiles sold overseas.
Moseley said on Tuesday he hoped to buy 183 F-22s, four more than currently in the budget and enough for seven combat-ready squadrons, down from the 750 F-22s once planned.
(my bold)
Was it not the vast expense of keeping up with the US that lead in part to the down fall of the USSR?
As of last month, 53 F-22s had been delivered to the Air Force.
Eventually, a squadron is expected to be based on the Pacific island of Guam, a U.S. territory within striking distance of China.
Does the US need this system?
Is it me or does any one else think this last paragraph is a little scary!!
Phrasing it as “within striking distance from China” may be more helpful. If Taiwan ever gets in a shooting war with the PRC and the US gets involved, the Chinese are very likely to want to hit Guam - hence the need for some self-protection.
I would concede that your phrasing (they are not my words but Jim Wolf’s) sounds a lot better. But if it were for defence than it would not need to reach PRC only the ability to loiter.
With modern refuelling isn’t any place within range. Remember the Vulcans and the Falkland islands. The distance to the PRC is about 2000 miles.
Good! What it always should have been!
IMO, the USAF would never have called it the F/A-22 had the programme not constantly been under threat.
[begin rant which I’ve probably made before but think is relevant now]
This whole F/A business is, I believe, something the US Navy started when they introduced the Hornet to replace F-4’s and A-7’s. It made sense to give it the F/A designation to make sure everyone knew this was going to do both roles equally - I would imagine there would be some disquiet about replacing aircraft like the F-4 and the A-7 with just one airframe. And hey, to be fair to them, it makes sense. As well as it’s fighter role, it can carry a full arsenal of air-to-ground weaponry and deliver it properly.
Up till that point in the US designation convention, if it was pointy and went fast, or even if it was just sexy, it was an “F-". If it was slow and ugly it was an "A-”. But hey, if it was fast and pointy or even just sexy, it could still be an “F” even if it was meant to drop bombs. Witness the F-111, F-105… But F/A? The USAF wasn’t into it even if the USN/USMC was. The F-15E was certainly worthy of F/A - (unlike the F-22) but no one felt the need to designate it F/A-15. There’s a decent history of “fighters” which should have been designated as attack aircraft, and even some that deserved to be designated “F/A”. F-15E, F-16 and F-4 spring to mind
But being able to drop two or four the least demanding bombs possible (people go on about chucking JDAM out of the doors of C-17’s… It’s not exactly rocket science) doesn’t really make it an attack aircraft. The F-15C could drop bombs (although I doubt anyone ever did in anger or even in training that much) so big deal? Why was the F-22 ever designated F/A-22? Because it cost a fortune and was being sold as an air superiority fighter at a time when conflicts were low tech/low intensity and any air-to-air fighting was brief and grossly one sided in favour of existing (and thus cheaper) F-15C’s and F-16C’s.
Link to an article about when they went from F-22 to F/A-22 that I find rather amusing.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/airforce/beam/7_37/national_news/19325-1.html
“Advances in technology and emerging Air Force doctrine make today’s Raptor very different from the fighter envisioned when the program was first planned. Technological advancements in the fire control radar and integrated avionics, combined with the advent of smaller, very precise munitions, create a far more powerful air-to-ground strike system, Jumper said in a written statement.”
Translation: “Existing aircraft are more versatile than this enormously expensive uberplane. Raptor isn’t very different at all, but if we change the name, we’ll fool the taxpayer and congress into thinking so, in the hope they won’t cut the numbers further or cancel it altogether. Technological advancements in fire control radar, such as, oh, the ones that already allow the vast fleets of paid-for F-16C and F-15E to be truly multirole, combined with a bomb that saves our bacon and by being actually small enough to fit inside our barely changed F-22, errr, F/A-22 - and because it’s GPS, doesn’t need a designator pod or any other fancy air-to-ground avionics like true multirole aircraft. Hell, we don’t even need a FLIR. We’ll just punch the co-ordinates in and fly the aircraft to the target the same as we would if we were chucking JDAM’s out the door of a C-17.”
"“Indeed, the Raptor’s most significant contributions over the next 30 years will be [in] its attack role, particularly against the most lethal next two generations of [enemy] surface-to-air missiles,” Jumper said.
Translation: “Erm, we’re building the wrong plane. But changing the name and whacking a pair of JDAM in makes it ok”
[/end rant]
Well, I don’t know, everyone is free to name his aircraft as he wants, and I think it is ok… but I think the US forces would have to organize themselves a little… they are calling to some aircraft as “F”, when they are realizing the same or more missions than a F/A in attack missions… this is the example of the F-15E or the F-14 Bombcat in their moments.
Nowadays all combat fighter aircrafts should be named as FA-XX, the term of only a Fighter is obsolet, now the polivalence is present in practically all the new aircrafts.
Another thing that the north-americans aren’t so well organized… why the F/A-18 Hornet is F/A -Figher, attack-, with the sign “/” between the letters, and other aircrafts, as the AT-33 (Attack, Trainer), the EA-6 (Electronics, Attack), or the AC-130 (Attack, Cargo) ARE NOT SHOWED WITH THE SIGN “/” ??? Why the F/A-18 is not the FA-18??
