396 replies to this topic

[Danny Noonin]

No need for popcorn. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with anyone.

F-22 bashing is a sport, and a fun one at that. But it makes no sense for them to be used in this particular conflict and deep down everyone with any objectivity and perspective knows it.

[Rainman A-10]

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

Not sure if you're actually serious, but just in case...

Just in case? That’s you’re job, make sure I understand what kind of airplanes we need in combat in Afghanistan? Great.

I guess your reason for chiming in when I was just poking a ranter is because “Just in case” has been the mantra for high priced unused Air Superiority show dogs for a long time. It probably seems natural for you to jump in a patronize me about what the F/A-22 should be used for.

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

Do you think if we still had F-117s in the inventory, they would be in Afghanistan right now?

If by “in Afghanistan” you mean would they have ever flown any sorties? Maybe.

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

Do we have B-2s sitting in XCAS orbits in Afghanistan?

I don’t know. I can’t see the ATO. I’m guessing the answer is no, they're too fucking expensive.

But, we tried using it in combat for a while.

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

Of course not. It would make no sense, fiscally or otherwise.

Or otherwise?

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

The F-22 has no pod, just a couple JDAMs. It's not a CAS platform. We have 180-something of them and the stealth is ridiculously expensive to maintain.

We all know that we’re not going to talk about what the F/A-22 does have that would be useful, so this is kind of a foul.

That said…

So you're saying the amount of money we're flushing down the toilet over there does make sense?

You're saying something has to have a pod and carry more than a couple JDAMs and be a CAS platform of which we have more than 180 before it makes sense to use it? You can see where that line of thinking is going, right?

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

It would make no sense to build facilities to maintain the stealth coatings, etc, in Afghanistan.

I would be interested to see the financial modeling you're using to justify this general statement. It doesn’t make sense to me to spend 69% of what we’ve spent over there and that has nothing to do with the F/A-22.

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

If we sent them to the stan and let the stealth rot to hell because it doesn't matter for that scenario, then we lose the ability to use them elsewhere if needed. And there are lots of realistic scenarios where they would be needed.

First, “scenario” is a training term. In combat the “scenario” takes care of itself.

We are sending other jets to "rot in hell" over there and we are burning those assets to the fucking ground. There are "lots of realistic scenarios" where they would be needed, too.

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

I'm not a big F-22 fan, but they can do things (that we absolutely need in our arsenal) that no one else can do.

Uh oh, I hope we don't really absolutely need those things they can do at this very moment!

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

They just don't make any sense in Afghanistan.

Because they're too expensive or because there aren't very many and they don't have a pod and don't carry a bunch of ordnance?

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

Nor did it make any sense in Iraq.

Really? But we had albinos flying over there until they were grounded because they couldn't carry a b-word. If they had been F/A-22s they could've kept flying.

So, you're absofuckinglutely wrong on that one.

[tac airlifter]

Danny Noonin, on 21 December 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

Well, this is a useful discussion.

It could be; serious question, do you think the rationale for not using the F-22 in Libya was valid?

[Steve Davies]

Rainman A-10, on 21 December 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

I guess your reason for chiming in when I was just poking a ranter is because “Just in case” has been the mantra for high priced unused Air Superiority show dogs for a long time.

Other than the F-22, which ones do you refer to?

[Vetter]

tac airlifter, on 21 December 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

It could be; serious question, do you think the rationale for not using the F-22 in Libya was valid?

What was that rationale? Why didn't we use the F-15C in Libya? One word - gas.

[SurelySerious]

Vetter, on 22 December 2011 - 03:25 AM, said:

What was that rationale? Why didn't we use the F-15C in Libya? One word - gas.

C models have less loiter than vipers, typhoons, tornados, and mirages?

[StoleIt]

Vetter, on 22 December 2011 - 03:25 AM, said:

What was that rationale? Why didn't we use the F-15C in Libya? One word - gas.

PLEASE explain your reasoning on this.

[BitteEinBit]

YES! It's back on...

Let the urination olympics commence!

[Vetter]

If there are not enough tankers to support X amount of OCA Caps, SEAD Caps (yes, I know SEAD is technically OCA), and Interdiction, then one of them must fall out. When both the CJs and Strike Eagles can do the swing role, the Eagles are left on the side lines again.

[Rainman A-10]

SurelySerious, on 22 December 2011 - 03:41 AM, said:

C models have less loiter than vipers?

Not loiter, consumption. They burn fuel twice (roughly) as fast so we neet more gas in the sky to support them.

Same for the Mudhen.

Steve Davies, on 21 December 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

Other than the F-22, which ones do you refer to?

