Military Review

F-22 Raptor over the Pacific

70
American naval or air exercises, which are held in abundance around the world, including in the Pacific Ocean, are rarely interesting. But sometimes among them something really interesting is noted.


During the Talisman Saber 2019 exercises, which took place at the end of July 2019 in Australia in the Coral Sea, the KC-30A (modification of the Airbus A330 MRTT) of the Australian Air Force refueled the American F-22 aircraft in the air. According to the commander of the 13th aviation US Air Force Expeditionary Colonel Barley Baldwin, this was the first such refueling.


F-22 refuel with KC-135


First question: why? Air refueling is usually carried out when distilling aircraft from the United States through the Pacific Ocean to air bases in Japan and South Korea. But here this option was clearly worked out, and the option of refueling during the combat use of the aircraft. Do Americans have few air bases that they would have to resort to refueling the F-22 in the air?

This incident attracted my attention with its inconsistency and strangeness. Gathering some other information and thinking about why the Americans would need such a thing, I came to the conclusion that we are talking about developing a new tactic for the battle for air superiority over a certain sea area.

Lack of databases


Americans really do not have airbases everywhere. One such place is the South China Sea. In the likely military confrontation between the United States and China, this sea is one of the most important, since maritime communications pass along it, which is expedient for the Americans to cut off. This has been said for a long time, as far back as 2011, plans had been published for the naval blockade of China.

Easy to say - hard to do. The PLA will throw its aircraft and its fleet to break the blockade, which from year to year are becoming more numerous. In addition, China has nearby its coastal airbases and reinforced fixed on the Paracel Islands. The Americans have their closest airbase, Fotthama on Okinawa, located 1900 km from this area. This is outside the combat radius of the F-22. Of course, you can speculate that there are the Philippines, and they can provide airfields. Only this issue is still debatable, and it may happen that the Philippines does not want to help the United States, so as not to deal with China. At Clark's old U.S. airbase near Luzon, closed in 1991, a small air force has been based since 2016 in the year: 5 A-10 aircraft, three HH-60 helicopters, and about 200 personnel. This is only a patrol, and he cannot complete serious military tasks. In addition, to base a secret and very expensive F-22, which has high hopes, in the Philippines is too much risk. Already from here it follows that the F-22 can operate in the South China Sea, it must be refueled in the air somewhere in the region east of Taiwan.

The numerical superiority of Chinese aviation


There is another important factor. In recent years, China has significantly increased the number of its aircraft, and can now put up to 600 modern aircraft on the theater of the Yellow, East China and South China Seas. The Chinese also have a large network of air bases and airfields, which allow these air forces to maneuver and concentrate them in one place or another. For the Americans, the combat radius of aircraft based on existing air bases captures only the northern part of this region.


This diagram shows that China has six first-class air bases on the north coast of the South China Sea


The USA has only about 400 modern aircraft now, and they can send only a part of them to the Pacific Ocean, probably 200-250, taking into account aircraft carriers. Already this gives almost three-fold numerical superiority of the PLA Air Force in the air, that is, there is a chance that Chinese aviation can defeat the American, seize air supremacy, and then it will be impossible to talk about any blockade of China.

In the USA, of course, they combed themselves. But since they can’t catch up with Chinese aviation by number, the idea arose to put on a qualitative superiority. US Air Force Pacific Commander Charles Brown said in April 2019 that by 2025 there would be more than 200 F-22 and F-35 aircraft, his own and his allies, in that region.



However, this idea was not as simple to implement as it initially seemed. There are too few airbases, and this entire aviation group not only could not operate in the South China Sea, but would also be crowded at several air bases, which would make it extremely vulnerable. Moreover, China began to practice missile attacks on air bases and aircraft carriers with medium-range missiles. Even the partial success of such a missile attack could dramatically shift the balance of power in favor of China and enable it to seize air supremacy.

A Negro with four generals stars and his subordinates put their brains on and put forward the option that we are discussing now.

Hit - run away


In general, this is the tactic of ace Luftwaffe Erich Hartmann: "Hit - run." Hartmann scored his 352 victory in a very simple way. He did not climb into the landfill and turns, but chose a separate target, usually a weak pilot, who is clearly visible on the flight, dived at him from the sun, hit and immediately went to a height and to the side. The tactics are very effective and quite safe for the ace, however, its military expediency is also very doubtful. At the very least, it’s going to paint a striped plane.

