"Avoiding the F-22" Topic

How about some possible 2009-2012 scenario ideas where the USA (and those pesky F-22 and F-35 airframes) is not a factor?

You can stick to "more likely" or you can branch to "rolling eyes" scenario ideas.

Enjoy.

Gracias,

Glenn

Central and South America come to mind, as do some parts of Asia. There are any number of local conflicts that can be simulated. Australia vs Indonesia anyone?

Try some little skirmishes in Eastern Europe, assuming you can get the parties to stand up and fight on their own – gotta love the Eurofighter-Typhoon.

Georgia looks to be a likely flashpoint, and there is always a chance of more skirmishing in the Balkans.

Some cross-Mediterranean raids to punish Libya, or Algeria for aiding and abetting terrorist attacks might work too.

In Asia, I would go with Japan vs. Russia, China, or North Korea – some run sorties to check on Japanese Air Force reaction times, so there is always the chance of error on those, especially if you add in competing Russian and Japanese claims to the northern islands in the region.

Pakistan vs. Iran, or India would seem to be in play too, due to cross-border incursions by each other, and terrorist meddling.

India and China have slugged it out in the past and both sides are preparing for it again. Russia could get a nationalistic government and try to take back the Kurile Islands from Japan. China could also invade North Vietnam again, although the last time the NVA gave them a pretty good whacking! Also, there are over a dozen nations claiming the Spratleys and a confrontation there could break out at any time. All of these scenarios still offer hi-tech equipment, but not the overwhelming tech superiority that the U.S. armed forces have.

Add in the USN – opponents' jets should be just as good, but their missiles and pilot training probably are not in most cases.

The logical choice for this one would be either against China, to protect Taiwan, or the Iranians.

You can also do Iranians vs. Israli's on the raid to take out the nuke plants, and uranium enrichment infrastructure.

Why bother?F-22 is a bust.The next REAL fracas will not be decided by airpower but by power PERIOD.I name this ship WW-3,good luck to all who sink in her.Sucks I know, but there it is.

Jungle warfare….While we still have some on this planet.

Just run a scenario where it's been raining, and that takes care of the F-22s (the rain degrades their anti-radar coating!). Or somewhere dusty (same reason).

I betting anything involving the US is pretty much out of the question for this, pretty sure the AF is dying to test out the F-22 in a legit combat situation to prove that the program wasn't a total waste of taxpayer dollars…

US Naval action still features F-18s and F-14s right? Or am I completely outdated?

No more F-14's.

Gracias,

Glenn

You can always give the Iranians F-14's, if you want, just for fun, although the USN "pilots" aren't going to like it.

They are getting a bit long in the tooth though, and have had serviceability issues, but supposedly the Russians are assisting them with that. In addition, Iranian agents have supposedly scoured the USA, and other countries for compatible parts, if news reports are accurate (a few arrests, and/or fines have been made/levied related to that).

It was a sad day when the Tomcats were retired.

I got to see and hear them flying touch-and-go's out of Virginia Beach, while bodysurfing in the Atlantic, a few years back. That was a wonderful day!

The 2nd Falklands war?

Some great ideas here! Colombia and Venezuela wouldn't take too much of a leap of imagination either.

link

Venezuelan F16s and Su30s (bit of an odd mix) vs colombian Mirages and Kfirs. Plus lots of unusual stuff like colombian C47 'spooky' gunships.

"F-22 is a bust"

That comment alone shows you know little to nothing about modern air combat. Airpower is an integral part of power projection and can be decisive in any type of modern ground or sea action.

Easy boys. The F-22 costs about as much seven F-15s. For every hour of flight it requires something like 35 person/hours of maintenance. On the average it has a major failure of some-sort every hour and a half of flight. Rain makes it less stealthy, and keeping the special paint stuck to the airframe is problematic. In short, the more I learn about the F-22 the more I get the impression that it is not a weapon even marginally suited to the rigors of combat.

I wager that the F-22 will never fire a shot in anger.

I'll take the seven F-15s any day.

Easy boys. The F-22 costs about as much seven F-15s. For every hour of flight it requires something like 35 person/hours of maintenance. On the average it has a major failure of some-sort every hour and a half of flight. Rain makes it less stealthy, and keeping the special paint stuck to the airframe is problematic. In short, the more I learn about the F-22 the more I get the impression that it is not a weapon even marginally suited to the rigors of combat.

I wager that the F-22 will never fire a shot in anger.