It was only a jab at Noonin but I refer to all of them. Not the aircraft, the pilots.

As far as $ go, pre F/A-22 the C model budget was rarely effected to the degree the other CAF jets were effected. They laughed while we whined.

Let me be clear, far less gets done if the Eagles/Raptors don't do their jobs perfectly. It will get done but far less of it and much slower.

For example, if the Iraqis were as afraid of the A-10 as they were of the Eagle they would've buried their MiGs AND their tanks.

[BeerMan]

tac airlifter, on 21 December 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

It could be; serious question, do you think the rationale for not using the F-22 in Libya was valid?

Well first we need to know what the rational was for NOT using the F-22. I don't make the big bucks or make those decisions, so I don't know the answer. However, from the rational that we've seen in the news media (as always take that information with a grain of salt) they have given us several reasons: Politics, Capability (or lack of capability), and global basing.

Lets go through a few of them:

1) Politics

Here is an interesting article from DOD Buzz that explains why the F-22 may have been kept out of Libya for political reasons:

http://www.dodbuzz.c...2-out-of-libya/

In my opinion you could have used the F-22 and only the F-22 in Libya. The airplane is designed to operate in and around both a double digit and single digit MEZ. You could enforce a No-Fly Zone and still strike whatever targets you wanted; AAA, SAMs, aircraft, etc. All of those TLAM strikes that we did with 1,000 lbs warcraniumed TLAMs (which cost $500,000 a piece mind you) could have been taken out with $20,000, 1000 lbs JDAMs dropped from Raptors.

2) Capability (or lack of capability)

Here is an Air Force Times article citing the lack of F-22 capability being the reason it was not used in Libya (reference my caveat above about the media sources) :

http://www.airforcet...bya-ops-032211/

I disagree with the discussion about the airplane not being used because it does not datalink with other platforms. In fact, I think the unique capability of the airplane is one of the major reasons why it should have been used in Libya. Going back to Vetter's point about a shortage of tankers and why the C models sat on the sidelines. I don't think anyone in the USAF was worried about the Libyan air threat, hence the reason Vipers and Strike Eagles were happy doing self-escort. I don't think that would be the case if Libya had Mig-29s and Su-27s. It's really a moot point though because you could cut out the tankers for the SEAD and the Interdiction, use just Raptors, fewer tankers and still get the job done. I don't think we should swing that far to the other side of the spectrum, but the argument here is that the airplane was not capable enough to be used in Libya, and that is flat out false. The airplane is uniquely capable and suited to use in Libya. We should have used it.

3) Global Basing

Read here: http://www.dodbuzz.c...he-libya-fight/

Uh, what? We all train on a daily basis to be an Expeditionary Force, deployable at a moments notice. I don't think this reason needs much more of an explanation.

In the end I just don't understand all of this Raptor hate. It is an incredible airplane with outstanding combat capabilities that theater commanders continue to ask for, but for whatever reason we continue to not use it. My opinion on it's capability comes from personal experience flying with it in training, and I think it would have been well used in Libya.

Cheers,
Beerman

[Vetter]

There were also time restraints on Libya. Literally, everything was business as usual on Wednesday, then Thursday comes around and all of a sudden, our civilian leadership wants bombs on target and a no-fly zone ASAP. There was an amazing lack of foresight from most of the upper echelons on both the civilian and military side. To tell the truth, I don't even think Raptors were considered. Just like no one thought about CSAR. For the ball of shit given to a few fighter squadron in USAFE, we got it done. But it wasn't pretty.

I think Raptors would have done fine. They just weren't at the right place at the right time.

[Rainman A-10]

Vetter, on 22 December 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

There were also time restraints on Libya. Literally, everything was business as usual on Wednesday, then Thursday comes around and all of a sudden, our civilian leadership wants bombs on target and a no-fly zone ASAP.

They can fly fast. It isn't that far from Langley to Aviano. They could've been there before it was over, for sure.

I would've loved to have seen them drop bombs.

[Danny Noonin]

Rainman A-10, on 21 December 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Really? But we had albinos flying over there until they were grounded because they couldn't carry a b-word. If they had been F/A-22s they could've kept flying.

So, you're absofuckinglutely wrong on that one.

Really? I'm absofuckinglutely wrong on that one?

So I guess you would have sent the Edwards dudes over to fly over Iraq? Sounds like a great plan.

The F-22 wasn't IOC when the Eagles were flying over Iraq in 2003. They were still in test. Not a single squadron had even begun to convert.

[Rainman A-10]

Danny Noonin, on 22 December 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

Really? I'm absofuckinglutely wrong on that one?

