Moderadores: Lepanto, poliorcetes, Edu, Orel
BREAKING: 60 More F-22s for the USAF
The Air Force's chief of staff was careful to withhold his professional military advice until Defense Secretary Robert Gates gets it, but Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters this morning that he would not “dispute”comments by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs late last year that the service would get an additional 60 F-22s, for a total of 243.
Schwartz then poured cold water on any hopes the Japanese and Australians might have of buying F-22s, saying some of the technologies in the plane are just too sensitive to export. However, he said “it was a possibility”that allies could pay for planes that were modified extensively enough to eliminate the export concerns. Given how expensive that would be, Schwartz has probably put the kibosh on export sales.
The Air Force chief of staff defended the decision to scale back the long sacred Air Force requirement of 381 F-22s, saying the service had performed honest and objective analysis to determine the new number of planes. “I'll be happy to defend the numbers once they become available,”he told us, adding that the new fleet size offers “moderate risk”to the nation.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that 60 is the exact number everyone has decided on, but Schwartz didn't try to pour cold water on it either… He did say the final decision should be out very close to the congressionally mandated date of March 1.
Asked about John Young's comments last November that the F-22's mission capable rate was too low and expected enhancements too expensive for the country to afford, Schwartz said “the truth of the matter is”the F-22's rate is 60 percent including stealth issues and is “in the mid- to high-70s without low observable”issues. Looking at the system overall, the F-22's reliability “is respectable,”he said.
Strategypage tiene la misma confiabilidad que un huevo frito como remache de casco de barco
¿Esta disponibilidad no es muy baja?
Yo he estado la noticia esa por el google news y no sale nada de nada, lo único que dicen del F-22 a en los periódicos de medio mundo es que Obama no sabe qué hacer con el proyecto, si cerrarlo o comprar mas.flagos escribió:Strategypage no es buena fuente, claro que en algo pueden pegar. Pero no es como para tomarlo en serio si vienen solo de ellos.
Bogdan-The-Kozak escribió:http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/251/
Articulo que discute un posible F-22 para la Marina de USA.
IMHO, tienen razon.
Late model Flankers such as the Su-35BM have a clear advantage over the F/A-18E/F. Even with reduced radar signatures, the F/A-18E/F has a residual signature that allows the Su-35BM to launch a PL-12, or R-77M, or ramjet RVV-AE-PD at the kinematic limits of these missiles' engagement envelopes '' and with the Flanker higher and faster than the Super Hornet, well outside its AIM-120C/D range envelope. So the Flanker gets ‘free shots' '' and can carry lots of them. The F/A-18E/F has some fine defensive electronic countermeasures and the ALE-55 will seduce many of the incoming missiles '' but not all. The R-77M ‘Adder' will have alternate active radar, heat-seeking and passive anti-radar homing seeker heads, so any competent OCA force would deliver a mix of these missiles in a mass firing. This is a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation for the Navy Hornets '' the radar and electronic counter measures are required to prosecute attack on the Flankers, but will attract passive anti-radar homing missiles. The missiles with heat-seeking guidance also present a serious threat as their homing is not affected by the towed decoy. Expect the exchange ratio to be about 4:1 in favour of the Flanker E+.
The F-35 B/Cs might fare a bit better, but their Achilles' heel is a shortage of missile shots. A Flanker E+ can carry up to 10 long-range missiles and 2 short-range missiles, but not to a distance of 1,000 nm. At 500 nm or so, they can carry 8 long-range missiles, and can fire them all in a track-while-scan' mode. The JSF's reduced signature forces engagements where both aircraft are within range of the other's missiles. However, the Flanker E+ has more missile shots than the JSF; has modern DRFM Electronic Counter Measures; and, possibly, a towed decoy where the F-35 has none. Long-range heat-seeking missiles pose the same danger to the JSF as to the Hornet. Expect an exchange rate of at best about 1:1 between the Flanker E+ and the JSF.
The argument that comes next is predictable '' deploy an air combat aircraft that can effectively ‘kill the archer' and survive. This aircraft is a ‘navalized' F-22A '' let us call it the ‘F/A-22N Sea Raptor'.Ohhh Dios, Como no se nos ha ocurrido !!!! This is not the same as the cancelled Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF). The US Navy wanted an advanced fighter, but the NATF failed because the Navy wanted a de-facto new-technology F-14 engineered from F-22 components. This suggestion is the converse; convert the F-22A into an F-14 replacement '' a much lower risk and less costly approach. The fiscal and timeline costs of restarting the early 1990s F-22 derived ‘swing wing' NATF are simply out of feasible bounds.
Look at the remarkable overlay of a scaled image of the F/A-22N on a line drawing of the F-14D (http://www.ausairpower.net/F-22A-vs-F-14D-1S.png). Note the similarity of the size and weight of the aircraft .
Pricing the Research and Development & Test and Evaluation, Production Engineering & Tooling (the NRE Costs) for the lifting canard, folding wings, undercarriage redesign, airframe strengthening and marinising comes in at a rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost of around $230M (-10%/+30% variance). This figure includes an appropriate margin for risk.
Purchasing an aircraft with the ability to engage and defeat aircraft possessing the air combat capabilities of the Su-35BM Flanker E+ is a critical strategic decision for the United States. If it chooses aircraft inferior to those of potential adversaries, then not only will its Air Force risk annihilation in battle, but also the mighty power of its Naval Carrier Strike Groups is likely to be terminated in the second decade of this century. Without the navalized F/A-22N Sea Raptor, the US Navy will find itself out of the business of blue and brown water sea control, relegated to Third World counter-insurgency support roles.
flagos escribió:Es interesante entrar a Youtube y buscar "F-22 Farnborough"; aparecen unos cuantos videos mostrando la maniobrabilidad de la aeronave; para gente non sancta que la cuestionaba.
METEORSWARM escribió:Flagos ¿cual es el alcance maximo del f-22 con sus misiles?¿50 o 60 km?
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 0 invitados