The Americans took the same tactic with some modifications. The goal of Hartmann and General Brown with his pilots is to knock out the enemy (in this case, the PLA Air Force) with more of the best aircraft so that you can then finish off the remaining carrier-based aircraft. They have no choice, because a head-on battle in such unfavorable conditions can end in their defeat.

Their main calculation is made on the F-22 - AN / APG-77 radar, whose instrumental range is 593 km, and the detection range in stealth mode, that is, with the help of difficult to detect weak pulses, is 192 km. The latest AIM-120D missile has a launch range, according to reports, up to 180 km. That is, the F-22 pilot is given information about the presence of the enemy in a certain area, he must come up, radar in stealth mode, then attack with missiles and immediately leave. The last paragraph is all the salt of the new tactics. F-22 on a theater in the South China Sea should be suitable for an attack from the ocean and after the attack go to the same place where a tanker is waiting for it. Chinese planes, even if they find it, will not be able to pursue because of a limited supply of fuel, and the F-22 will fly to its air tanker, refuel and go to its air base. The ferry range exceeds 3000 km, which allows refueling far in the ocean, beyond the reach of Chinese interceptors. KC-30A can deliver 65 tons of fuel at a distance of 1800 km from the base, with the possibility of returning to the base. A refueling aircraft can refuel X-NUMX F-8 aircraft. In addition, KS-22A can take fuel in the air from another tanker, that is, it is fundamentally possible to transfer fuel from plane to plane through the aircraft, thereby ensuring either the actions of aircraft at a distance of several thousand kilometers from the air base, or ensuring their long-term presence in the air .


By the way, here are the capabilities of this aircraft. Australian Air Force KC-30A refueling US Air Force Globemaster


This circumstance allows the F-22 to operate from air bases in eastern Japan and from Australia, as well as, if really needed, from Alaska and Pearl Harbor (8,5 and 9,4, respectively, thousands of kilometers to the South China Sea). Let's not forget that in the USA there is an S-3 carrier-based aircraft with a modification of a tanker that can refuel one F-22 in the air. That is, refueling is possible not only from coastal air bases, but also from aircraft carriers in the open ocean.

In my opinion, the idea is quite original and feasible. Of course, one can hardly expect that with such bites from afar, Americans will be able to cope with all of the latest Chinese aircraft. For any tactic, you can develop a counter-tactic, both nullifying the enemy’s efforts, and leading him into a trap, under attack.

But all the same, the Americans get one significant advantage from this: the very ability to conduct battles in the air at very remote theater stages. Even if the Chinese make a missile attack at their nearby air bases in Japan and South Korea, they will still have the opportunity to use airplanes over the waters of the South China Sea.
Author:
70 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Amateur
    Amateur 12 August 2019 05: 48
    -12
    This circumstance allows the F-22 to operate from air bases in eastern Japan and from Australia, as well as, if really needed, from Alaska and Pearl Harbor (8,5 and 9,4, respectively, thousands of kilometers to the South China Sea). Let's not forget that in the USA there is an S-3 carrier-based aircraft with a modification of a tanker that can refuel one F-22 in the air. That is, refueling is possible not only from coastal air bases, but also from aircraft carriers in the open ocean.

    Did they also make a flush airplane? Or the F-22 pilot will write / poop into a diaper, and then shoot down Chinese planes in a dashing attack. True, the pilot also has a positive factor. He can always declare: "I shit before the start of the air battle" wassat
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 12 August 2019 08: 50
      +5
      Quote: Amateur
      Did they also make a flush airplane? Or the F-22 pilot will write / poop into a diaper, and then shoot down Chinese planes in a dashing attack. True, the pilot also has a positive factor. He can always declare: "I was sore before the air combat" wassat

      the Americans, it seems, even in WWII equipped some fighters with urinals. The P-47 was definitely there. And all the others, excuse me, as necessary. What were the Zero pilots doing when they were at their maximum range in the battle for Guadalcanal? Yes, and our main long-range bomber Il-4 could hang in the air for hours, and there is no more space in the pilot's cabin than in a fighter, and there is no co-pilot.
      1. Amateur
        Amateur 12 August 2019 09: 01
        -8
        Both the "zero" and the Il-4, Pe-8, even the Er-2 had actually open cockpits, i.e. with a "draft".
        And for 10 hours in a pressurized cabin in a wet diaper, there will be a smell, like near a Soviet beer hall.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 14 August 2019 11: 31
      0
      The pilot will fly as long as required. Its' his job. For inconvenience will add a bonus)
  2. Prometheus
    Prometheus 12 August 2019 05: 48
    0
    And if the Chinese try to bring down the refueling machine? How difficult is it, considering the interfering American F-22s?
    1. svp67
      svp67 12 August 2019 06: 04
      +13
      Quote: Prometheus
      And if the Chinese try to bring down the refueling machine?

