Tuesday, September 23, 2014

F-22 use and mission creep...


First check this out from Breaking Defense...
“Effective planning requires the use of the right force at the right place at the right time,” Dave Deptula, the man who ran the air war in Afghanistan, says in an email. “The F-22 is the world’s most advanced combat aircraft and has the ability to negate the effectiveness of threat air defense systems. That’s why it was used in this case. There was no “dry spell,” rather the previous operations in the permissive airspace of Iraq and Afghanistan did not require their capabilities.”
Don't be fooled.

The F-22 wasn't needed to penetrate Syrian air space.  Not unless you believe the Israeli Air Force is MUCH better than our own.

Why do I say that?

Simple.  The Israeli's have been running missions into Syria for a while now.  Additionally they've struck targets with impunity.  The Syrians have never been able to lay a hand on them.

So lets put away the fiction that the F-22 was necessary for the success of these strikes.

UPDATE!!!!  Patrick reminded me of another fact.  Why weren't Syrian air defenses attacked if they were a threat to US war planes?  They weren't attacked and they didn't fire on our jets!  That tells me that there was either military to military contact that worked out the arrangement OR diplomatic back channel means were used.  What does that mean?  THAT MEANS THAT THE F-22 WAS SENT OUT ON A MISSION FOR PURE PUBLICITY AND NOTHING ELSE!

Now that we've put away that insanity have you noticed the mission creep?  Did you notice the emphasis on striking the Khorasan Group?

Never heard of those guys before a couple of days ago and suddenly they're the main effort?

Interesting.

Its also fucking mission creep, it also expands the war and its all bullshit.  Why are we hitting those guys?  Why are they a threat to the US?  Why are they suddenly a threat to the region and the world?

When you get the answer let me know.

58 comments :

  1. Raptor is a fighter... not a strike plane and definitely not an attacker. F-22 exist for breaking the neck of enemy air force in air not to hunt some radical nut jobs on ground. This is hypertrophy of form over content.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just to justify the need of the F-35. I don't believe the F-22 strike any thing.
    http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_140923-N-PS473-031.JPG
    http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_140923-N-WD757-267.JPG
    http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_140923-N-MT637-040.JPG

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't remember the F-22 ever being converted into multi-role or even limited strike role... afaik it was limited to air-superiority roles because no one was willing to improve it.

    Did I miss something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well the USAF did play with the F/A-22 designation for it for a little bit and i do know they've played wit it being able to launch small diameter bombs. what i don't know is if its cleared to carry anything else. this is a question for my buddies ELP or Goon. i'll shoot them an e-mail.

      Delete
  4. The F-22 can carry two 1,000 lb bombs internally, and with the latest upgrade can also field eight 250lb Small Diameter Bombs internally (although I'm not sure if all the Raptors are able to employ SDB yet)

    Claiming that because the Israeli's could successfully kill targets in Syria negates the need for the F-22 is a strawman argument. The F-22 was specifically designed to evade defenses and is currently the best operational aircraft in the world at doing so. Could a 4th-gen fighter have done the job with a low probability of being shot-down? Sure. But it would still have a higher chance of being shot-down than if using the Raptor. How would you like to be the commander that looses a jet to a radar-guided SAM when you had a more survivable asset at your disposal but elected not to use it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. straw man argument? bullshit! the Growler and Super Hornet could go in and out with no problem. you know it and so do i. for you to attempt to state otherwise is insanity. for you to even talk about these jets being necessary for this mission indicates that you're either a booster for this airplane, a lobbyist for lockheed or you know less than even i do about airpower.

      fact. the israeli's were able to attack targets in syria without problem. fact. the syrian air defenses have been seriously degraded after years of fighting. fact. the f-22 wan't needed for this mission. fact. 4th gen fighters carried out the majority of strikes. those are facts. give me something i can chew on.

