The anti-F-22 crowd over at Wired bring up some great points about the F-22 and Typhoon. Also, they may have overlooked or just didn't get around to mentioning some other things in the big picture of air power emerging threats.
For starters, while the F-22 may face some challenges in air-to-air combat, anything less than that is going to suffer a hard time in coming anti-access threat scenarios.
With the Typhoon, consider that (except for its F-18-class airframe profile), its speed and performance mimic some of the SU-35 capability. The SU-35 is the non-stealth reference threat for the Pacific in coming years. It was designed to exploit the Raptor. However many of the SU-35 are made, expect its technology to bleed elsewhere.
One big difference between the F-22 and the Typhoon is that one of them is going to have more difficulty in a high-end SAM environment.
What Wired, or us, do not know, are the rules of engagement for the exercise. By getting the F-22 into within-visual-range (WVR) practice with the Typhoon, we give the F-22 a look at what it will have to deal with when facing emerging reference threats in the SU-35 class of jet: or worse.
Wired is right to bring up the single point of failure in the U.S. air power roadmap. That is the AIM-120 AMRAAM. While it may have some combat victories, they were against poor opponents and not someone using cross-eyed jamming in a new-gen Flanker. Once the AMRAAM probability of kill is lowered to that of a Vietnam-era AIM-7 Sparrow, we have problems.
According to Janes and others, we have even more of a problem with the AMRAAM. Rocket motor production for the AIM-120D AMRAAM (the new supposedly longer range variant) is in dire straits because of serious production defects. This problem has affected all AMRAAM deliveries within the last two years.
The fix here is that the U.S. needs to get competing sources for beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles in the AMRAAM class. Sooner rather than later.
That and a dual mode or family of BVR missiles that use not only radar but optical guidance for terminal homing.
Years ago, when the advanced tactical fighter (ATF) project started--which gave us the F-22--red-force evaluators knew that stealth, for stealth's sake, was not good enough against emerging threats. One had to have extreme altitude and super-cruise to lower the effectiveness of enemy firing solutions by degrading missile no escape zones (NEZ).
With its AN/ALR-94, it has an interesting way of detecting targets; passively. Also the F-22 has usable combat range. And, certainly more than the F-35 will ever see, if it ever shows up in combat trim.
The most important thing that the Typhoon vs. F-22 flights show us is that against almost any emerging threat for the foreseeable future, the F-35 is dead meat. It's BVR capability may count for something, but with the AMRAAM PK taken into effect and a serious lack of dancing ability, what will be delivered to the warfighter are tales of the Brewster Buffalo, Vindicator and Helldiver.
The Pacific isn't looking all that great for air power deterrence. In part, we can thank, Gates, Schwartz and Donley: three people that when you combine their total fund of air power knowledge, it could be written inside of a match-book; with a large-sized crayon.
This should also worry the Israelis when looking at all those Typhoons. For them, the F-35 will not provide a credible deterrence. There was a time we supported our allies. President Clinton did promise them the F-22. Too bad for them, the U.S. didn't follow through.
Today? All the U.S. really wants from its allies is to purchase faulty weapons systems. No matter what the consequence.
24 comments:
you're smoking crack Eric! the F-35 will at the very least match the range of the F-22 if not surpass it. the only advantage that the F-22 has is supercruise and alot of people are still wondering what the real advantage of that gas guzzling achievement brings to the table.
its pretty hard to puff up the SU-35, not slam the Typhoon, and keep the F-22 a war winner while still trying to denegrate the F-35 isn't it?
its hard to be a hater when the facts are staring you in the face huh?
What facts about the F-35? All we have with that is PowerPoint and broken promise. Face facts indeed.
Mr. Anonymous
How could you say the words: at the very least... What's the prove? Its just a statement, not backed up by any proof. They are trying to make the F-35 the best of the best..... Altough they degenerated the KPI...
How could you say Gaz guzzling while supercruise means you burn less fuel. You don't have to fly with afterburners.....
Besides this. Since when is te F-22 a war winner? Did it perform during any armed conflict already?
Both the F-22 and F-35 are unproofed, science fiction like aircraft with real wartime performance unknown. Also consider the wartime logistics, rearmament fuel and other support costs. (will there be budget enough for advanced arms?)
hey Chrisis! its all about a real fight and the nonsense. supercruising will consume more gas than flying at economical subsonic speed. fact. end of story. no further discussion necessary. fact. the F-15 flies further than the F-22 with the F-22 being clean and the F-15 flying with max gas with the same war load. same with the F-35 vs the F-22. the F-16 vs. the F-22 and the F-18 vs. the F-22.
sorry but the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen aren't even worth talking about in this discussion because they barely match the Golden Eagle and teh Super Hornet when it comes to capabilities.
so you can get nationalistic but i would hope realism would win in the end. the SU-35 isn't competitive, the F-22 is short legged (in comparison to the F-35) and the Typhoon and company aren't worth talking about.
you good now?