      You need to know the area where it will be located and for about time, and most importantly, have a means of such destruction, a conventional MANPADS here may not be suitable. But if they succeed, then of course they will achieve some kind of effect, although it must be understood that the United States has a lot of such refuelers and they will obviously duplicate their actions in such a case.
      In general, this is the tactic of the Luftwaffe ace Erich Hartmann: "Hit - run away." Hartmann racked up his 352 wins in a very simple way. He did not climb into the dump and turns, but chose a separate target for himself, usually a weak pilot, who is clearly visible from the flight, dived at him from the sun, beat him and immediately went to the height and to the side. The tactics are very effective and quite safe for the ace, although its military expediency is also highly questionable.
      Actually, this tactic was invented in the days of WWI and the Germans called it "the blow of the eagle", we call it "the blow of the falcon." And similar tactics were used by many aces of that war. The same Pokryshkin. But the main thing is that the same Hartmann managed to destroy up to five of our Il-2s in a couple of sorties, approaching them with a "pistol shot" and destroying his cockpit with a short burst of cannons. And whoever said what, but he was an excellent pilot and a strong fighter, but on the wrong side.
      1. andrewkor
        andrewkor 12 August 2019 06: 31
        +6
        The best Ases had the appropriate training. Hartman studied for two years from 1940 to 1942. Ivan Nikitich Kozhedub even longer from 1940 to 1943. But both miraculously survived the first sorties!
        1. Kusja
          Kusja 12 August 2019 06: 59
          +1
          Uhartman also maman was a flight instructor ...
          1. yehat
            yehat 12 August 2019 10: 32
            +1
            if not for Goering’s stupid adventure with the battle for Britain,
            then the Lufwaffe by 1941 would have been 1800-2000 more experienced pilots.
            draw conclusions ...
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 12 August 2019 17: 26
              +2
              Quote: yehat
              if not for Goering's stupid adventure with the battle for Britain

              Well, if not for Hitler’s stupid adventure with Barbaross’s plan, a lot of things in the world would be different.
              1. yehat
                yehat 12 August 2019 17: 47
                0
                there was no stupidity. Here intelligence was deficient, for which Canaris was fired.
                Hitler made a number of inadequate decisions due to misinformation.
                In particular, before preparing the Barbaross plan, they were told that the USSR was half as weak as it was real and at the same time he was completely sure that after the attack on the USSR England would immediately offer peace. Given these points, Hitler's calculation of the blitzkrieg to the Urals was quite feasible. Moreover, the Wehrmacht actually completed the first part of the plan.
                1. Revolver
                  Revolver 12 August 2019 22: 29
                  0
                  Bismarck warned him not to fight with the Russians, let alone on 2 fronts, and Wilhelm’s sad experience confirmed it. No, he is the most intelligent and brilliant. So he considered himself the most intelligent and ingenious until he reached the ampoule with cyanide.
                  1. yehat
                    yehat 13 August 2019 10: 15
                    0
                    Hitler for some reason believed that there was no front with England + the USA
                2. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 12 August 2019 23: 37
                  0
                  "and at the same time he was completely sure that after the attack
                  England will immediately offer peace to the USSR "////
                  -----
                  While Churchill publicly insulted and ridiculed Hitler
                  in your speeches?
                  After Hitler lost the "Battle of England"?
                  The British calmed down and began to bomb Germany themselves.
                  Production of combat aircraft in England as early as 1940
                  exceeded the German and steadily exceeded until the end of the war.
        2. Pete mitchell
          Pete mitchell 12 August 2019 21: 39
          +1
          Hartman went to the front in the spring of '42 and was nicknamed "Bubi" for his youthful appearance. A talented man fell into the hands of good instructors, later brought young pilots into battle, was shot down 16 times, by the end of the war he commanded JG52 - the forge of the luftwaffe ases. He handed over JG52 to the Americans, who surrendered everything to the Soviet troops - he never forgave this betrayal of the Amers, which he never concealed. Honestly served his top ten, did not cooperate. He returned home, received the rank of colonel, a salary - a person was in the service, he received a corresponding position. One of the reasons for leaving the service was that he did not hesitate to oppose the implantation of amerovskoy ideas in the luftwaffe, specifically the F-104. Bright personality.
          Even Western historians noted the identity of his "battle formula" with Pokryshkinskaya .., where are the amers, let the story be read
      2. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 12 August 2019 08: 56
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        conventional MANPADS here may not be suitable

