the F22 or the Eurofighter?

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#41

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.[/quote]

Isn’t that something that AEGIS destroyers and cruisers are made for?

And isn’t the F-22 overkill for that task when an AESA equipped F-15 would do? Range is probably less of an issue than the number of missiles carried. The problem I would forsee is that an F-22 defense against an onslaught of cruise missiles would be quite quickly saturated. Limited number of aircraft can only provide a limited number of AMRAAM’s and AIM-9’s in the sky at any one time. How long could they sustain a defence against a trickle of cruise missiles, and then how well could they cope with a large wave of them?

#42

I’m still believe its two are even… :arrow:

#43

Not really - AEGIS is a bloody good system for defending a small area of sea surface, but doesn’t actually have very much range. Trying to defend an object 50 miles crossrange from you just isn’t going to work very well. Where AEGIS excels (apart from showing that someone in the US has read the Greek myths and quite probably has a sense of humour) is in defending discrete seabourne targets like a carrier battle group.

Comparing an AESA equipped F-15 against an F-22 isn’t all that easy. The difference in marginal cost isn’t all that high (IIRC the cost to manufacture one F-22 is within 50% of the cost to manufacture one AESA equipped F-15 - the big difference is in the R&D, which is already paid for). The F-22 will have rather better radar and so be rather more efficient at picking out cruise missiles from the surface radar returns. Add in the fact that supercruise allows the aircraft to spend a higher fraction of their lives on station and you’re getting somewhere in the area of parity between the options.

Supercruise (coupled with what I suspect will be reduced maintenence requirements compared with the F-15) means that I suspect the F-22 will be better able to maintain a defence against either a slow bombardment or large salvo. Pilot fatigue should be lower, a higher fraction of your aircraft will be on station at any one time and the improved electronics means a higher fraction of your missiles will hit.

Personally, I’d love it if the RAF was getting F-22s instead of Eurofighters, but only if we were in the sort of deal we got with JSF. Anything less wouldn’t be worth it.

#44

ok, but the price is three times expensive. :arrow:

#45

No it isn’t - you’re comparing the wrong numbers. The decision to be taken right now is whether to buy a new F-15 with AESA radar and various other goodies (roughly $100M in cash needed extra per airframe) or an F-22 (roughly $150M in cash needed extra per airframe). The numbers quoted for $300M+ for the F-22 do not represent this. Instead they are the total cost of the entire F-22 project divided by the number of airframes the US currently expects to built. If they buy an extra airframe, both that airframe and every other F-22 ever built miraculously gets cheaper. Hence, if you’re deciding whether or not to buy more F-22s that number is totally irrelevant. It’s only use is by politicians trying to find a white elephant to point at.
The marginal cost (i.e. the cost to the government of buying one more F-22 from the factory) is the relevant cost and IIRC that is in the region of $150-170M. When even JSF is nudging $100M per airframe, that suddenly seems relatively cheap.

#46

cheaper? What is cheaper. The cost of the Eurofighter is, in production,
$ 58M, and the raptor is $ 150.
And then, the parity its the same. :arrow:

#47

Sorry, I thought you were still comparing F-15s and F-22s for Guam.
Eurofighter costs are currently around $100M IIRC, although comparing costs of warplanes is notoriously inaccurate.

#48

I was thinking more upgraded F-15C’s rather than newbuilds. The limited F-22 buy is putting the F-15 in service for many years to come anyway - although USAF leaders seem to not be keen on AESA F-15C’s because it presents competition to more F-22 buys. Fair enough really.

What I’m saying is that for defending an island against cruise missile attack, the F-22 is overkill. Stealth is not needed. Supercruise? Probably not so important for flying patrols close to home. If you want the radar capabilities, another AESA equipped platform will probably do. Certainly F-22 brings to the table no more advanced weapons for the task.

I can’t find anything that suggests it is any more suited to this role than a AESA F-15 would be. The F-22 is great for going into the other guy’s airspace where surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles are going to be out to get you. But for relatively benign airspace to shoot down incoming cruise missiles (or their delivery platforms)?

Now, in expeditionary warfare, such as say the Middle East, it is another matter. You’d be closer to the enemy’s bases, and you’d probably be getting them closer to take off than their targets. F-22 is great for that but for defensive stuff? Where’s all that effort going?

As far as AEGIS goes - if we were talking about somewhere other than Guam, it would be a different. But given the direction of the threat is predictable, and the fact Guam is tiny, I think your point regarding it’s tailoring to protecting discrete seabourne targets such as carrier battle groups - which happen to spread over large areas much as small islands do - is actually in support of the AEGIS option. Particularly when the bulk of the threat is from such a predictable direction. The Taiwanese were after AEGIS cruisers - probably for this very reason - and the Chinese threatened to throw the toys out of the pram if it went ahead.

#49

I think my original post has been slightly misunderstood. If the F22 is up to the job is not the problem, it is that the first place to get them is not continental US (home defence against 747 missiles) or in areas of existing conflict, but in an island that is under no present danger. And for it to become a target would escalate any conflict. Is this more about gunboat diplomacy in a new age? Could this be seen as a new Cuba?

Just some quick thoughts. :slight_smile:

#50

It coud be, in several years…

#51

F-22 would be wasted defending CONUS from hijacked aircraft anyway. F-16’s can do that job perfectly adequately. F-22 isn’t for defending friendly cities or islands miles from the enemy’s air defenses… It’s for deploying to places where you need to dominate the other guy’s airspace.

I think the proximity of Guam to the Taiwan Straits and to North Korea - far away but deployably close - shows why the deployment is there. F-22 in Japan (or even S. Korea) would be way too provokative to the North Koreans. And too close to Taiwan would be provokative to China. Guam is nice and distant but near enough to provide deterrent. Much like putting your gear on Diego Garcia when someone’s playing silly buggers in the Persian Gulf.