Another point of the north americans, the F-111 and the F-117. It would be ok using the letter A-111 or A-117, or B-111 and B-117 at least, but “F”??
The North Americans are realy bad-organized with their designations, don’t you think?
The north american have the best armed forces in the world,i also think they have the best designations,and training,they have exelency at the military.
A theory I can’t support: Pilots are vain people, and all fancy themselves as fighter pilots even if they just truck bombs in something that HAPPENS to be smaller than B-52 so gets “F-” designated. Pilots rise to the top of the hierachy of the Air Force and Pentagon thus when it comes to procurement want all new aircraft to be fighters if they can reasonably get away with it. Calling something an Attack aircraft suggests helping those awful people in the Army. Too uncool for fighter pilots. See also later comments re: TAC and SAC.
Another thing that the north-americans aren’t so well organized… why the F/A-18 Hornet is F/A -Figher, attack-, with the sign “/” between the letters, and other aircrafts, as the AT-33 (Attack, Trainer), the EA-6 (Electronics, Attack), or the AC-130 (Attack, Cargo) ARE NOT SHOWED WITH THE SIGN “/” ??? Why the F/A-18 is not the FA-18??
If you look at the EA-6 or the AC-130, or the FB-111 they are derivatives of the A-6, C-130 and F-111 respectively.
I think because the F/A-18 was designed from the outset to be Fighter and Attack, it got the F/A. They probably had to convince people that this really was equally good at both the roles it was expected to fill. Besides which, the Hornet is a US Navy aircraft, and they’ve always been more accurate in their designations, even if not always perfect. I think we have the structure of their air units to thank. They embark on carriers, and each carrier has a Carrier Air Wing consisting of squadrons to fulfil certain roles. They might have a couple of air-defence type fighter squadrons - squadrons numbered “VF-". These would get the F-8’s then F-4’s then F-14’s. They’d then have the attack squadrons - "VA-”. This would fly your A-6 type aircraft.
You’d then have your “Strike Fighter” squadrons “VFA-**” -lighter attack aircraft in the case of the A-7 (versus the A-6) or fighter-attack type aircraft in the case of F-4 or, later F/A-18. The F-4 was originally procured for VF squadrons so it’s fair enough that it remained consistent when it entered service with VFA’s I guess.
Compare this to the USAF. At the time most aircraft currently in service were designated, you had Tactical Air Command for all the smaller combat aircraft, Strategic Air Command for the big bombers and Military Airlift Command for your transports. TAC wings were AFAIK all, or almost all, “Tactical Fighter Wings” (TFW) even if they were purely for the attack role, so TAC’s aircraft were almost always “F-” (unless it was a navy aircraft first, then they might carry over the A- as they did with the A-7) unless it just blatantly was an insult to the word fighter (A-10!). So the persistence in calling things Fighters DOES have some logic to it as far as I know. Which is what makes me suspicious about them having made the switch to F/A-22!!! It was very unlike the USAF’s fighter people to be calling an aircraft anything other than a fighter if they could avoid it!!! It stinks of a pure political move to protect the program. But now it’s not under threat of cancellation: sure enough, the old USAF way has prevailed in the end!
Another point of the north americans, the F-111 and the F-117. It would be ok using the letter A-111 or A-117, or B-111 and B-117 at least, but “F”??
The North Americans are realy bad-organized with their designations, don’t you think?
See above comments regarding the old TAC.
Strategic Air Command had “bombers” - Tactical Air Command’s stuff had to be fighters or attack although the Attack designation has never been very popular with the USAF - not so the US Navy however. All the old TAC wings were “**th TFW” (Tactical Fighter Wing) after all. Military Airlift Command of course got the “C” stuff. Political really. It wouldn’t do for TAC to operate a “B-111”, and when SAC got F-111 derivatives they renamed to “FB-111”.
All good answers partner, but I am in disagree with that:
“I think because the F/A-18 was designed from the outset to be Fighter and Attack, it got the F/A.”
The Hornet was designed as F-18. The navy wanted a fighter and an attack aircraft, and, the Hornet took that role, but it was firstly a pure fighter. Why is not an FA-18???
From memory the PRC have very, very few tankers but rather a lot of cruise missiles. As such, the threat against Guam is likely to be stand off cruise missiles, requiring a fighter with very long range and excellent radar. The F-22 is the best for that by a very long way.
I’m not necessarily saying that’s what they thought, merely suggesting that to think that would make sense.
Looking at the ammount of moving parts used to get the F-35 to go vertical I can’t see it being too reliable! Intresting video.
Most of the moving parts you see there are little to worry about. Doors etc. are straightforward linkages and not an awful lot to go wrong. Certainly no less reliable than any other aircraft which is covered in them.
I guess is the things to really watch would be the three-bearing rear nozzle, and the drive to the lift-fan, including the clutch which has to engage at some scarily high RPM’s.