F-16 Replacement

[Fuchs]

We'll see the length of their weapons bay soon. A moderate length would restrict the length of internal missiles to below super long range air-air missiles.
That in turn would not exactly support an anti-AEW mission.

An example for such super long-range A/A missiles are AA-13 Arrows.

[carl]

If the fighter had very long range wouldn't that make up for a missile of somewhat shorter range, especially if it were launched at great speed and from high altitude? The J-20 appears quite large. Perhaps something like a Meteor would do. That is a fraction of the size of the AA-13.

[Fuchs]

It's not about the range, but about avoiding to close in, because that's risky.

An AEW&C aircraft may reliably detect VLO fighters at let's say 100 km. A F-22 combat air patrol could then escort it and go on supercruise to engage every attacker who's spotted at that distance.
A long-range missile would enable the attackers to shoot at the easily detectable AEW&C aircraft from 150-250 km away, avoiding the risky air combat.

(The figures were just examples, meant to only explain the dynamic.)

[carl]

A F-22 combat air patrol could then escort it and go on supercruise to engage every attacker who's spotted at that distance.

That's the rub. There won't be many F-22s.

[Fuchs]

That's probably exactly the right thing.

The F-22 is already partially obsolete. It lacks some important features that were introduced about 30 years ago (IRST, helmet mounted sight) and has troubles with some utterly standard air war features (datalink).

Very low observability ("stealth") technology is at a maturity point, whereas signal processing and various counter-VLO technologies make still huge improvements. The F-22's design concept has been publicly known since at the latest 1991 (YF-22) and is really a 80's concept (actually, it dates in its philosophy back to about '71!).
All competitors were developed to defeat it and its ilk, as were some air defence systems.

(The F-22 is a parallel to the F-4: Expensive, large, impressive in its technology, dependent on one specific approach to air combat and most likely very vulnerable to opponents who deny to play along (the F-4 boasted great speed, unparalleled radar effectiveness, a second crew member, a medium range air combat missile and was supposed to defeat the enemy many miles ahead - but then obsolete MiG-17s began to close in, fly circles around it and shoot at it with supposedly obsolete guns!).
Similarly, the F-22 boasts stealth, supercruise, limited thrust vectoring, a very high combat altitude and is supposed to defeat the enemy with dash & run at high altitude and over long distances.)


A fighter weakness is the best motivator for the development of a better fighter (or whatever takes over a fighter's functions) and might thus be very beneficial in the long term.
It's better to have 300 F-22 successors in 2030 than 500 F-22s.
This reduces the period of uncertain air superiority to about 2020-2030 unless the bureaucracy fails to launch and manage a timely successor program.

[carl]

It's better to have 300 F-22 successors in 2030 than 500 F-22s. This reduces the period of uncertain air superiority to about 2020-2030 unless the bureaucracy fails to launch and manage a timely successor program.

We won't have anything close to 500 F-22s, just that 187 or so. In light of our history, we won't have anything in 2030 but an artist's concept and a prototype that is confidently expected to make it's first flight sometime in the near future. The F-22 may be flawed as you say but it is the best we have and there aren't very many of them.

That period of uncertain air superiority is likely to last a long time.

[Cliff]

My 2 cents, in reverse order from Fuch's post:

A fighter weakness is the best motivator for the development of a better fighter (or whatever takes over a fighter's functions) and might thus be very beneficial in the long term.
It's better to have 300 F-22 successors in 2030 than 500 F-22s.
This reduces the period of uncertain air superiority to about 2020-2030 unless the bureaucracy fails to launch and manage a timely successor program

Fuchs I agree with Carl, it is unlikely there will be an F-22 replacement in the timeframe you discuss... the Next Gen Bomber was announced as being a priority again, meaning the bulk of funding in the timeframe you refer to (2020s) will be going to that, hence not a lot of $$ for R&D of fighters.

