Fatal flaw of the F-22?

The F/A-22 would simply scare the sh*^$ outta the SU-27K pilots commonly reffered as the J-11. If you think about it the F/A-22 would exhaust it's payload and confuse the enemy by splitting into 3 2-pair elements and engage the weakpoints of the enemies flanks so that they would think the Raptors have more onboard and aren't going to sacrifice anymore pilots and break off the engagement.
 
The F/A-22 would simply scare the sh*^$ outta the SU-27K pilots commonly reffered as the J-11.
There was an early program about the F-22 on the Discovery Channel (probably in 2005). During the program (which was shown once or maybe twice), was a sequence in which the F-22A had its gun camera going and was making a gun kill on an Su-27! One could see the Su-27's rudders move a lot and the Flanker was moving violently but... the F-22 was able to keep the piper in middle of the fuselage with what appeared to be a relative ease for fifteen or twenty seconds! I did not see the program again (for I was all set to video tape the program) for more than six months. When it finally came on many months later, the gun camera video footage was replaced with an animation of the sequence! In the animation, the F-22 had a lot more difficulty keeping the piper on the Su-27.
Any fighter pilot with a grain of sense would fear going up against the F-22. There is a lot of pilots who have flown against the and written about the experience. The common thread in their comments is, they never saw the F-22 before the air controllers ruled the opponent dead. Or, they saw the F-22 but, was not able to get it into its weapons engagement zone! Or, they saw the F-22 but, not until the F-22 had them in the middle of the AMRAAM's range. (So that is well less than twenty miles!) The F-22's performance and altitude advantage consistently allows it to get away without any counter-counter attack.
 
The RAND study that was the basis for the inflammatory media stories was not a combat simulation nor was it designed to test the capabilities of the F-22 against any other aircraft. It was primarily a study that determined the importance of secure, close bases in the event of a PRC attack on Taiwan. In fact, BVR missiles were used as a control (it was assumed that every BVR missile hit a target). So combat was more than a little simplified.
 
-snip- ...That scenario postulated that three regiments of Chinese Su-27s (72 aircraft) went up against six F-22s (hastily flown to Taiwan to stem a hypothetical Chinese onslaught.) Even though the Su-27s were carrying about 900 air-to-air missiles (and the F-22s only 48), the American fighters manage to survive the air battle, and take down over twenty Su-27s. But some of the Su-27s get past them and go after the aerial tankers.

You are not serious, are you?

48 missiles vs. 72 a/c, and "some (! at least 24 if they are good, have no duds and my math works ! R.) of the SU-27s get past them"?

Surprise, surprise... :) Totally unexpected, really... Fatal Flaw !!!

...How can 6 F-22 survive a battle against 70 Su-27? -snip- ...Am I the only one here to question that?
Not so surprising:

Cannot hit what you cannot lock on. THe description of the simulation never mentioned they went into ENY missile, less so cannon range, so they were actually probably simply picking the 27s off one by one without ever been painted as bogy or threat from the other side.

Rattler
 
This is a joke, right? Even the big players have no real idea of the results of these sort of "what-ifs". It's ludicrous to imagine these "findings" have any relevance in the real world of war fighting.
 
This is a joke, right? Even the big players have no real idea of the results of these sort of "what-ifs".
I wish it were a joke but, this is part of the results of situations that were studied. These studies are made all the time, once in a blue moon the public hears about them. Depending on the timing of the results, determines whether the public hears about it or not. If someone has an agenda, they often use the distorted results as some sort of bible, as to what would really happen. America is definitely not alone in doing these studies.

It's ludicrous to imagine these "findings" have any relevance in the real world of war fighting.
Actually, it is not. Do you think in August of 1990, the plans of how to organize, transport and, re-settle almost a half-million troops in Saudi Arabia was thought up "on the fly?" The command structure, the logistics, the organization on the dispersion of troops and, equipment were all planned out years before the invasion ever occurred. "Just in case".... it was ever needed.
Did it ever strike you funny that a nation such as Saudi Arabia with less than four hundred aircraft would have tarmac/flight line space for around two thousand five hundred aircraft? Harden shelters for over three dozen aircraft, tower, air-control ability to support this 'air fleet' for around the clock operations and, the ability sustain operations to load over one million pounds of ordnance per day at each of the major airbases... all came about by pre-planing. Pre-planing that came about seeing the potential needs of a regional conflict where Saudi Arabia was threaten.
 
Last edited:
After 30 plus years of being involved in military planning, I think I can tell you categorically that the adage is true - " A plan lasts as long as the first engagement."
Your comparison of Desert Storm 1 to the fighting capabilities and face-off results of the F-22A is without merit. The two are totally non-compatible. Of course there are 'what if' contingencies in planning offices all over the world - you are talking about campaigns and engagements on a force scale, using arbitrary capabilities and updated intelligence. You confuse "Game" with "Plan".
The F-22 "game" is ludicrous. There are far too many variables to predict a definitive outcome. In game theory, you play against only variables that can be compensated and defined - all too often the one variable you forget gets you killed. There are published gaming results that have the Axis winning WWII, Russia invaded and conquered, Japan obliterated and a nuclear wasteland. The F-15C and F-15E were gamed against the current MiG, Su and J fighters of the day and always miraculously won, regardless of numerical superiority - As were the F/A-18A, F/A-18C and F/A-18E. The games are rigged by variables. The widely held belief in technological, tactical and strategic superiority of the West, can and are beaten regularly in games.
The Israelis never imagined the sand berms beside the Suez canal could be crossed or breached in a hurry - until Egyptian engineers used water cannon to breach the berms in a matter of hours. The Israelis had planned and gamed ad infinitum only to be taken totally by surprise.
Conclusion - planning and gaming are tools and are inherently flawed - if that is acknowledged and the results aren't "Gospel" then they have value.
Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery was a victim of "planning myopia" - he was a slave to his plans - Operation Market Garden - A Bridge Too Far - his!
 
