F-22 Raptor info

[StoleIt]

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.

[Guest]

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.

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.

[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.

[Guest]

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]

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.

[Guest]

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]

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 December 22, 2011 by OL Patch

[SurelySerious]

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.

[SurelySerious]

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.

But it still requires someone outside, probably with a targeting pod, who isn't stealth and who can carry more bombs while costing less to fly to give him updated coords to drop on. If they had the SAR, they can operate on their own more effectively and it makes more sense.

Edited December 23, 2011 by SurelySerious

[Toro]

But it still requires someone outside, probably with a targeting pod, who isn't stealth and who can carry more bombs while costing less to fly to give him updated coords to drop on. If they had the SAR, they can operate on their own more effectively and it makes more sense.

You completely missed Beerman's point. Updated coordinates for non-mobile targets can come from many sources other than a targeting pod, and once those are passed, anybody with a JDAM can do the job.

[HiFlyer]

I really have not heard a convincing argument as to why the United States would not have wanted to use the airplane.

Simple. There was no driving need to actually use it (as opposed to ways it could have been used) and the COCOM didn't request it, so the AF didn't send it. Its not about whether or not it could have been used, it was all about the COCOM not needing to use it. Practice, not theory.

[SurelySerious]

So your logic is that we should not have sent the Raptor to Libya because it does not have a targeting pod and it cannot operate effectively on it's own without a SAR mapping radar? If that is indeed your argument, then your logic is flawed, and short sighted.

Without getting into a MAAP cell WATT there were plenty of targets in Libya that were hit without a targeting pod. Reference the previous discussion about the TLAMs. Furthermore, the F-22 is a flying sensor platform which can increase the SA of the other jets flying with it. So it rolls in, drops its two JDAMs on whatever two targets the CFAC wants, and then it hangs out and provides sensor SA to everyone else. Where is the down side?

Also what Toro said; thanks that was indeed my point.

I really have not heard a convincing argument as to why the United States would not have wanted to use the airplane.

You have two arguments going back on your politics, capabilities post: 1) We could have done Libya with only the F-22, and 2) Replace TLAMs with F-22 to enhance SA.

Regarding: 1) After about the first week, once the big ticket items were gone, most of the "actions to protect civilians from attack or the threat of attack" targeting was done with ISR (or NTISR) looking at an area and figuring out which people were shooting at civilians, then taking them out. 90% of the targets NATO hit were tanks, artillery, and small AAA. I don't understand how the F-22 could have done that on its own. I think that part lends itself to having a TGP, or getting a target from someone who does.

2) I can see the benefit in that, but the cost of moving them out there and flying them might still be more than lobbing in some TLAMs. Maybe not.

[brabus]

There was no driving need to actually use it (as opposed to ways it could have been used) and the COCOM didn't request it, so the AF didn't send it. Its not about whether or not it could have been used, it was all about the COCOM not needing to use it. Practice, not theory.

2. I enjoy a good light grey/Raptor bashing session, but in all seriousness, the Raptor is an awesome asset and it's ridiculous we only have the number we do. I think Beerman has great points as to how it could have been employed in Libya, but the point is it wasn't needed there. It's never good logic to use something just because we can, we should use something because we need to use it/it makes sense. The Raptor brings unique capabilities to the A/G fight when it comes to double-digits and clear advantages in the A/A realm, both in employment as well as SA enhancements to other players, but Libya was not that A/A or A/G environment. No reason to bring in Raptors when Vipers and Mudhens make more sense for THIS situation.

[Toro]

90% of the targets NATO hit were tanks, artillery, and small AAA. I don't understand how the F-22 could have done that on its own.

It can't, and nobody is saying it can.

I can see the benefit in that, but the cost of moving them out there and flying them might still be more than lobbing in some TLAMs.

Are you familiar with the coordination that is required for a TLAM shot? It is significantly more than coordinating for an F-22 that is already on station.

[SurelySerious]

Are you familiar with the coordination that is required for a TLAM shot?

No, back to the vault; always something to learn.

[Guest]

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.

Fair enough.

[R-Dub]

...the COCOM didn't request it, so the AF didn't send it. Its not about whether or not it could have been used, it was all about the COCOM not needing to use it.

There is some truth in this statement among the clutter of rationalizations, but the reason the "COCOM" didn't use the F-22 was not an issue of "not needing" them, but rather, the "COCOM" didn't know HOW to use them. You do realize who the CFACC was, don't you? Did you see how effed the ATO/CAOC responsibilities/chain of command is for that specific AOR?

[Vetter]

Libya is how a MAF General runs a shooting war. It's somewhat funny looking back. Not so much at the time.

[ThreeHoler]

Interesting. I was pretty sure Libya is how a Canuck Tac Hel General runs a shooting war. http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/Unified_Protector/commander.aspx

[bucky60k]

No wonder this campaign was jacked up. That guy doesn't have a Masters Degree!

[Whitman]

No wonder this campaign was jacked up. That guy doesn't have a Masters Degree!