        Yeah. May not fit. But here it is all about tactics.
        Given that refueling takes place far above the sea, you must throw in the alleged area of ​​the Chinese with MANPADS in inflatable boats with a weekly supply of food. By parachute or from submarines. Well, sort of like mining laughing
        1. svp67
          svp67 12 August 2019 10: 59
          +1
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          it is necessary to throw in the alleged area of ​​the Chinese with MANPADS on inflatable boats

          Yeah, women are still giving birth, and the industry is still not churning out "tuziks"
      3. akarfoxhound
        akarfoxhound 12 August 2019 13: 09
        -3
        From the point of view of tactics - Hartman’s tactics are Labuden starting with the letter H. Fighter aircraft have two main tasks - covering their attack aircraft and preventing other people's attack aircraft. Performed by maintaining the combat order of the bombers (attack aircraft). Bp collapsed, shot down the leader, the group disintegrated, dropped bombs into the fields - the fighter used the mission. But Hartman ALWAYS beat the extreme follower, the group could not immediately notice his absence. Kozhedub during free hunting, too, did not score points, like Fritz, he scored. He attacked, crumbling the shock groups. And for general information: the British, about 30 years ago, drove the data of world aces onto a computer. There was everything, and the number of battles, the number of shot downs, the performance of a combat mission by the number of sorties, the number of combat receptions (speaking on the collective farm :) and so on. Among Britons, Ivan Kozhedub, who won 2 years, was in the first place.
        Well, Hartman, like Rudel, who suddenly burned more than 500 of our tanks, is nothing more than Goebbels' artificially inflated product.
        P.S. Hello from the Air Force! Happy holiday to all!
    2. Prometheus
      Prometheus 12 August 2019 10: 57
      +4
      Who should I be to minus me for clarifying questions ...
      1. Oleg Zorin
        Oleg Zorin 12 August 2019 16: 33
        +1
        I fixed the injustice wink .
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 12 August 2019 17: 28
        0
        Quote: Prometheus
        What you need to be to minus me

        So pluses are necessary? Take it, I’m not sorry.
        1. Prometheus
          Prometheus 13 August 2019 12: 25
          +1
          This is not the case)
          After all, people usually rate those comments that coincide (+) with their opinion or contradict (-) their point of view. And there was just a common question from the category "explain to me if anyone knows." And I was surprised that nonjudgmental judgment was criticized. Although everything is possible on our site hi laughing
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 14 August 2019 11: 33
      0
      The tanker will fly at a distance, with the cover of the wing of an aircraft carrier.
      And offshore, the number of modern ships (and especially aircraft carriers) is not in favor of the Chinese Navy.
  3. armata_armata
    armata_armata 12 August 2019 06: 47
    +8
    The US has about 400 modern aircraft now, and they can send only a part of them to the Pacific Ocean, probably 200-250, taking into account aircraft carriers. This already gives almost three-fold numerical superiority of the PLA air force in the air

    Of course, I wildly apologize, but with all my love for China, but the United States has one Navy with about 500 18E / F, which can be delivered by 5-6 aircraft carriers without any problems ... I don’t think that J-11 and J-10 will have overwhelming superiority over them. And this is without taking into account land bases
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 12 August 2019 09: 08
      +1
      Quote: armata_armata
      Of course, I wildly apologize, but with all my love for China, but the United States has one Navy with about 500 18E / F, which can be delivered by 5-6 aircraft carriers without any problems ...