      Delete
    2. See my comment below, I didn't see that you already replied or would have posted here.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Oh, I forgot to actually say why it's a strawman argument. Israel doesn't have F-22's. For your argument to be valid you'd have to prove that Israel wouldn't use F-22's if they had them...which is impossible to prove because an Israeli F-22 does not exist.

      Delete
    5. but Patrick. even that is wrong! my argument is based on the earlier statement by the retired Air Force general that the F-22 was necessary for mission success. i strongly disagree and stated so. by using the Israeli Air Forces' success in attacking targets as an example of my argument being correct is correct and puts the general's contention that the F-22 was essential into question by anyone who's watching.

      of course this is all part of a larger discussion. is stealth necessary or is electronic attack the future war winner. i say electronic attack.

      Delete
    6. He didn't say it was necessary for mission success. He said it was the best tool for the job. And it was.

      Growler is an EA platform that can't carry bombs, which means you're going to have to double the number of aircraft required to strike whatever the Raptors struck as the Growlers will be escorting non-stealthy strikers - thus doubling mission risk. The Growler will also still be detected by long range early warning radar - thus giving the opportunity for the Syrians to launch fighters against the strike package. Even if the fighters are shot down by the strike package, an enemy intercept usually requires the strikers to jettison their stores, thus resulting in a mission kill against the strike package.

      Delete
    7. really? seriously? do you even believe what you're saying?

      Delete
    8. Yes. What is it about the above argument you find so unbelievable.

      Delete
    9. F22 can carry bombs(but not really use them) but needs another plane to mark the targets so similar to Typhoons over Libya where Tornados had to fly along to mark targets this was done just so Typhoon could be labeled as Combat proven , the same thing here just PR to boost F35 ,plus there is news US informed Syrian officals prior to strike taking place so if anything both Syrians and Russians could make some recordings of F22 radar signatures

      Delete
    10. Do you know the difference between a Paveway-series bomb and a JDAM?

      Delete
    11. Still needs a sensor package(it lacks) to find a target unless you assume all these targets pre designated . fighting insurgents i would bet target had to be verified real time again something F22 can't do.

      Delete
    12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz5pe2C3DDs

      They struck a building. I'd be shocked if it wasn't pre-planned. GPS weapons by their nature do not require another aircraft to actively designate as long as the coordinates are known.

      Delete
    13. Destroying infrasturcture is quite pointless against insurgets unles its packed full of their men so predesignated target means shit without real time verification ,Even vid just shows a real time target surveilance and verification something F22 can't do. So even if F22s really droped JDAMs not just fly escort to whatever other platform its not a feat that couldn't be done by just about any other plane in US inventory.

      Delete
    14. The F-22 if it even took part was as High cover in a BARCAP/MIGCAP role, it did not drop any bombs.
      why would it with the other more dedicated bombing platforms were available?
      More show than substance, kinda like "OH LOOKY WE USED OUR NEW WHIZBANG JET AIRPLANE FOR THE FIRST TIME" kinda bullshit.

      Delete
    15. I understand they said this was an Alpha strike package, that's a large all assets mission, ECW, Strikers, Tankers, MIGCAP and recon in and out.
      Doesn't matter they just did target practice, they did not hit shit worth bombing, and further missions will be the same aspirin factory, Bill Clinton bombing of empty and fore warned training camps and buildings.
      It's a bullshit political Kabuki theater.

      Delete
    16. They also used a B-1 or B-2 Bomber so why use the F-22 to bomb with?

      Delete
    17. As far as the Israeli AF strikes in Syria goes they are much better at EW/EA and NOE/terrain hugging than we are. That is what allowed them to strike inside Syria with conventional aircraft. We, the US, don't have that same capability because we chose stealth over EW back when they were first thinking about the ATF (what would become the F-22).

      Delete
  5. obama calls f-22 outdated and unnecessary?!

