Rand Report

The F-22 does have IR signature reduction features, though I'm not aware how effective they are.

Click to expand...

Well, I can imagine that it will be pretty darn difficult to mask the heat coming out those massive turbofans.

and the F-22 has supercruise to keep you at arm's length.

Click to expand...

In close range the Flankers would engage afterburners for most of the dogfight.

I guess what really matters is by 2020, what upgrades will the F-22 have and what upgrades Chinese Flankers will have. Possibly, the Flankers may be upgraded with ECM capabilities just as powerful as those on the Raptors. Also, the Chinese may very well have advanced enough software and datalink technology to defeat the F-22's stealth. Considering such scenarios are a waste of time so no one can really predict what weapon systems each side will have so far in the future; maybe the PLAAF will even retire all fighters and deploy super stealthy robotic drones with supercruise, 3D TVC, and the ability to handle 40gs ;p

MrClean said:

And also keep in mind that the F-22's have been included in many military excercises, such as Red Flag. Most of which are all as realistic as possible without actually shooting eachother down. F-22's have been flying in excercises such as Red Flag for the past couple of years, in which teams of 2 F-22's would go up against as many as 16-18 F-15's and take them down without the F-15 pilots even knowing they were there. Sure the excercises were only simulated but as close to actual combat as possible, and it was only until recently that the first and only F-22 has ever been "shot down." And it was within visual range, sure it is all simulated but those stats don't lie, and since the Raptor is almost invisible to any kind of radar, you can't hit what you can't see right?

Nowadays most all dogfights are won before the pilots ever come close to seeing eachother, and probably even more so in the future. And the U.S. stealth technology is so far ahead of it's time that even overwhelming numerical superiority wouldn't be able to decide the outcome. That's not saying that either side would win, but since these planes have never encountered eachother in combat, and the Su-27 and all of it's derivatives are all still 4th generation fighters that are technically no better than any other conventional aircraft in it's class, such as the F-15 and F-16/18, it would take more than numbers alone to be able to decide the outcome of any potential future conflict.

And also don't forget that by that time the F-35 would be in service aswell. So I don't think that China would have too much of a numerical superiority against the U.S. family of fighters as a whole, from the F-15 all the way up to the F-35. And that's not even mentioning Taiwan's military capability. So who's to say that there would be so much of a numerical advantage/disadvantage?

Click to expand...

i kinda disagree
true that F-22 will have quality superiorities. the PLAAF have geographical and numeral advantages. also realistically war couldn't be counted based on mere simulations. the ROC air force indeed consists mainly of advanced western aircrafts, but J-10, Su-27, J-11 are good counters against the ROC air force. the J-10 is comparable to the 18's, while the Su-27, J-11s are superior in terms of manuverability against all aircrafts in the US inventory other than the F-22. the AA-11 archers are the most dangerous SRAAM, and in terms of BVR, the USAF need to first approach Taiwan, which by then most likely the PLA were hours into the campaign and seized the coast across the strait. F-35 isn't built for true air superiority, while ROC dont really have anything superior to the Su-27 at this moment.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

In close range the Flankers would engage afterburners for most of the dogfight.

Click to expand...

And in close range the Raptor can do the same. However, afterburner uses a lot of fuel, and the Flanker would be range and endurance restricted if it did use afterburner.

Too Far Away

Mr T said:

This report is not especially helpful given that it is highly unlikely the US would be able to rely on only a handful of F-22s. Where is Kaneda in this equation?

Click to expand...

The way that I read the article in Flight International (flightglobal being their magazine's website) is this:

The US currently has no plans to station F-22s out of Kadena (Japan) on a permanent basis. This would make the lone squadron in Guam the only force available to respond to a crisis in the Far East . . . and quite frankly Guam is just too far away.

The reason why the US was limited to six F-22 Raptors in this scenario, is that this is all that they can support on-station at one time, given that they have to fly all the way from Guam and back. In other words, as long as the US has no plans to station the F-22 closer to potential hot spots, it won't matter how much better it is than the F-15. It won't make a meaningful impact on the scene of battle.

I read this study as an argument for stationing at least a squadron strength of F-22s out of Kadena at all times. That of course, means that the US needs to buy more F-22s.

And in close range the Raptor can do the same. However, afterburner uses a lot of fuel, and the Flanker would be range and endurance restricted if it did use afterburner.

Click to expand...

From what I have heard, Raptors cannot reach a certain speed due to the heat-sensitivity of the radar absorbent paint that they employ. Also in this case, range and endurance will clearly be in China's favor; it can even enjoy a large numerical superiority in tanker aircraft.

MrClean said:

And also keep in mind that the F-22's have been included in many military excercises, such as Red Flag. Most of which are all as realistic as possible without actually shooting eachother down. F-22's have been flying in excercises such as Red Flag for the past couple of years, in which teams of 2 F-22's would go up against as many as 16-18 F-15's and take them down without the F-15 pilots even knowing they were there. Sure the excercises were only simulated but as close to actual combat as possible, and it was only until recently that the first and only F-22 has ever been "shot down." And it was within visual range, sure it is all simulated but those stats don't lie, and since the Raptor is almost invisible to any kind of radar, you can't hit what you can't see right?

Nowadays most all dogfights are won before the pilots ever come close to seeing eachother, and probably even more so in the future. And the U.S. stealth technology is so far ahead of it's time that even overwhelming numerical superiority wouldn't be able to decide the outcome. That's not saying that either side would win, but since these planes have never encountered eachother in combat, and the Su-27 and all of it's derivatives are all still 4th generation fighters that are technically no better than any other conventional aircraft in it's class, such as the F-15 and F-16/18, it would take more than numbers alone to be able to decide the outcome of any potential future conflict.