So I guess you would have sent the Edwards dudes over to fly over Iraq? Sounds like a great plan.

The F-22 wasn't IOC when the Eagles were flying over Iraq in 2003. They were still in test. Not a single squadron had even begun to convert.

Let me see if I can sort this out.

I must have misunderstood your comment that it didn't make any sense to use them in Iraq was related to the same logic you were using in the rest of your comments in that post.

Just to make sure no one is trying to recreate history in the debrief, are you saying that your comment that it didn't make sense to use F/A-22s in Iraq was because they were not IOC and that's exactly what you meant all along?

So, pick one? IOC or not a fit because of limited capability and cost per flying hour?

I'm thinking you meant the latter. So yes, really, you're absofuckinglutely wrong about the fact that if we had F/A-22s instead of F-15Cs they would not have to be grounded because they could've dropped some bombs.

[Danny Noonin]

Rainman A-10, on 22 December 2011 - 02:07 PM, said:

Let me see if I can sort this out.

I must have misunderstood your comment that it didn't make any sense to use them in Iraq was related to the same logic you were using in the rest of your comments in that post.

Just to make sure no one is trying to recreate history in the debrief, are you saying that your comment that it didn't make sense to use F/A-22s in Iraq was because they were not IOC and that's exactly what you meant all along?

So, pick one? IOC or not a fit because of limited capability and cost per flying hour?

I'm thinking you meant the latter. So yes, really, you're absofuckinglutely wrong about the fact that if we had F/A-22s instead of F-15Cs they would not have to be grounded because they could've dropped some bombs.

Negative.

My original comment was meant to say that they were not appropriate for use in Iraq for the CAS war due to both capability and cost. I felt the CAS phase of Iraq, as opposed to night 1, was obviously implied by the very fact that there were no F-22 squadrons on earth when OIF kicked off. Apparently that wasn't so obvious, since you replied that I was "absofuckinglutely" wrong because we had F-15Cs over there, so clearly somewhere we were not on the same page.

So to be clear....Had we had operational Raptors on night one of OIF, we of course would have used them and that would have been the right thing to do. But we didn't, so that's kind of a mute point. Therefore my original comments didn't reflect that hypothetical. By early 2006 (the earliest we could have really deployed IOC craptors), the situation had changed such that they were not the right tool for the job for many reasons, most of which were previously discussed.

[ClearedHot]

[OL Patch]

CH...dude quit hogging the popcorn--even though there's an empty seat between us for two men at a movie purposes--pass the bucket this way.

Edited by OL Patch, 22 December 2011 - 05:09 PM.

[SurelySerious]

Vetter, on 22 December 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

There were also time restraints on Libya. Literally, everything was business as usual on Wednesday, then Thursday comes around and all of a sudden, our civilian leadership wants bombs on target and a no-fly zone ASAP. There was an amazing lack of foresight from most of the upper echelons on both the civilian and military side. To tell the truth, I don't even think Raptors were considered. Just like no one thought about CSAR. For the ball of shit given to a few fighter squadron in USAFE, we got it done. But it wasn't pretty.

I think Raptors would have done fine. They just weren't at the right place at the right time.

True, they weren't in place. Another downside would be if they hadn't gotten their SAR software upgrade (which I don't think they had at the time), then they could only drop JDAMs on preplanned coordinates with no way to verify the target hadn't moved. Not having dynamic targeting capability would have been a huge con in the decision process for sending them to Libya.

[BeerMan]

SurelySerious, on 22 December 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

True, they weren't in place.

It's a 12 hour flight from Langley to Southern Italy. We're in the Air Force folks. We rapidly deploy anywhere in the world in under 48 hours. The Air Force values this as such an important skill that our entire process for evaluating Wings as Combat Ready (the ORI process) tests whether or not they can do just that! We spend an insane amount of time preparing, practicing, and executing ORIs. The Raptors weren't in place? I don't buy it.

SurelySerious, on 22 December 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

Another downside would be if they hadn't gotten their SAR software upgrade (which I don't think they had at the time), then they could only drop JDAMs on preplanned coordinates with no way to verify the target hadn't moved. Not having dynamic targeting capability would have been a huge con in the decision process for sending them to Libya.

Again, another fundamental misunderstanding of the capabilities of the airplane. Can you dynamically target a TLAM? No. But a dude sitting in a Raptor can receive updated coordinates airborne from various sources and target whatever he wants, short of a moving target. I'd call that pretty damn dynamic.

Edited by BeerMan, 22 December 2011 - 09:15 PM.