I've read his publication closely and have some experience with civilian airplanes. He seems intelligent, experienced and knowledgeable, I find his entire desription of the airplane accurate. I also believe his assessment of the usefullness of the airplane is accurate and most importantly and damaging assessment that this plane is advertised as a stealthy airplane and by his careful description apppears almost fake. I had a few questions as to if this plane turns off its high frequency radar emissions if it will be stealthy, which remains a large unaswered as to the truth of if it  is stealthy or not.

 The comment that his arguments have holes in them and are  clearly based at ignorant people is not credible. He provided credible information and specific details and your comments are not valid unless you are capable of providing what this forum is  a "debate" of his paper and I dont see that you have any one single statement of his that you can dispute, what warrants your comments. Do you have knowledge of aerodynamics, avionics and stealth, radar etc., that you are withholding??? Invalidate his arguments with specifics otherwise your just flapping yer yak.

OMG are *you* back?!?  Time for your annual drive-by?

He might be right.  He might be wrong.  I recall before Gulf War 1 a number of media prognosticators (former military) talked (endlessly) of the impending battle that would see many fighters shot down and that it would take quite awhile to gain air superiority.  New technology that had yet to be proven certainly helped a great deal. 

 

My thoughts on a few of his arguements.

 

He is from the old school of thought that a Fighter pilot had to manhandle their aircraft onto the enemy's Six in order to "Hose" them. If he shared his fellow FM attitudes, then he was at the time against the F-15 as being "too big and too expensive".  He and the "Fighter Mafia" considered that the LightWeight Fighter project (F-16) did not require an A2A radar.  A couple heat seekers and "Guns, Guns, Guns".  I cannot see John Boyd in 2007 being happy tallying kills that he nver saw with AMRAAMs.

 

That was fine in the 1980's when Air Combat was expected to be WVR but is that realistic today?  The aircraft of the late 20th Century can execute maneuvers greater than the human body can realistically withstand.  This is a counter to his arguement that the F-22 is no more maneuvarable than F-teens.  Even if you could eke out some ACM advantage in a new fighter without killing the pilot, is it going to help you evade today's missiles or improve the ability to gain missile lock?  Again new technology such as Helmet Mounted Sights seem to abrogate the need to have the most maneuvrable aircraft.

 

With regard to detection of the F-22.  I know of no sources that refute his claims.  Conversely, I no of no sources that support them either.  Mostly speculation right now.

 

One interesting point.  The History Channel ran a documentary program on the F-22 that described its development.  I will concede that it was a fluff piece but I found one segment interesting.  The program had pieces of interviews with 2 pilots who have flown the F-22.  I would expect that they were "volunteered" to participate since it would expect that they would praise the F-22.  I will tell you that my impression was that these guys were absolutely telling the truth so either they were very good actors, dumb, or perhaps just truthful.

 

They described a scenario where 8 experienced F-22 Raptor pilots were flying in F-15C.  They were engaged by 2 F-22.  They all knew what the F-22 could do and they knew what to expect.  The story they related was that the 2 F-22 pilots picked them off one by one and no matter what they did, they could not find/see them.  Maybe the Russians do have counter-measures (that were not on the F-15C) than can detect the F-22.  Or maybe they say they do because they really don't and they want to keep an edge until they can develop them.  Who knows.

 

Towards the point that we are building planes to fight non-existent enemies.  He is right if all we ever have to face are terrorists.  But we could be big time screwed if that is incorrect.  In the late 1940's, the Air Force was of the mindset that they only needed bombers because a conventional war would never be fought.  They obviously did not forsee that within less than 5 years the US would be fighting in Korea and within less than a year we would be fighting China (a friend and ally only a few years before). 

 

I think he does have some points worth considering.  I'm all for spending money wisely.  But it could also be considered that he is a proponent of ACM tactics that would be more at home in 1950-1970 over Korea or Vietnam.

 

 

A RAAF Squadron Leader attached to a USAF F-15 Squadron has stated that even when they could visibly see the F-22 they could still not get sufficient lock and some instruments could not "see" the F-22.

 

Riccione is too narrow minded. He doesn't argue the case for the air war ata ll well. 

 

A maneuvering altitude-advantaged LO aircraft that can throw A2A kill you dead no escape rockets  at you with a look first, see first, kill first, always potential energy advantage is ONE segment of an air force that incorporates the additional EW support to locate and blind the enemy in the air battle space. Ignoring the tanker support, the additional electronic warfare assets, the other friendly aircraft in the mix and the ACTUAL characteristics of the rockets which now function as the primary means of A2A combat is ludditish.

 

I don't suggest that Riccione is out of touch with reality. But I do suggest that those who accept his rather narrow limited suicidal approach to how to exploit the aircraft technology we have and the means to employ it, are.   

 

Herald

I don't suggest that Riccione is out of touch with reality.

I do, actually.  The problem with him is that, even if you accept the Boyd/Spey/Riccioni philosophy, which if you boil it down is that instead of 381 F-22s we should have 2500 F-20s, his facts are simply wrong.  None of his criticisms about the F-22, be it its range, its stealth, its avionics, its fuel fraction, or its maneuverability, are correct at all.  When someone is that completely off base factually about something you can literally look out the window and see for yourself, it's pretty hard to take anything else they say seriously.

He keeps trotting out the same arguments over and over like it's still the nineties and the plane hasn't demonstrated its capabilities in the real world.  It's just delusional.  It's like watching Leslie Nielsen go into the airliner's cockpit at the end of Airplane! and say "I just want to wish you both good luck, we're all counting on you" when the airliner is already safely on the ground.

 I have not gone back to re-read his publication over and over but it seems rational and historically based sound logic to place some emphasis on numbers or some balance to just fewer more technology advanced fighters. I dont think one can completely dismiss all of his arguments. Its certain that this country has thousands dedicated to defeating stealth technology in the anticipation of other countries duplicating it over time. Anyone interested in antistealth technology and facts about defeating should see  http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html with comments from MIT scientists and UK who seem to know technologically but havent implimented it or if it is in this country I'd expect it to be  highly restricted info.

I know about Rokes Manor a little bit.

 

I suppose I need to do this again. 

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1335/1388736173_f15c284ba6_o.jpg" width=600 border=0>

 

 

Please note that cell tower bistatic radar is trotted out every two months as if it was some new earthshaking discovery.

 

Yawn.

 

Herald