I've said it before I'll say it again,


Its NOT the aircraft, its the pilot, I know a man in Arkansas who drove a skyrader in Nam, who could wax both a F22 and a SU 27 in combat
 
I agree with Wolfen, but I would say that it's true only in dogfights...

With these advanced detection systems, smart missiles etc.... If a modern airplane have awacs support, or just a good radar echo, they can launch missiles and destroy the enemy before he even he spots the enemy.
 
Put all the missiles and awacs away and use cannons only and I'll take a F6G5 against ANY Jet in the world and come out on top[
 
Damn right, some men are just like magicians, they have a hunter spirit and they can do marvels...

And it scares me sometimes when I see how technology is developping... The skills we use today in war can be replaced by very different skills. A kid with a laptop computer and a wireless internet connexion could bring a country to it's knees...

A bunch of scientists can build smart robots to wage war for them.

A bit like bows and crossbows... In medieval times, it took years of training to make good archers capable of engaging troops at long ranges.

But some dude came up and made the crossbow, and all you had to do is rotate a little wheel, and then, you could turn any man into a powerful missile troop.
All you had to do is buy him a crossbow...

In Vietnam there was copilots on the aircrafts to take care of radars and to use counter measures... It was a real duel between the aircraft and SAM launchers/radars...

Today, there is computers that can do that automatically... And with an incredible efficiency. All it took is a bunch of scientist to make the technology and another bunch to build them...

I think that the warrior as we know it could disappear soon...
 
Put all the missiles and awacs away and use cannons only and I'll take a F6G5 against ANY Jet in the world and come out on top[

Looks like you've solved it. All we have to do is stop the proliferation of missile and radar technologies and the skies are ours!
 
The skies are already dominated by US technology... The US air force is huge and well equipped... No force in the world can face it.

It's already the case...

I think that it's at these moment when we have to say that absolute power corrupts absolutely...
 
The skies are already dominated by US technology... The US air force is huge and well equipped... No force in the world can face it.

It's already the case...

I think that it's at these moment when we have to say that absolute power corrupts absolutely...

There is no one in the US that has absolute power.
 
Well, the point is that power corrupts. Absolute power corrupt absolutely means also that a little power brings a little corruption.

Military strength was misused many many times... if not all the time, through history.

And corruption can take many forms too...

And of course, it's very open to interpretation. It's easy to deny it for the same reason.

I can say that air superiority is so "sweet" and so important, that many armies spend billions on their air force while they are extremely cheap with their soldiers...
 
I think that soldiers are way more important that these toys they call aircrafts... Aircrafts are good for domination.

But domination isnt a legitimate objective. Soldiers are vulnerable and capable of securing the ground. And of course, their destruction capacity is limited.

So I have far more respect for the boots on the ground...

You say that their kit costs... Yeah, maybe it does. But are you sure I was speaking about their kit? or their kit alone?

I speak about the equipment they are carrying. I'm talking about their paycheck at the end of the month, i'm talking about the amount of training and education they get... and of course, the most important, the social help if they are wounded or if they die in battle... They shouldnt worry about their families.

Many countries spend tons of ressources on weapons to dominate the enemy. They spend billions on aircrafts, because they know that a good airforce will allow them to kill without having losses. And they dont care much about the soldiers because these soldiers can lose battles...
So they have more to win politically and economically with aircrafts and high tech toys...

I dont like this. The billions spend on aircrafts fall in the pockets of "friends", close the people in power... While the money spent to help the soldier to do their job, like helping people and killing bad guys without destroying half the country... Nah, that's not good enough.
 
Last edited:
Forget morals for at least 48 hours into the conflict, at that point it would all be reactionary, you know the deal, politicians waking up at the middle for the night with knocks on their bedrooms doors, being told there is a situation.

My point the world would still go round, like a record the next track will play, war has a different face now, same taste however. China has everything in their favor militarily, if they launch a assault, something has failed else where. Sitting around and talking about how you feel about at that point is like pissing in a hurricane.

Ships leave port, planes take off, crap appears on radars screens, ammo is handed out, and mixed damage assessments and reports fill radio channels. Listen USA is if you wish, but in the opening golden hours, stuff is blowing up, tracers go down range , and whatever your ears catch, is just a "wait till we get there" scenario for these first golden hours, thousands are simultaneously moving, and for the defenders on that island, I am pretty sure, for them and the U.S. standard procedure will be bout the only thing that may persists, and all assessments and text books get left on the shelf until the nature of the hostilities shows it's face, and the situation evolves into recognition.

The F 22, would be just a small part. On paper, numbers can conveniently add up, but whats happening to the estimators on the ground as they keep their ears glued to those headsets listing to the feed back from any engaged forces, most likely will not match up.

At the mention of nukes, add them, and the whole situation, in it's entirety will be changed.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before I'll say it again,


Its NOT the aircraft, its the pilot, I know a man in Arkansas who drove a skyrader in Nam, who could wax both a F22 and a SU 27 in combat
here before too long everything will be unmanned :cry:
 
Back
Top