I'll take the seven F-15s any day.

Double post? Wierd.

From what I have read, you will need that many to take down one F-22, assuming you can catch it when it is flying at supercruise.

"From what I have read, you will need that many to take down one F-22"

It certainly does have a very good PR lobby. I suspect that, as with many so-calld "low observable" projects the reality won't be as good as the hype machine will have us believe and that suitable tactics and technical developments will negate its effects to a greater or lesser degree. At which point it will boil down to pilot skill which would ave the USAF in a good position against most potential future opponents.

I guess you could try a South East Asia scenario using Humphrey Hawksley's "Dragon Strike" books as a basis (no US involvement until the end due to economic pressures).

From what I have read, you will need that many to take down one F-22, assuming you can catch it when it is flying at supercruise.

Or one defective Chinese microchip.

How long have you got?

OK starting with the Russians

Against China, a long standing historical hatred not helped by modern politics.

Against Japan, as stated above a nationalist Japanese government might try to calw back the Kuriles from a weakened or distracted Russia.

Against the Ukraine, probably more balanced if you have the Ukes aided by other former soviet states and/or the west.

A small detached force fighting against any one of a dozen African air forces, but lets be honest we all want it to be the South Africans, as part of an intervention in a local conflict.

Against the Swedes and their allies in the Baltic.

Against a US carrier force with the rest of the US forces being tied up else where. You could also throw in some allies for the Yanks, Japan or Australia if in the pacific.

China

Against Taiwan, you would either need to give the Taiwanese major support, or limit the forces available to the Chinese. In an artecle I did years ago I had local commanders launch the attack without, officially, government backing.

Against Russia See above

Against Japan needs no explanation

Against India, I played based on the scenario that China intervened to save Pakistan which was losing, badly, a war against India.

Against a US carrier force, again see above.

Other players

Turkey/Greece

Turkey/Bulgaria, major tension over treatment of ethnic Turks by Bulgarian authorities.

India/ Pakistan

Poland/Germany, ever been in a room when Polish officials have to deal with German ones? That relationship is still a tad strained.

North/South Korea, Ding Ding! Seconds out round two!

Iran/Anybody they can reach? Just an excuse to have Tomcats, in a rather nice two grey camo, on the board. ;-)

Israel/Syria

Egypt/Libya
Peru/Ecuador OK so the border dispute has finally been settled but I'm sure they can find something else to fight about.

Japan/Malaya and allies.

I could go on, and Dom Skelton and Phil Grey will confirm that over a pint I frequently do!

Fatman

And I haven't even touched on the less plausible but fun ones like Germany/Sweden or France/Netherlands

An F22 against 7 F-15s would shoot down 4 at long range, 2 at medium range, and the last in a dogfight.

I've been working on a Colombia/Venezuela scenario – but combined naval and air.

I knew I could depend on you, Fatman!

Gracias,

Glenn

I remember 20 years ago reading about US Airforce air combat training school. The 'red' forces were usually equipped with Northrop F5 Freedom Fighters because of their similarity in size, performance and general look to the then current Mig-21.

The 'red' pilots were experienced, often combat vets from Vietnam. They regularly flew rings around the blue F15 and F16 rookies, despite the technical superiority of the more modern aircraft.

Kilkrazy, you are correct, but times have changed. The F-22 is so far ahead of the F-16 and F-15 that you do literally need massive numbers to take one on. Last year at Hill AFB where I live nearby they had several six on one engagements and many of the F-16 pilots had participated in Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, Red Flag, and had thousands of hours of flight time. They never even touched the F-22.

'The 2nd Falklands war?'

Does anyone know if the Argies have made good their air losses as yet? If so, what with? If not, what are their options?

The F22, in full ninja mode, only exists for that first set of sorties to 'kick the door in'. Once that happens, then you have to use other airplanes to actually get in and blow up stuff on the ground. I haven't seen a single proposal to hang stores under the wings of the Raptor, while I have seen such proposals for the -35.

Let's be honest: An F22 carries the same air-to-air load as an F15 (4x AMRAAM, 4x AIM9X + gun). However, the Strike Eagle carries that as it's defensive weapons, with a bombload roughly equal to a 6-ship block of B17s.

For some missions, you want the Raptor, for others, you really want something else.

Specify the US mission as needing something else, and watch the show.

Original proposal was to avoid the F-22/F-35 completely.

That said, your point is taken.