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/23/Obama-in-2009-Jets-Used-in-Syria-Outdated-and-Unnecessary

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now Solomon, what air defences did Panama in 89 had that justified the use of F-117

    Thing here is that at this moment no detailed information is known, maybe the targets hit by F-22s were closer to syrian army radar umnrellas and air defence units, and the US wanted to not risk some lucky shot bu a Pantsir for example. Syrian airspace ain't Irak.

    But then again i bet they just wanted to see how this jet works and some good PR.
    Remeber also that the F-22 cannot communicate via Link-16 .
    I suppose thoose were some HVTs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that about nails it. the F-117 wasn't necessary but they wanted to make a splash. additionally your point about the F-22 not being able to talk to other aircraft is HUGE. what were the mission planners thinking.

      Delete
    2. Good PR, or maybe some real HVTs.
      F-117 type of strike, no comms during the whole flight mission fly to the target bomb and leave.
      Remeber also they are russian advisers operating syrian SAMs in syria.
      The logic here would be that if some targets were near SAM sites, they did not want to risk.

      Now, AGM-158 would also made the same effect....

      Delete
    3. Not only that plane is missing the data link ,it doesn't have target designator so it can only carry and drop a bomb but not actually hit anything, unless you have someone designating the target ither o the ground or in the air. As for permissive airspace if Predator drone can operat in in so can Cessna Caravan let alone any 4th gen jet no need for F22.

      Delete
  7. Consider the below map provided by the Pentagon of targets hit in Syria. Also consider that Turkey very likely did not allow its airspace to be used to launch strikes. Assuming the jets entered Syria from Iraqi airspace (which they would have done if launching from bases around the Persian Gulf), then they would have had to fly in Syrian airspace for roughly 210 nautical miles, and that's after flying over Iraqi airspace for roughly 410 nautical miles. This gives Syrian radars PLENTY of time to track and identify incoming blue aircraft. Israel, on the other hand, only has to fly 75 nautical miles to hit Damascus if launching from Ramat David Airbase. Assuming a 500 knot ground speed, from wheels up to bombs on target that's only 9 minutes for the Syrian air defense system to react.

    http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/5deT7.qJu3SqXfBOzlJb4Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Here_Are_Pictures_Showing_The-742fa31c254d3cd5cfffa4a4f787a0e3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. either your geography or your raid planning is faulty. i would launch from bases in Saudi Arabia fly over jordan and make a dash to target. even if i was coming from the UAE, my course would still have me flying over saudi thru jordan and then to the targets. orbits for refueling probably took place over jordan and if i had to bet i'd lay money on TRAP forces comprised of the 160th and Green Berets being setup in the desert with Rangers securing the FARP in the desert of Syria with "friendly" terrorists being outer perimeter.

      long story short. i don't buy your scenario.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. degraded air defenses. military to military talks that have Syria saying they will not attack US airplanes. this is proven by the FACT that Syrian air defenses were NOT attacked...not even by Tomahawk cruise missiles.

      sorry Patrick but your theory is trash. Syrian air defenses were not a threat in this operation.

      Delete
    4. If you launch from Saudi, even assuming you take off right at the border, that's still a 260-430 nautical mile flight to Aleppo (depending on where you launch from). In fact, that route just further justifies using Raptor, because if you launch further from the south in Saudi Arabia - now you have to overfly the majority of Syria's population (including Damascus)...which means you have to overfly the assets staged to defend said population. Launch further North, you'll avoid the bulk of the population but still have to overfly Tiyas airbase - an airfield that has been very active during the course of the war. Bottom line - the Israeli's barely have to put their toe into Syria to hit what they want (Hezbollah weapons caches and Syrian WMD-associate programs). The U.S went deep into Syria.

      Delete
    5. Also can you not edit posts in this forum or am I being retarded?