And also don't forget that by that time the F-35 would be in service aswell. So I don't think that China would have too much of a numerical superiority against the U.S. family of fighters as a whole, from the F-15 all the way up to the F-35. And that's not even mentioning Taiwan's military capability. So who's to say that there would be so much of a numerical advantage/disadvantage?

Click to expand...

firstly those statistics are BS, 2 F-22 dont have enough AAM to take down that many fighters, and if they went down to cannons Su-27 can outmanuver F-22. F-22 aren't invisible and are still dectectable to radar, the invisible term is partly true, partly marketing talk and partly fear factor. Its stealthier then normal fighters but not a true stealth platform. Numbers do count, true that F-22 has TVC but stealth platforms have limits and their design. J-10/J-11 within visual range have a good chance 1-on-1.

With China airspace its SAMS are also a threat. True USAF have F-16,F-15,F-18, and so do the ROCAF with F-16. But large number of ROCAF are not currently flight worthy. And not a larger percentage of USAF fighters are within reach of Tawain. China are closer to their own waters so they have shorter reach to refuel while USAF closest refuelling point is Japan or the naval carrier. But naval carrier will be in combat by PLAN. J-10/J-11 will be the muscle with J-8 launching AAM from distance as the missle truck.

F-35 aren't that manuverable and are pretty heavey. They arent designed as well as the J-10/J-11/F-15/F-22 for air fights, and they arent in service nor will they be in larger numbers such as the F-22.

China wants to end the fight before USA gets any where close to the combat field, but in the end lets never hope that China will face USA in war, or that their will ever be a war fullstop.

PrOeLiTeZ said:

firstly those statistics are BS, 2 F-22 dont have enough AAM to take down that many fighters, and if they went down to cannons Su-27 can outmanuver F-22. F-22 aren't invisible and are still dectectable to radar, the invisible term is partly true, partly marketing talk and partly fear factor. Its stealthier then normal fighters but not a true stealth platform. Numbers do count, true that F-22 has TVC but stealth platforms have limits and their design. J-10/J-11 within visual range have a good chance 1-on-1.

With China airspace its SAMS are also a threat. True USAF have F-16,F-15,F-18, and so do the ROCAF with F-16. But large number of ROCAF are not currently flight worthy. And not a larger percentage of USAF fighters are within reach of Tawain. China are closer to their own waters so they have shorter reach to refuel while USAF closest refuelling point is Japan or the naval carrier. But naval carrier will be in combat by PLAN. J-10/J-11 will be the muscle with J-8 launching AAM from distance as the missle truck.

F-35 aren't that manuverable and are pretty heavey. They arent designed as well as the J-10/J-11/F-15/F-22 for air fights, and they arent in service nor will they be in larger numbers such as the F-22.

China wants to end the fight before USA gets any where close to the combat field, but in the end lets never hope that China will face USA in war, or that their will ever be a war fullstop.

Click to expand...

1. I don't see why not. 2 F-22's vs 16-18 other fighters. The two F-22's have a collective total of 12 AIM-120's and 4 AIM-9's. 16 missiles right there. Add the 20mm cannon, you can probably wax 1 fighter with the 480 rounds in the gun. All of this plus the fact that you probably never saw the F-22 coming.

2. The only times the F-22 was 'shot down' in exercise was due to a mulligan; a enemy fighter just happened to re-spawn, and placed his gun sights on one. While that fighter respawned and nailed one F-22, his wingmen were all shot down multiple times.

3. The F-22 is also a surveillance platform; it has a excellent radar and datalink capability, and has acted as a sort of a mini-AWACS to other non-stealthy aircraft, helping guide other aircraft into better positions to gain an advantage.

4. The F-22 on radar is about the size of a small bird. Easily small enough to merge into random clutter. This aircraft is designed for initial penetration into heavily defended airspace and achieve air dominance. That's why it is called an air dominance fighter, not an air superiority fighter. Just one can ruin someone's day and put a real wrench into someone's plans.

5. Chinese SAM's cannot cover Taiwan effectively; it would be at the edge of the range of current SAM systems in use and in development, and would have a low hit probability, plus you have both friendly and enemy aircraft operating in a not very large airspace. The risks of a friendly fire incident is extremely high for SAM batteries in these circumstances.

Not to mention that known SAM sites would be selected as targets for initial strikes; US doctrine in the past couple of years has been to degrade enemy air defence and C&C systems first to throw the enemy into confusion and degrade their ability to respond effectively followed by strikes against logistics, followed by strikes against military units. Destroying or degrading one's ability to achieve situational awareness and be able to fight effectively is a skill the US has honed over the years.

Leaked Copy of Rand Report

The attached link at Flight International's website contains the Rand Corporation report that has set off this, as well as several other discussions regarding current USAF strategy and focus on the F-22 and F-35:


A lot of interesting details to wade through.

Guys, I think all of you are missing something. Chinese land-based high power laser and coil guns. These weapons can then be guided by super-huge land based fire-control radar.
This idea might sound absurd at first, but I think it's only logical that the PLA has allocated, since cold war, a more than proportinate amount of resources into developing these weapons, to what the US does, realising that if they allocate theresources at hand in similar proportions, they would be behind in all fields for the half century.

WRT to the F-22, network informationalizing existing planes like Su-27s or Mig-29s or even F-15s for that matter can produce similar effects of F-22s passive interception, even with the lower level of stealthiness of older platforms. This can work to ensure that attempts by US forces to conduct a decapitation strike like the Second Iraq war can be nullified by active defense operations. Better yet, tie it also to AAM equipped drones for better coverage.