Faith, PowerPoint and the Ponzi Scheme.
Mr. Anon:
I see you are very confident, but you are deluded. The F-35 radius as a bomb truck may be better than an F-22, but it is inferior in the air to air mode in every way measurable. If you fail to see the advantage that speed and altitude bring to the fight, I won't waste time. Eric is correct that if a Typhoon is, in fact, a dangerous opponent to the F-22 in close combat (the F-22 still has the edge here but it is too close for comfort?), then the F-35 has bigger problems because its aeropropulsion performance is sub par by design. The sole purpose for talking about how a Typhoon would best the F-22 is to market the Typhoon against the F-35. That is what is agitating you. The F-35 has no chance of besting the Typhoon, or a Sukhoi, in close combat. Stick a fork in it. It's done.
AC
Note on the F-22 radius vs F-35 issue:
The F-22's radius is superior than F-35 radius due to clearance of drop tanks/pylons. There is a potential for block IV F-35 drop-tank clearance, but this is of course still an out-bound year hypothetical which would be operational after 2020.
So with respect to all current day capabilities, the F-22 is will remain the more superior striker in terms of bomb-truck range vs the F35, for at least the remainder of the decade.
Now if USAF can only clear JASSM-ER launch from F-22 under-wing points.
Regarding the Typhoon... it's no doubt a helluva jet performance wise, especially once within WVR. Just being compared to the F-22 speaks for itself.
With respect to the argument about AMRAAM being mediocre, with which I tend to agree, I'd have to reluctantly go with IDF's instincts (as much as I'd rather buy US make) and deduce that the future AIM-120D will in the end not be 'good enough' as a superior next-gen medium range BVR munition.
Along that line, I'd support USAF evaluating the potential integration of an alternative 'foreign make' BVR round as part of a modified F-22 increment 3.2 update. This should be part of an accelerated assessment, in my opinion.
That being said, perhaps the single most insightful and incisive comment I've ever read from a blog contributor named Sferrin, was way back in 2008 when he postulated that a credible next-gen air-air round would be a modified air-launched RIM-162 derivative, tipped with an NCADE IIR seeker.
I'd have to go with two variants of AIM-162 tipped with enhanced mmW seeker and NCADE-IIR seeker.
That should have been where all the R&D for JDRADM should have gone in my view at least... more lost time... lost money.
The experts emerge!
Flasheart,
Not necessarily experts, no... just more accurate in the wide margin of assessments made to date.
In any conflict the F-35 will be busy delivering air-to-ground stuff. Even if it can do a little missile air-to-air it will not really be available.
And I guess the F-22 is very nice to have in BVR but overall will have about as much influence in a theatre as the Me262 back in '44 and '45.
In any conflict, if it ever makes it that far, the F-35 will be consuming resources best used for any other war-fighting community.
Reply to note on radius F-22 vs. F-35 issue: The F-22 and the F-35A have comparable internal fuel loads (around 18000 lbs). Since the F-22 combat weight is >30% more than the F-35A I'd say the F-22 is burning the same amount of fuel faster, wouldn't you? Giving some credit for some more span and more favorable wetted aspect ratio for the F-22 would be appropriate, so its Lift to Drag ratio should be a little better, say 5-10%. I'm thinkin' the F-35 can muster 20-25% better radius (>100 nm ?), but it better stay sub-sonic all the way. I'm just giving credit where credit is due. It's a better bomb truck, but it's a double inferior fighter. In WVR, an F-4 could be competitive with an F-35. No kidding.
AC
Not competitive to an F-4, competitive to a clean F-16 or F/A-18 with external AAMs
I would concur with Distiller that the Me262, had it been produced in greater quatities, begun operational capacity perhaps 1 year sooner and operated primarily as air supremacy fighter-interceptor, it probably would have had far greater influence in theatre.
This debate really points back toward John Boyd's contention that so-called 'multi-role combat aircraft' cannot adequately do the task of purpose-designed platforms.
The JSF is principally designed as an 'A' and not an 'F' species and trying to bend the F-22 toward 'A' capabilities (SDB) seems wasteful effort. Better to optimise its interceptor/air combat capabilities.
Whatever is done with the F-35, it is still shaping up as an unaffordable 'dog' for most nations and unlikely to do much better than some more affordable legacy platforms optimised for 'A' functions.
You can also read more info about the Typhoon's characteristics on Air Power Australia, the article Eurofighter Typhoon - Demon or Lemon?
Peter
The "Typhoon demon or lemon" article was a woeful piece with the sole intention of pushing the F-22.