      Excuse me, how far can American AOGs safely approach the Chinese coast?
      The PLA Navy can now almost on equal terms play with the American fleet in the Pacific theater of operations.
      1. Cyrus
        Cyrus 12 August 2019 11: 38
        -3
        Rare nonsense however.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 14 August 2019 11: 36
        0
        Let’s say, they’ll come closer to And they will cut pieces (aircraft carriers) at a speed of 50 km / h.
        You can also compare the number of modern warships on both sides. This is the question of the possibility of the PRC to compete on an equal footing in the ocean.
        You have to be realistic.
  4. ares1988
    ares1988 12 August 2019 07: 22
    +10
    And what types of aircraft (600 for the PRC and 400 for the United States) the author considers "modern ??
    1. wehr
      12 August 2019 22: 30
      -1
      The US Department of Defense report to Congress did not specify the types.
      1. ares1988
        ares1988 13 August 2019 06: 26
        +1
        In that report, it was said that the PRC had 600, and the United States had 400 "modern" aircraft? Because there are no references to sources in the article itself - could you share a link to that report?
  5. Ros 56
    Ros 56 12 August 2019 08: 29
    -8
    Striped is better to come together with the Chinese hand to hand, although they will know where they died. soldier
  6. Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy 12 August 2019 08: 37
    0
    Interestingly, what about the Chinese with tankers?
  7. rocket757
    rocket757 12 August 2019 08: 59
    0
    There are not many countries that are able to defend their territory when attacked by the enemy himself .... however, there are not many strong attackers!
    Both of them will be lost in packs!
    It all depends on who will join these flocks ???
  8. Undecim
    Undecim 12 August 2019 09: 05
    +12
    An article from the series "Ostap suffered".
    The author considers the development of the interaction between the US Air Force and the Australian Air Force in the framework of joint exercises to work out this interaction and intended, illogical.
    But the actions of fighters with a combat radius of 750 km from Alaska and Pearl Harbor (respectively 8,5 and 9,4 thousand kilometers to the South China Sea) in the opinion of the author is an idea quite original and workable. .
    For the author’s information, the ferry range is the flight range in the absence of a combat load with a fuel reserve determined by limitations on the strength of the aircraft.
    Thus, this term does not apply to a sortie.
    In this case, we can talk about a flight range of 2800 km with four hanging tanks in one direction. Accordingly, the combat load is minimal.
    And even in this version, only when flying to the mission execution area, the aircraft will need four refueling and ten hours of time, since the indicated range is feasible at a cruising speed of 850 km / h. If you fly faster, the number of refueling increases.
    On the way back, there will be no more suspended tanks, so refueling is needed for about 8. And another 10 hours "on the road". I would like to know from the author how he envisions a pilot capable of flying a fighter for XNUMX hours.
    And another tip to the author is to get acquainted with the list of the US and Chinese air forces at least on Wikipedia.
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 12 August 2019 11: 39
      -7
      So, what is next ? read the story first and then write nonsense.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 12 August 2019 13: 42
        +6
        Mom did not teach you in childhood that poking strangers is not good, is it rudeness?
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 12 August 2019 21: 51
      0
      Quote: Undecim
      An article from the series "Ostap suffered".

      In this case, we can talk about a flight range of 2800 km with four hanging tanks in one direction. Accordingly, the combat load is minimal.
      And even in this version, only when flying to the mission execution area, the aircraft will need four refueling and ten hours of time, since the indicated range is feasible at a cruising speed of 850 km / h. If you fly faster, the number of refueling increases.
      On the way back, there will be no more suspended tanks, so refueling is needed for about 8. And another 10 hours "on the road". I would like to know from the author how he envisions a pilot capable of flying a fighter for XNUMX hours.
      And another tip to the author is to get acquainted with the list of the US and Chinese air forces at least on Wikipedia.


      But how did the Americans bomb Libya in 86 - do you know?
      from 21.00 p.m. April 14 to 11.00 p.m. April 15 is not just a continuous flight, but a sortie with the passage of a very large part at an altitude of 60 meters. bombing in the conditions of counteraction of anti-aircraft artillery.
      There the route was almost 12000 kilometers ...
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 12 August 2019 22: 22
        +2
        I am aware of how the Americans conducted the "Eldorado Canyon". And you should read it.
        The distance from the Lakenhit airbase in England to the target was 5200 km. Round trip 10400. This is somewhat less than the 17000 and 18800, which the author offers.
        The time it took F 111 to get to the goal was 6,5 hours.
        Overcome the difference between F111 and F22, I hope for yourself.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 12 August 2019 22: 40
          0
          Quote: Undecim
          I am aware of how the Americans conducted the "Eldorado Canyon". And you should read it.
          The distance from the Lakenhit airbase in England to the target was 5200 km. Round trip 10400. This is somewhat less than the 17000 and 18800, which the author offers.
          The time it took F 111 to get to the goal was 6,5 hours.
          Overcome the difference between F111 and F22, I hope for yourself.