Gracias,

Glenn

Taiwan vs. China: Taiwan's upgraded F-16s mercilessly slaughter whatever China is sending over 'til they run out of missiles.

Argies have upgraded some of their surviving Mirages, and purchased a few more, if memory serves me correctly.

On the Taiwan/China front, I'm not so sure.

I imagine their top of the line Sukhois should do quite well in the air to air mode, assuming they have similar training levels for their pilots. Not sure about that.

As someone who has been briefed on F-22 capabilities (nothing really good, bordering on the classified/top secret stuff but not really there), and who has TOUCHED an actual F-22 (my fingerprint is on the nose of an F-22 down at Langley AFB), I can tell you it's an overrated machine. Fun fact: an F-18 achieved a missile kill on an F-22 in a one-on-one fight:

link

more fun facts: The squadrons over at Langley AFB regularly skirmish against eachother, F15s killing F22s are a regular occurence. I personally spoke with at least two pilots that have managed such kills, in fact I shook hands with them. They themselves said that they were saddened by the fact that they were able to get kills on such a high priced aircraft.

I too would gladly take 7 f-15s over a single f-22

picture

NICE

Chaos,

So you're basing your expertise on the fact that you once touched an F-22 and saw an unclassified briefing?

I appreciate your enthusiasm for my profession (I touch Eagles and Raptors every day), but it really is a bit more complicated than you portray it.

I'm not necessarily arguing your conclusion that 7 Eagles are better than 1 Raptor, but probably for different reasons (maintenance rates, sortie sustainment, ATO flexibility, etc).

An F22 against 7 F-15s would shoot down 4 at long range, 2 at medium range, and the last in a dogfight.

Perhaps, assuming the F-22's radar is working perfectly, and that all six AMRAAMs function perfectly, and all seven Eagle drivers are scrubs.

The F-22 is, on paper an amazing aircraft, but it is simply not relevant in today's world. Who would we absolutely need it against? I can think of only two nations, China and Russia. And if we go toe-to-toe with those guys, our frontline land-based fighter aircraft, no matter what type, will likely not be a major factor in the outcome.

The question is, do we really need the F-22 for the conflicts that we are most likely to encounter over the next decade? I think our current fighters are more than equal to that task.

The F-22 is a perfect example of a weapon system that was designed and built to fight in the last war--the cold war.

Mandt2,

By applying your logic, we should get rid of our submarines, AEGIS cruisers, nuclear weapons, the M1 Abrams, the F-15C, the B-2, anti-tank guided missiles, the Patriot, etc.

Want a scenario where the F-22 would come in handy? How about Venezuela and Iran (or is a conflict with either country inconceivable to you?). Within 10 years both countries will have the S-300 and SU-30. The F-15 cannot operate in the JEZ of that combination of weapon systems.

And this is why we let professionals, and not wargamers, make national military strategy decisions.

And this is why we let professionals, and not wargamers, make national military strategy decisions.
>>>>>>>>>>
Check military decision and procurement processes.
Double checks.
Actually wargamers may as well have a go, I doubt how it could get much worse :)

Venezuela has SU-30s… but I hardly see how a extremely heavily upgraded su-27 poses a threat to us, its comparable to an F-15/18 in terms of performance, but that means nothing if the pilot doesn't know how to fly… nobody even comes close to matching the US in terms of pilot training. Our pilots fly more in one year than most others will during their entire career.

As for S-300s… been around since the late 70's hardly anything new there. That too is a paperweight. Numbers say that we should fear it, but we have yet to actually see their effects in actual combat, for all we know it could be a bust. Intelligent application of existing and upgraded legacy aircraft should be able to handle the situation almost as well.

And I'm actually surprised that you would be behind the F-22. Working in a unit with warthogs (I'm not being presumptuous, am I?), I would have thought you would have been more oriented toward the close air support role. There are NEVER enough planes to go around to fulfill all our CAS/counterland missions (in fact, even Air Force Docrine says this, AFDD 2-1.3). Instead of 187 F-22s we could have purchased 1000 F-15s or A-10s, or a slightly smaller number of upgraded variants. That many new planes would add TONS of capability to the Air Force for both the current conflict, as well as the next one.

