F-22 finally used in combat

I'm not surprised. Since the demise of the F-117 (prematurely, in my opinion), I thought it was obvious that the F-22 would have to fulfill the same role in the next war, at least until the F-35 is fully operational. I don't believe that ISIS has any aerial assets, so any chance of air-to-air for the Raptor will have to wait longer.

 

Not normally called a multirole fighter aircraft but obviously it is.

 

Is it wrong I got excited that we actually used the F-22 in combat?

 

Tom- No, not at all. Not a real fighter until she is blooded, even if it was not an air-to-air kill first time out.

At one point the USAF was calling it the F/A-22 to try and gain some more support for production. Idiots like Navy-centric McCain and cohorts, plus a liberal SecDef, killed her before economies of scale could be reached. Far cry from the 700+ USAF wanted as an F-15 replacement. Might even have seen a two seat F-22E to replace the F-15E with a larger weapons bay and more fuel. All dead.

We are now looking for an F-22 replacement. Can imagine what McCain will say about that.

 

Don't forget about the proposed carrier-based variant, which would have been an F-14 replacement. Although the Super Hornet may be an improvement over the early F-18s, I still think the Navy has a shortfall in capability without a bona fide F-14 replacement, and even the F-35 won't fill that.

 

This question comes from ignorance, with no disrespect intended.

What threats did the F-22 overcome during this successful mission?

I think I represent the average uninformed American, who views these yahoos calling themselves the islamic state as dweebs with AK-47s, machetes, a few pages from Al Qaieda's playbook, and youtube account.

As AQ proved, sometimes that's all it takes to wreak havoc. But my question is about the F-22. What countermeasures did this fighter of the future overcome during this mission? Dropping laser guided bombs on tents is what I imagine... shooting fish in a barrel. Am I totally uninformed about the risk to the pilot and aircraft during such missions? Was the F-22 performing a role that we didn't already possess the tools for?

 

Dave- We do not really know. ISIS has all kinds of gear they took over from the Iraqi army, but whether they know how to operated it is another question. Our ELINT birds will have been collecting radar emissions data so they know what threats are out there. The big advantage of the F-22 doing initial strikes is that nobody knew they were coming, regardless of what equipment was up and running. That means nobody was running away from the targets before they were struck. The F-22s struck leadership infrastructure in real buildings. Remember how many cities and towns, ISIS has appropriated, so they are not living in tents. They are living in the nicest accomodations each of those places offers.

If you remember, the Ukrainian rebels have shot down multiple aircraft, including an airliner, with only rudimentary instruction on the SAMs they are operating. No reason to think ISIS does not have SAMs, either. They have whatever the Iraqis had, and we gave them part of that.

So they sent in an aircraft with an exceedingly high chance of getting through without warning and killing the target assigned. That is one of the reasons we bought it. In future wars if we have a mix of 4th and 5th generation fighters and bombers, the 5th generation aircraft will try to kill the air defense systems so the 4th generation fighters can survive and attack. In the case of the F-35, that could also mean loading them up with external stores once air supremacy is established. They can carry a much bigger payload externally, including weapons that will not fit in the internal bay.

 

To answer your question; the F-22 is an operational aircraft, since 2005. So, not the "fighter of the future". And as such, it's just another weapon in the arsenal for use as needed.

F-22 Raptor > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

 

Thanks Terry. "We don't really know" and "high chance of getting through without warning" are good enough for me. Not that I wanted justificiation for using F-22, just that I wondered if this mission was worth bragging about. "KNOWN UNKNOWNS" are enough for me to stop questioning bragging rights about a successful combat mission.

I guess even if Syrian defenses (known radar and anti aircraft capabilities?) were alerted, there's a chance ISIS could be informed and threaten mission success?

 

Thanks!

 

Remember, we've seen of videos of Syrian rebels shooting down government helicopters and aircraft. So using a stealthy asset makes sense, especially if these raids were at night (were they?).

 

Have they been using anything more than MANPADs? This seems a whole lot more like the F-117s in Panama than night one 1991 over Baghdad.

 

I just saw an F-22 demo at an air show this weekend-- it's an amazing aircraft!

That said, I did a little reading and it sounds like it will have a fairly short service life, to be largely replaced by the F-35 (and doomed by the fact that no foreign customers bought it).

 

I'm assuming it was the airshow in Portland. Thats funny. A friend of mine that's an intel officer who had to work the recruiting tent sent me a video of that F-22 demonstration.

 

The 1998 Department of Defense Appropriations Act prohibits sale of the F-22 to any foreign government.

 

That was it. It was a nice demo.

 

Not buying that as the reason, sorry. Several countries (close allies of ours) considered it but passed because the F-35 is supposed to be cheaper and do more.

The former Air Force Chief of Staff disagrees with you as well.

Ousted USAF chief continues controversial fight for F-22 production - IHS Jane's 360

 

Thomas is correct.

The Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the FY2013 defense appropriation bill includes language prohibiting funds from being used to approve or license the sale of the F-22 to other countries. The bill does permit the Department of Defense to conduct studies and design activities to develop a future export version of the aircraft that protects classified and sensitive information.

This language is similar to provisions passed by Congress each year since 1998.

Air Force F-22 Fighter Program - CRS Report for Congress (July 11, 2013)

 

That'll never happen; the F-35 does not have the air superiority capabilities of the F-22.

However, the F-22 CAN fill the role of the F-35.

From the article you quoted;

 

While Gen Moseley continues to fight for more F-22 production, as does Romney, the reality is that the assembly line and tooling has been dismantled. The common belief is "Still, reviving the F-22 would cost billions before a single new jet even entered production." (Wired)

Fortunately the restart costs are much lower, but I don't see that happening at all, unfortunately.
.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

To my knowledge, the tooling for the F-22 has been stored and not discarded, so restarting the line is not entirely impossible, though it is improbable.

And the F-22 is likely to remain in service until 2030 or later. The F-35 is definitely not a replacement; it shares the same relationship with the F-22 as the F-16 has with the F-15.

 

Technically, that is true. However, it also appears that no one wants to buy it. If anyone did, they would either change the law, or develop an export version which was acceptable.

 

25 years is a pretty short service life. The F-15 has been in service for almost 40 years, and the F-16 is close behind it. And, both are still in production (although the F-16 is export only).

 

Actually, the report shows that Japan and Australia both wanted the F-22 and still do... "However, former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne “said by email that Japan, Israel and Australia would ‘immediately partner’ to restart the line if Congress lifted the F-22 export ban."

I'm not sure what your sources are regarding "no one wants to buy it" but I can tell you that it's not accurate.

Or are you messin' with me?