      Delete
  8. Syrian air defenses ABSOLUTELY were a threat. While Syria retains many Soviet-era SAMS they also possess many modern and highly mobile assets. These include Pechora 2M, SA-11/17 and SA-22. If there is even the POSSIBILITY of encountering these systems, and you have a stealth asset, then you use it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. then why didn't they fire on our jets? why didn't our jets kill them? F-22's didn't go after Syrian Command and Control, anti-air, tank farms or any other Syrian site of interests. they only went after terrorists sites.

      explain why! you can yell that they were a threat but operations indicate otherwise..

      Delete
    2. They were a threat because they were there! There were (officially) no military-to-military communications between Syria and the U.S regarding these strikes. We didn't know if the Syrian government would really be o.k with violating their airspace. Even if they were o.k with that, we didn't know if some trigger-happy SAM operator is going to fire at our jets anyway. We didn't know if they would scramble aircraft. We were attacking targets that would require extended flight-times over Syrian airspace. If you're going into a situation with that level of uncertainty, then why wouldn't you bring your most capable assets to the fight?

      We didn't kill their SAMs because we didn't want to start a war with Assad. We brought Raptor in the event Assad opposed us anyway. You always plan to be able to deal with the worst-case scenario, and the worst-case here was Assad attempting to oppose the strike package.

      Delete
    3. Patrick: A threat sure, but dead meat the minute they turn their radar on.
      AGM-88E.

      Delete
    4. "they also possess many modern and highly mobile assets"

      That is debatable to begin with and what is even more questionable is their ability to use them.

      Nevertheless, counting on radar stealth alone to defeat them is foolish, since newer systems are intended to target and acquire radar stealth aircraft anyways (and stealth is hardly effective anyways, just as the British during ODS). ECM and ARM rules the day.

      Im skeptical of the utilitarian value of the F22 versus other aircraft in the US military inventory. Perhaps the only merit those F22s had was that they were in the right place at the right time.

      Delete
  9. Keep in mind also that I'm sure these will not be the last strikes against Syria. What are the risks for Day-2 ops?

    The way I see it - Israel coincidentally shot down a Syrian fighter the SAME DAY as our strike package went in. So now Syria is probably going to be shit scarred about some imminent Israeli operation to shwack more targets in Syria again. How are Syrian SAM operators going to be able to distinguish between an Israeli vice a U.S strike in the future? How is an 18 year old kid behind the controls of an SA-6 launch battery going to be able to answer the question: "Is that dot on my scope an American jet coming to kill ISIS or an Israeli jet coming to kill me?"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Combat-coded blocks of the F-22 will do small diameter bomb (2 BRU-61a quad racks for 8 SDBs) or 2 1000lb-class JDAMs. And you have the very good AN/ALR-94 which is about 30 different antenna apertures around the airframe. This will classify and in some cases geo-locate various emissions. I suspect it was just there to fly cover for yes, possible air threats, but just as important: classify and geo-locate surface-to-air emission/threats and take them out if needed. That is its other mission: high-end SEAD/DEAD in a high-threat environment where others would not survive however here against lesser threats. The AN/ALR-94 would also give a good electronic order of battle of surface-to-air emitters just as a reference. They would have to be nuts to use those weapons against lessor threats.
    Besides SEAD/DEAD you can use the JDAM and SEAD to hit fixed targets in a high threat environment. When released supersonic and high with the F-22, the JDAM has a range of about 25 or so miles vs. 10-13 with other aircraft. Similar results with SDB.
    So just to fly cover in case Syria did somethng different and to get a fast electronic order of battle of surface to air emitters. Probably a warm fuzzy to have when what should be done also is using the A-10C (PE) to do road patrols at night (most of the ISIL empire is along roads).
    Still confused what they are trying to accomplish in this air campaign other than to make Obama look like a great war leader before an election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have an F-18 and for Crixus sake a B-2 bomber why would you use a Raptor to bomb?