187 F-22s is not a lot (numbers wise).

The F-22 is already partially obsolete. It lacks some important features that were introduced about 30 years ago (IRST, helmet mounted sight) and has troubles with some utterly standard air war features (datalink).
(The F-22 is a parallel to the F-4: Expensive, large, impressive in its technology, dependent on one specific approach to air combat and most likely very vulnerable to opponents who deny to play along (the F-4 boasted great speed, unparalleled radar effectiveness, a second crew member, a medium range air combat missile and was supposed to defeat the enemy many miles ahead - but then obsolete MiG-17s began to close in, fly circles around it and shoot at it with supposedly obsolete guns!).
Similarly, the F-22 boasts stealth, supercruise, limited thrust vectoring, a very high combat altitude and is supposed to defeat the enemy with dash & run at high altitude and over long distances.)

While the F-22 doesn't have an HMD, that doesn't make it obsolete. It was a conscious decision to save cost and not put an HMD in the Raptor. Some of the issues you mentioned will be fixed in upgrades that are coming up.

While stealth and supercruise are a big part of the effectiveness of the F-22, it also is one of the most maneuverable jets ever. It can win a close in fight as well as kicking butt BVR. Pilot training still matters, but the good thing is that F-22 pilots are still among the best trained in the world.

Bottom line, I would take the "cold war obsolete fighter" hype that some folks seek to spread about the F-22 with a huge grain of salt.

V/R,

Cliff

[William F. Owen]

the F-4 boasted great speed, unparalleled radar effectiveness, a second crew member, a medium range air combat missile and was supposed to defeat the enemy many miles ahead - but then obsolete MiG-17s began to close in, fly circles around it and shoot at it with supposedly obsolete guns!

Mate! That is not good history or analysis. A MIG-17 could do nothing better than an F-4 except sustained turns at low speeds <450kts.
Yes the F4's lack of a gun, was criminally stupid, but that was corrected at east with the F-4E.
In the history of Air Warfare, the F-4, like the P-51, is a notable aircraft. The MIG-17 isn't.

[Fuchs]

Mate! That is not good history or analysis. A MIG-17 could do nothing better than an F-4 except sustained turns at low speeds <450kts.
Yes the F4's lack of a gun, was criminally stupid, but that was corrected at east with the F-4E.
In the history of Air Warfare, the F-4, like the P-51, is a notable aircraft. The MIG-17 isn't.

Hardly. A F-4 costed many times as much as a MiG-17 and had no real chance (other than retreat) against two of them. The MiG-17 was fast enough to close in with bombers and fighter-bombers and force them to emergency drop their loads.

The F-4 is rather notable like the Bf 110 or P-38 than like the P-51 (the P-51 was an efficient airplane which was able to engage all enemies on equal footing).

In fact, the F-4 had quite exactly the double purchase cost, maintenance hours/flight hour, fuel consumption, crew requirement of a Draken, Mirage III or Mirage F.1 - but it wasn't better than them in air combat, even in the later versions. The lower cost F-8 was also a better fighter.

The F-4 was meant to be a bomber interceptor for the navy's carriers, complemented by the dogfight-capable F-8 Crusader.
It was forced on the air force as a fighter because the air forces' '100' series had yielded no useful fighter (F-104 was utterly useless for all but short range nuking or photo reconnaissance). As an air force fighter it was OK at low or no visibility and at high altitude, but it was terribly inefficient as a fighter in support of a land war.



Likewise, the F-22 is best at tactical dancing - supersonic launch of AMRAAM at target, turn and run at supersonic speed to avoid incoming missiles, repeat.It's like a boxer with long arms who ties to throw jabs all the time to keep the enemy at long distance because he's not good in the infight. He needs to have a great leg work and needs to cede ground all the time.
This mode is an impossible luxury if you need to protect assets, for the enemy could keep pressing forward and could only be stopped with a more decisive engagement (a launched AMRAAM doesn't equal a kill at all).
The F-22s will therefore be forced into a suboptimal combat style whenever they need to protect assets, such as a ground target, a fleet, slow support aircraft or a strike package.
Again, this is similar to how F-4s had to leave their preferred medium range engagement fantasy and were forced into dogfights in which they weren't good despite their high cost.
(The F-22 is superior to F-16s in dogfighting thanks to TVC, but afaik that advantage dwindles when the F-16s have HMS and AIM-9X).