I dont think anyone is saying the F-22 is a bad idea, just that it isn't a very frugal one in a time when our budget, manpower, and deployments are being stretched to the max, when we have needs for other aircraft/weapons systems, and no immediate need or use for what is being purchased. If anything, the initial plan should have been to purchase enough F-22s to stand up 2-3 squadrons (so, 40-60 aircraft or so) plus enough for spares, etc. and use the remaining money to buy new legacy systems/replace the older legacy airframes. This way we continue funding R&D of new weapon systems, and can stay ahead of the game, without "overpreparing".

And no, I am not basing my conclusion on touching an F-22 and an unclassified briefing (again, it was a wee bit more than unclassified. We were given numbers and details that I have yet to see in any civilian releases), I am basing it on a LOT of study, discussion, and research into the aircraft, as well as modern airwar. References to my experiences were to make all the grognards on these here boards jealous and to illustrate deeper knowledge using allegory.

BTW, speaking of overpriced programs, word on the street is the cost of the F-35 is up by another 17 billion…

Our pilots fly more in one year than most others will during their entire career.
>>>>>>>>>
That is an amazingly uninformed view!

BTW, speaking of overpriced programs, word on the street is the cost of the F-35 is up by another 17 billion…

As a kid, I remember reading a report on the HiMAT in National Geographic, and somebody remarked that by 2050 or so, aircraft would be so expensive that the US would have one aircraft, loaned half the week to the USAF, half the rest of the week to the USN, and maybe the Marine Corps has it on Sundays…

nobody even comes close to matching the US in terms of pilot training.

*cough cough* Royal Air Force *cough cough*

Three things

Airforces with training that equals US? Canada, UK and Switzerland all fly the same, roughly, no' of hours and have realistic training, in the case of the RAF combat experience to. Thats just of the top of my head.

There are two, I repeat TWO threads already running to debate the worth, or otherwise, of the F-22. This thread is for scenarios not involving the US can we get back to that? Please?

Venezuela is a fun one. Chavez is too savvy to take on the US head on. However if the US is busy else where he might try and strike at Colombia, a major American allie in the region. Of course this might draw in other local air forces.

Okay, allow me to rephrase: no nation on the planet that poses a near-term realistic threat to the US flies as much as we do. There. Sorry to all the Canadian, British, Swiss, etc. pilots I may have offended.

Venezuela vs. Colombia is a possibility, since there have been skirmishes between the two, and Hugo's rhetoric is a bit over the top.

In the past, the USN would have provided support to Colombia, so you could have F-18's vs. Sukhois. Now, I'm not so sure.

Sukhois are much better than the F-18 as far as top speed, accel., endurance, angle of attack, and overall maneuverability go.

F-18's have the edge in pilot training, and weapons.

Hugo could probably call on Cuban pilots for assistance, if needed, as well as those from other nations too, e.g. Russia, China, etc.

That might make it an interesting fight.

There are plenty of conflicts the US would stay out of, especially under Obama. Israel getting trouble with the neighbours? Expect "soft power" and "quiet" diplomacy. Also expect F-22 and F-35 to get axed in the wake of spiralling debt. India vs. Pak, the US would also stay out of, as some have already mentioned. Southeast Asia too, as well as Africa. An interesting scenario could involve an annexation of Singapore by Malaysia… a small, high-tech force versus a much larger low-tech one.

That one however could bring in the US, but not if it was tied down somewhere else (Iran?)

"…The question is, do we really need the F-22 for the conflicts that we are most likely to encounter over the next decade? I think our current fighters are more than equal to that task…"

Two words.

Old Age.

Paraphrasing, "Breaking parts in flight is bad to do."

Two more words.

Development Time.

Three words.

Takes soooo long.

The F-22 and F-35 need to be built in reasonable numbers. Now.

The next manned and unmanned fighter need to be in development (and they are) so they can be fielded in 10 years.

You think the other nations are standing still? That they cannot produce a break through plane? Try the Zero in December 1941. Our "Top Line modern fighter" was the P-40.

Gracias,

Glenn

"…nobody even comes close to matching the US in terms of pilot training. …"

In addition to the other answers, Israel! Every flight is a potential combat mission.

That said, Fatman is right. Back to the subject on hand.

Singapore has airfields whose launch envelopes essentially skirt Malaysian Airspace. Question is how flexible is the Singapore military and how ready to risk war on without an actual attack? I suspect, from my reading, not very for either situation.

But then how many Malaysian aircraft are flight ready?

Unclassified answer, not enough!

Gracias,

Glenn

Just play any scenario you want and assume a software bug in the F22 has made it temporarily un-flyable.