      Delete
    2. The F-22 air-to-ground capability is to hit certain kinds of targets (usually fixed) in highly defended air space.In a high-end scenario (which Syria is not), the B-2 is unsurvivable against real IADS that have real fighter aircraft that are networked which will find it, hunt it down and kill it. In those scenarios the B-2 then has to use stand off weapons.... like any other non-stealth aircraft. So basically you have Tomahawk Block IV which is networked, JASSM, JASSM-ER and F-22. What would the F-22 hit in high-end scenarios? Aircraft hardened air shelters, big...low-band radars, and so on. There are a lot of first-night-of-the-war targets in highly defended air space that can die from an SDB or 1k JDAM. Also with the latest radar upgrades, F-22 can (like many other aircraft now, Super Hornet, B-1, F-15E etc) use the radar to setup "refined" (more precise) coordinates to pump into the INS of an SDB or JDAM before release (for those kinds of targets where you can use the radar for that) So-as to get sub-4 meter CEP hits.

      Delete
  11. I watch the videos of the strike and guess what? No bodies live or dead, and most telling "NO SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS", they didn't hit shit just empty buildings and EMPTY real estate.
    IF they killed or wounded anyone it was by accident.
    This is Rolling Thunder Obama style except instead of making tooth picks out of empty jungle trees they make bricks out of empty buildings.
    This was just another liberal, leftist, islamophile dog and pony show for the masses.
    Four Muslim nations took part, and they spilled the beans about the strike beforehand, if not them then democrats in the administration leaked the strike so no Muslim's got killed.
    US Air Force, Navy, ya didn't hit shit and risked your lives for nothing.
    Whoinafuck do these clowns think they are fooling?
    Fucking worthless ass holes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were no secondaries because they probably used low collateral damage weapons like 500lb JDAM or a 250lb FLM SDB. Also the target I saw hit were not munitions depots or the like, they were command and contro facilities where you won't get huge secondaries due to the fact that there aren't alot of volatile/explosive items stored there. You didn't see anyone running out of the building after the strike because anyone that was in the building would have been either killed by the effects of shockwave contained in the building or incapacitated by it.

      Delete
  12. So you need an F22 because it's dangerous to fly over Syria but more than likely the video of before /after was taken from a drone....yeah, F22 being used was just PR stunt in my book.

    http://aviationweek.com/blog/so-what-took-f-22-target-photo

    Also, why are we hitting so many fixed targets? If Syrian IADS is so dangerous, why aren't we taking it out?

    This air campaign makes little sense to me.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If F-22 were in the strike package than it's not that far a leap to figure that drone support for targeting info and post strike BDA probably included RQ-170s.

      Delete
    2. Which would mean stealth wasn't even required to begin with since "stealth drones" are a literal oxymoron. A contradiction. There never, ever will be such a thing.

      Delete
    3. Can you please explain what you mean by ""stealth drones" are a literal oxymoron" as there are drones/UAVs with extremely low RCSs. The US RQ-170, RQ-180, and X-47B and the European Taranis being examples of this.

      Delete
    4. They are contradictions because you cannot have minimal electronic signature while controlling a unmanned aircraft. Its common sense.

      Oh shit. You mean that there is more to stealth than just reflecting VHF antiquated radars!? say it aint so?

      Delete
  13. I think you guys are looking way too much into the technical details and ignoring the obvious. AFCENT has limited resources. We know there is an F-16 detachment in Jordan, the F-22 Squadron in the UAE, along with the B-1 Squadron. Other than that all they've got is the Bush Strike Group's Air Wing. So given the length of the target list, AFCENT can either request an F-15E Squadron, or just use what they've already got. DoD would have just told them to use the F-22s. Given those options logic says use the Raptors. We also don't know the state of the Bush Air Wing, they've been rocking Iraq pretty hard, maybe they couldn't fully commit to the ATO?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My apologies for the long post but I have several points to make. First two questions:

    Besides myself how many people here have actual EW/SEAD/DEAD experience? (Long live the Prowler, the Prowler is dead, long live the Growler)

    Also anyone here besides me ever work as a flight test Engineer for the Air Force on the F-22?

    And with that let’s begin the meat of my post....

