I really don't think the F-22 is being used as a recon platform.  For one thing, it doesn't have internal cameras (like, say, the RF-4 did), which means you've got to carry it podded.  Bye-bye stealth.  And all that about "the Iranians could never shoot it down" is exactly the same thing the CIA told Eisenhower before the U-2 got...shot down.  It's not worth the risk when satellites and UAVs can do the same thing at less cost.  Besides, there's no way in hell Obama's going to risk an international incident.

 

BW, as usual, I disagree with you as well.  Iran could be very close to getting a nuclear bomb--since France might be on Ahmadinejad's short list of People I Want To Nuke, you might be more circumspect about that.  As for Israel being "warmongers"--yeah, right.  That's crap.  A world leader publicly stating that he wants to finish the job Hitler started, wants to acquire nukes, and hopes to usher in Armageddon--but oh, no, it's Israel that's being warmongering.  Did you people learn nothing from 1938?

 

If you want to know why the Israelis don't take chances on such things, try visiting Rivesaltes next time you're in that neck of the woods.  Or do they teach in French schools what happened there?

I thought it was an aussi exchange pilot flying an aggressor F-15 who claimed he couldn't put his weapons on the Raptor even when he could see it...

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me." 

Link... 

 

But come on, F-22s have been to Japan and trained with the JASDF, they've been in Red Flag and Northern Edge exercises with RAF, RAAF, and other nations participating, etc.  They just don't happen to have trained with any French aircraft yet.

But to be honest that claim is very unspecific and leaves a lot room for interpretation and leaves a number of questions unanswered. Was that F-15 using AIM-9M and if yes couldn't he put it on the Raptor because the couldn't lock on or just because the F-22 was to agile and the F-15 couldn't point its nose on it to put the weapons (maybe including the gun) on it? I personally doubt that an advanced IIR seeker such as that in the AIM-9X isn't capable of locking on to a Raptor.

 

And weren't F-22s always on the blue side which is supposed to win anyway? Why haven't we heared about any results from the exercise with the JASDF or other foreign AFs? We just keep on hearing things from USAF sources and that includes exchange pilots from other AFs.

Depends on which way the seeker was pointed, probably.  The aggressor jock may have been trying for a nose-on shot; since it was an aggressor, I doubt they were simming AIM-9Xs.

 

MK, blue force does not always win.  In fact, they usually lose the first few hops.  The point of Red Flag and Top Gun is to train, not to use data to support a foregone conclusion.  While Red Flag does have some restrictions on the red force (unless things have changed recently, Red Force isn't allowed to attack Blue E-3s, or launch attacks on tankers or the Blue Force bases, i.e. Nellis; this is a safety issue), they usually aren't enough to guarantee a Blue win.  The point is, Blue has to work for the win, otherwise they don't learn anything.  If the Blue Force can beat experts like the USAF aggressors or their Navy counterparts, they can probably beat other air forces as well.

 

The syllabus is different in Top Gun, and it is rare outside the movies that students win hops in the first few weeks.  As they get used to the high tempo and start realizing, "Hey, the tactic I use to get my buddies flying other F-18s will get me killed against a F-5 or F-16," things change.  Again, that's the point: you learn.

 

 

Yes I also notice he doesn't say which version of the APG-63 he had, what modes he was in (I'm sure LRS versus SS makes a difference), whether he was looking down into clutter or up at him, and what the range was.  Maybe you should write the Air Force and ask them to clarify what the Aussie meant, I'm sure they would be happy all of these details.

They can have all the second hand information from pilots and hearsay all day long giving it great reviews. But when push comes to shove there really isn't enough real data publicly available to prove to me that the F22 will perform as advertised against top quality adversaries in my opinion. (Much better opponents than Arabs or Serbs).

 

What I see now is so similar to a constant "sales pitch" selling the plane to the US taxpayer that my "BS alert" is constantly ringing. I am getting soo suspicious that the reason for a huge amount of the secrecy involving the F22 is about hiding incompetence instead of denieing the enemy information.

 

PS

I have similar suspicions what is sold to the public about UAV's.

 

 

 

Thats a bit petulant isn't it?  what investment do RAF and RAAF pilots have in extolling the virtues of a platform that we knew we were never going to buy 4 years ago?

 

Not needlessly risk pissing off an important ally by describing their weapons as crap comes to mind. In one of the current threads a RAF pilot is praising the Rafale. "http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-65247.aspx" So maybe the Rafale really is all that?

 

The world is not full of conspiracy no matter how convenient it might be to try and support our own prejudices.

 

The world is full of Group think though. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink"

 

During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.

 

Just considering the possibility of F22's fighting an enemy which somehow found a way to negate stealth to the point of "just" a 3 to 1 advantage for the F22 is well outside the comfort zone of a lot of posters here.