I think the results are clear that the typhoon is superior to the F-22 in a dogfight. The Typhoon didn't even use its helmet mounted display for locking onto the F-22 in off boresight using its IRIS-T missiles. It had to maneuver behind the F-22 for a gun kill. That would have tipped the scale even more in favor of the typhoon.
But, I also doubt that the F-22 would be superior in BVR. Being stealthy is no use if you can't detect your enemy. Therefore, the F-22 must turn on its radar. Chances are good that the typhoon is going to pick up this radar signal and unstealth the F-22 using its radar warning receivers.
If the F-22 doesn't turn on its radar, then it is virtually blind in BVR. It doesn't have any decent long range passive sensors. However, the typhoon can employ its IRST called PIRATE, a passive infrared sensor capable of detecting the F-22 at a distance of around around 50 km. So that would mean a first look and first shot for the typhoon.
With the addition of the newest radar CAEASAR (Captor-E) and superior long range missile MBDA meteor on the latest tranch 3, I am confident that the typhoon will be superior to the current F-22s in both beyond visual range as well as within visual range combat.
A low radar cross section is nice to have, but other things are more important on a modern fighter aircraft.
You have to qualify the statement on the F-22 not having useful passive sensors. It has them. Just not IR. Consider how the AN/ALR-94 works in coordination with the combat system/APG-77.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9268-start-0.html
I have often thought that the Typhoon and F-22 would work well together. Also note that the F-22 with the AN/ALR-94 logs which non-F-22 people on its own team are locked up to BVR targets using radar. Proven in mixed company scenarios where the F-22 can tell other people on the team who to lock on to for best efficiency.
The AN/ALR-94 is a passive receiver system to detect radar signals. It is of no use when trying to detect an aircraft that has turned its radar emissions to zero. Therefore, the F-22 won't detect a typhoon in stealth mode, unless it turns on its active radar. Thereby the F-22 gives away its position and identity.
I stand by my conclusion: Without long range infrared radiation receivers (heat radiation) called IRST, the F-22 has no decisive advantage over the typhoon in beyond visual range combat (BVR). This feature was dropped due to cost overruns, thereby severely handicapping the F-22.
On the contrary, it is most likely that the typhoon will detect the F-22 first, either using its radar warning receiver and/or its IRST called pirate.
Regards
Bhigr
Oh, and please don't believe this low probability of intercept (LPI) active radar bullshit.
The signal strength at the typhoon is going to be at the very least 4-times stronger than what the F-22 will measure, if it turns on its active radar. In reality, due to the stealth measures employed on the typhoon, it will be in the order of more than 100-times as strong.
So the F-22s radar technology must be at least about 100 times smarter than the technology implemented on the typhoon. With all due respect for american engineering, but this is highly unprobable.
In fact, even the RWRs on the old tornadoes can detect so called "LPI" radars. Check it out:
http://www.elettronica-elt-roma.com/doc/schede/ELT-750.pdf
If you want to remain stealthy, you must use long range passive sensors. Look at the ultimate stealth weapon: The submarine. Ask any submariner, whether they use their active sonar regularly to detect enemies, and he is going to call you a complete imbecile for even asking the question! Unthinkable nonsense!
But Lockheed Martin has been successful in brainwashing the American public that this tactic could work with the Radar of the F-22. What a joke!
in 2009 The germans came to the US and pretty much proved that they would win a close range fight. Sorry guys
Both F-22 and F-35 ignore one basic reality of air combat: numbers matter, reliability matters. German tanks in 1940 were in every way inferior to Allied tanks: inferior weapons, inferior armor, they were even outnumbered. But they were reliable, fast, and had longer range. Germany also had superior crews and commanders. They did not fight Allied tanks to win: they did not need to. They simply bypassed them and cut off their supplies.
Me-262s were called "most formidable fighter aircraft that have ever flown". Yet superior endurance and numbers of Allied prop fighters allowed them to catch Me-262s when taking off or landing.
F-22 is a hangar queen. F-35 will also be in the same situation. They are too expensive: F-22s flyaway cost is 8 times as large as F-16A's; F-35As, 6 times. Their reliability does not allow pilots to train as often as needed. Neither do Typhoon pilots, but that has more to do with political realities of dividing production into many countries than with aircraft itself.
So F-22 is a failure on two most important aspects in any weapon. Not that it is any better in others: BVR combat was never decisive against competent opponent, and any active sensor can be detected early on, reversing theoretical advantages of stealth.
Lastly, it requires large, fixed air bases to operate from. But in any serious war, air bases have been attacked and aircraft destroyed on the ground. Germany countered that in World War II by using roads, undersides of bridges and open fields to base aircraft on. Can F-22 do it? I doubt it. I doubt that even Typhoon can, let alone F-22.
In the end, give me Gripen NG over F-22 any day.
Post a Comment