At the end of the 20th Century and certainly well into the next, offensive and defensive weapons systems built around a CPU’s ability to preform enormous amounts of computing cycles actually make it now the man AND the machine.
I can see here based on comments from some writers that there a number of you out there who technologically thinking only in terms of around 1989-1999 Air/Ground era threats...sort of in a perpetual Desert Storm-Kosovo mode...in which we went after 1980’s technology with 1980’s generation Air assets and prevailed. Well the F-22 is not designed to deal merely with with Warsaw Pact hand me downs like the SA-6 that shot down Capt. Scott O’grady or the HAND HELD Grails that brought down the F-117a in Kosovo last March. In fact the F-22 Raptor is built to EVADE by stealth the latest generation of BOTH Euro and Russian Air launched missiles such as the AA-10 Alamo whose vectored thrust has NO western equal or the even deadlier AA-11M1/M2 Archer that now has an 80’ degree off boresight track...and is available on the open market. As for ground based threats. The Red Chinese are buying/building the latest S-300V SAM from Russia that can completely mobile and can be deployed from a cold-start in 5 minutes, Its missile or rather it’s 36 missile system brings 1500 pounds of screaming death at MACH 8 and is designed SPECIFICALLY to take out air threats evading at 8 g or more from an effective range of 60 miles (upgrades will go out to 100).

When the legendary WW-II Marine Corps fighter ACE and winner of the Medal of Honor Maj. Joe Foss was ORDERED home....the President wanted him back in ONE PIECE not many. He was asked to give a welcome aboard talk to a new flight of experienced RAF pilots flying Spitfires in Australia As was his custom he welcomed them and quickly dispensed with the BS pep talk saying only one thing....”Don’t underestimate the JAP Zero!!” 19 dead RAF pilots out of 49 later, the RAF guys finally got the point. IT’S THE MAN, HIS TRAINING, EXPERIENCE and THE MACHINE.

We need the F-22!!!

KJSIMON

Oh well. I agree that we need the F-22. I'm just not sure we'll get it until after we need to use it.

It's not difficult to see how new radars, or radar arrays can be designed to overcome this. Stealth was a good temporary technological advantage, but I doubt it will live much longer.

The F22 is a great machine, no doubt about it, and I want to see it live. Unfortunately, the cost turns this a/c into another high tech congressional target of opportunity. The problem is that it is so expensive that it will be too expesive to risk agaisnt anything of lesser value. It could never be an all around versatile weapon like the F16 which no one ever predicted would see such widespread use becuase it is cheap.

1/ All the current fighters in US inventory are at least 30 years old. Current russian and european frontline fighters are 20 years old are younger. these will be bought by a lot of countries (for example indonesia buying the SU-27). So it is very likely that in a future conflict the enemy aircraft will be much better that the us-aircraft. So the F-22 is necessary in order to keep the USAF-fleet up to date.
2/ using the money from the F-22 to build better UAV's who can perform combat duties ? Very risky. What guarantees are there that the computer eye can make a difference between a military target and a useless object. (for example there have been tests with heat seeking missiles: the missile couldn't see the difference between an jet exhaust and the exhaust of a airconditiong system on a nearby building).
3/ use the money from the F22 to convert F-16's in remotely controlled fighters ? Well if imagine your jets taking off, turning around and bombing your own base because the enemy scrambled your communications and hacked his way to the controls of the jet.

The F-22 is necessary as a replacement for the aging F-15. It's stealth capabilities are welcome but aren't state of the art (i believe the YF-23 had better stealth-capabilities). The stealth of the F-22 is usefull to sneak upon the target but in time new technologies will render the stealth-technology of the F-22 obsolete. But isn't that what it's all about in the military: having a technology edge on the enemy (classic example: US develops Valkery-bomber => Russians develop Mig-25 => US develops F-15 => Russians develop MIG-29 & SU-27 => logical step is the F-22)

Simply upgrading the systems on the F-15 is more involved then I think you're aware of. Hardware and software will need to be developed, integrated, and tested (this isn't like taking your P200 and sticking in a PIII). Hardware and software are very specific for the platform. Just upgrading the computers on the plane will require a software rewrite, which will take years to complete. Not to mention the functionality to deploy the newer weapons. The costs here easily go into the hundred of millions. And what about maintance costs for these 20+ year old fighters to keep the current systems operational? That isn't going to be cheap either.

Also, the F-22 when it is produced isn't going to be the $200M that people are franticizing about. Yes, that is the cost for the first batch (which are going to be used for tests), but the first planes always costs more. Tools, diagnostic equipment, and training need to be purchased. When the F-22 goes into full production swing, the cost per plane will lower.