    Before claiming that the F-22 was unneeded let’s do a little due diligence and see what kinds of SAMs Syria. To do this we shall consult the all-knowing Wikipedia as we cannot access any of the NSA’s or Defense Departments classified databases.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Air_Defense_Force#Inventory
    The above link is for the Wikipedia page for the Syrian Air Defense Force. Since we do not have access to classified databases let us operate under the assumption that the equipment list on that page is correct. As such, I direct your attention to four systems in particular: the SA-5, the SA-10, the SA-11, and the Pantsir S-1/SA-22.

    The SA-5 while old, can still reach out and touch things at almost 200 miles. This thing was meant to take out strategic bombers like the B-52. My educated guess is that this was one of the systems that pushed our pre-stealth bombers down into the weeds. It is also rumored to be able to passively home in on AEW aircraft like E-3s and E-2s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200_%28missile%29

    The SA-10, also known as the S-300, is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded according to "International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Almaz S-300 – China's "Offensive" Air Defense". Strategycenter.net. 25 February 2006. Retrieved 14 November 2011. Depending on the missile used, it can reach out 45 or 90 miles and is designed to shoot down aircraft and cruise missiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29

    The SA-11 is the upgraded version of the SA-6. This is the system that is blamed for the shoot down of the airliner over The Ukraine/Crimea. It’s a mobile tactical system designed to fight cruise missiles, smart bombs, fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles with a range of up to 31 miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system

    And finally the Pantsir-S1/SA-22, which is essentially a land based point defense system which is effective out to 12 miles with the missiles and 2.5 miles with the guns. The short and sweet is that this sucker was designed to take out things like HARMs, JDAMs, JSOWs, JASSMs, SLAM-ERs, TLAMs, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1#Operators

    All the engagement ranges stated for the above systems are against conventional (non-stealth) aircraft. Bringing stealth to the table significantly reduces the ranges at which a SAM can engage an aircraft as it take longer (i.e. closer range to SAM) for the system to see the same sided radar return off a stealth aircraft as it does a conventional aircraft at longer range. See graphics here http://www.f22fighter.com/stealth.htm

    Here is a decent tutorial for how an IADS works, you just have to look past the Raytheon marketing stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acJ3xyhaJo

    So, knowing what I know and what I have shared here, I would argue that the use of the F-22 in Syria was not a PR stunt. The use of them probably allowed access to targets that were otherwise covered by SAMs which probably would have engaged conventional aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on.

      As far as your initial question, I do have professional experience regarding IADS.

      Delete
    2. A little correction, syria does not have the SA-10.
      And it is not known if they have systems like Nebo SUV or Kolchuga or other passive sensors.

      Delete
    3. We, the public, do not have a definitive answer of what Syria does or does not have. As I said, "Since we do not have access to classified databases let us operate under the assumption that the equipment list on that page is correct." When dealing with IADS it's best to be conservative and with that in mind I included the SA-10/S-300 because they had a deal in place which publicly fell through but may still have happened out of view of the public.

      Delete
  16. Well , they showed everything new they've got : Pantsir, Buk, Pechora-2M and even the Onyx shore to ship missile.
    As we all know the SA-10 system consists of many vehicles so clandestine delivery without even israel noticing is unlikely.
    But the Syrians may have got some new Russian radars .

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is the real threat

    http://pro.moneymappress.com/MMRBSSH39/PMMRQ823/?iris=252778&h=true

    ReplyDelete
  18. People are way overcomplicating this. The F22s were already in the region, so it wouldn't be surprising that they would be used.

    and on the subject of the F22: it is a overpriced silver bullet that is not even the best fighter in the world.

    I doubt Syria has modernized air defense systems (which werent targeted. Very telling) let alone the capability to competently use them, although, taking the safe side, there is nothing that the F22 can do that a "4th gen" aircraft and EW could have done. A competent enemy with S300s or any other modern air defense system could easily counter radar stealth aircraft to begin with.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.