In the short run, we will save money by canning the F-22 program, but in the long run, maintance and upgrade costs are going to surpass the amount that we would have spent if we just bought F-22's.

I think the Raptor will pay for itself.

I for one, would tend to agree with the continued development of the F-22. The sorry fact remains that the United States is blissfully ignorant of the necessities of an updated military until it becomes embroiled in war. From Jefferson's gunboats in the Mediterranean to the P-40s and Wildcats in WWII and F-4s in Vietnam, we have been a technological step behind in most major conflicts. Would you want to go into an infantry engagement today with a Lee Enfield rifle? Only when the war starts does the public actually turn its views towards spending on the decrepit military that peactime cuts have nearly castrated. This habit leads to American deaths because of inferior equipment.

I am greatly interested in technology like the F-22 not just because it is a fascinating aircraft, but because it makes sense. From an economic standpoint, it may well be cheaper to upgrade the F-15 (although the people above have introduced evidence to the contrary, and it makes sense) but it is easy to overlook the lives of American pilots and soldiers in the future. We cannot afford to ignore future. We have to look objectively, and do the right thing - upgrade.

------------------
-KMHPaladin
- "The duty of the fighter pilot is to patrol his
area of the sky, and shoot down any enemy
fighters in that area. Anything else is rubbish."
Baron Manfred von Richthofen, 1917
- Harkins3@voicenet.com

Tests were done on a B-17 and later during V-nam in USA on a F-4 phantom2. It is a real program, but I doubt its deployed on ANY operationnal AC. I have not heard anything to sugest the F-22 will do that, since that may kill the RCS. In future, strike jets or cruise missiles attacking in dailight at low level may turn on a 'headlight' to prevent AAA systems getting an early bead on the incoming missile, but it would have to be protected with the 'gold glass' so the radar would not pick the missile up even further out!!

When I worked at the airport (civie, Vancouver Intl.), we saw similar thing on a few occasions, where the landing lights would obscure the jet, making the recognisable part much smaller and broken up.

All I really want to know is;
Is work being conducted on optically invisible aircraft using computer controlled fiberglass?

I heard it's actually a /paint/ material and yes, it's been done. Of all things, using the A-10.

The polymer contains carbon whiskers that self-align into 'circuit analogue' type shapes when applied correctly. These then accept low-level, vari-voltaged surface charges to alter the chemical values of the paint. And hence it's color.

The AvLeak article I read awhile back stated that the colors themselves were rather limited and errrr, 'intense'; varying from Robins Egg Blue to Rust Brown Red with a couple Greens in-between. Surprisingly 'shocking' works better for camo at a lot of ambient/atmosphere lighting conditions.

As stated a light meter measures specular refraction (rather like tuning one of the later monitors for 3D performance) as well as color 'value' and the total /shape/ can be alterred with various patterns designed to reduce the apparent size or change the geometry. White wing/black wing or Su-27 planform in the middle of the A-10 'background' for instance.

As a secondary plus, when uncharged, the paint forms a kind of RAM.

As for the rest. HiMAT routinely kicked the snot out of F-15's when they were /new/ and using HOBA weapons and shape-tracking algorithms to cue them, the days of dogfighting are _long past_.

You go, you EOID, you bring into envelope and you killshot.

Typically by the simplest methods available: bank and pitch plus POWER. At greater instantaneous and sustained G than any manned jet can manage and with better 'eyesight' than any man can /hope/ to be born with.

This doesn't mean that an F-22 is useless but it could be 'ideally' ($$) paired with larger 'lead sweep' numbers of ACM drones.

Using the odd support-fire assassination salvo of VERY long range AAM's to generate a 'dynamic' which the RoboDobie merge-fighters could further exploit to their advantage.

The problem is a bomber is too role-limited and would still likely 'prove' the technology for a fighter (controls wise) while a fighter is, as mentioned, aero-embarrassing to an elite pilot community paid 40-80 grand a year to practice being a killer by boring holes around a CAP anchor.

It will take some small nation, tired of getting the crap kicked out them by Big Powers and realizing that manned pilots are too 'survival-wise' to launch on a 1 vs. 100 basis even if the budge can afford 60 million apop for replacements.

That nation will then develop the 10-20 million dollar auto-solution means of fighting a sacrificial war and we will be beaten so badly that we /have to/ develop the counter.

In the mean time, a lot of bioware is gonna get charred and I'll laugh my a$$ off watching those who 'said it couldn't be done' watching their piloted-billions get wiped up with a blotter made from a checkbook.

But I can see the appeal of having a fleet of UAV's for a country like China or Iran, for example. Knowing that they would be subject to massive losses in any air combat against the United States and our well-equipped allies, I can see where such countries would find combat UAV's, or RPV's, very appealing. They wouldn't have to sentence hundreds of their pilots to death.