          But it seems to me. which is more than 6 thousand if you look at the flight map ...
          Given that the route went around both Spain and Portugal 200 miles to the west ... and went to Gibraltar when they were 100 miles on the traverse of Funchal ...
          Well, why is the F111 more ergonomic for the pilot? capsule cabin?
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 12 August 2019 23: 18
            +2
            Judging by your comments, you are far from the issue under discussion.
            Can you imagine the difference between flying in an air-conditioned cabin without an anti-loading suit and flying in an anti-loading suit and breathing pure oxygen?
            Try reading the literature.
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 13 August 2019 23: 06
              0
              Quote: Undecim
              Judging by your comments, you are far from the issue under discussion.
              Can you imagine the difference between flying in an air-conditioned cabin without an anti-loading suit and flying in an anti-loading suit and breathing pure oxygen?
              Try reading the literature.



              And now it was interesting ...
              Which aircraft does it have and does not have an air-conditioned cabin?
              Which aircraft does it have and which does not have oxygen in the life support system?
              Which airplane doesn’t use anti-overload suits?

              I'd like to hear intelligible answers from the pathos superguru ...
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 13 August 2019 23: 08
                0
                Want is not harmful. Harmful - do not want to.
                1. SovAr238A
                  SovAr238A 13 August 2019 23: 09
                  +1
                  Quote: Undecim
                  Want is not harmful. Harmful - do not want to.


                  Those. ordinary drain ... in pathos sauce ...
                  The usual apelsim on pathos ...
                  Dummy ..
                  1. Undecim
                    Undecim 13 August 2019 23: 10
                    0
                    Yes, as you please, mister. I myself will choose who to answer, to whom not. Your thoughts on this issue are of little interest.
  9. Serg4545
    Serg4545 12 August 2019 09: 29
    -2
    // instrumental range 593 km ///
    And why is this information here?
    I’ll take a meter tape measure and start measuring my body with it. And then I will tell everyone that I have an instrumental length of 100 cm! And this will be true) But what relation to reality will it have ??

    // detection range in stealth mode, that is, with the help of difficult to detect weak pulses //
    Firstly, it is not known whether such a regime exists at all, whether it is possible to obtain a distinct picture in it, and in what conditions.
    It is also a question whether the means of STR / RTR can not detect such a signal. However, if so, then there is no difficulty in finalizing the STR / RTR so that they can see such a signal.
    And here the means of STR / RTR will have a huge advantage. Simply because it is much easier to detect radar radiation at the same distance. Than with the help of this radar to get a clear picture.
    To confirm my words, I propose to compare the weight characteristics and cost of aircraft STR / RTR and aircraft radars. The difference in favor of STR / RTR at times! and even orders of magnitude! And this despite the fact that the STR / RTR usually have a greater range than the radar.
    In general, using the stealth mode of the radar for the F-22 is a huge risk (even if such a mode really exists). For the enemy aircraft may have adequate STR / RTR. And then the F-22 will be spotted and shot down long before he sees anyone.
    1. yehat
      yehat 12 August 2019 10: 49
      0
      most likely, it will all come down to the fact that both sides will receive a bearing without a clear understanding of the distance of altitude, speed and the number of targets.
  10. Operator
    Operator 12 August 2019 10: 14
    -1
    If F-22, acting from Australia, engages in hostilities over the South China Sea, then China will launch a missile strike at the airfields of American tanker aircraft and F-22.

    The "stealth mode" of the radar at +190 km is a matter of faith laughing
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 12 August 2019 13: 21
      0
      That is, did I understand correctly that the United States cannot strike at Chinese air bases?
      1. Operator
        Operator 12 August 2019 14: 07
        -2
        If the United States could, then why would they need F-22 and refueling in Australia?
      2. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 12 August 2019 19: 57
        0
        I think not. Airstrikes on Chinese territory are aggression against China. And so - to impose sanctions, an embargo on oil supplies and the quarantine zone with a ban on swimming, as against Cuba in the 62nd. All decorum, noble. And China is afraid to shoot the United States for similar reasons. Even in Okinawa.
  11. yehat
    yehat 12 August 2019 10: 37
    0
    Quote: armata_armata
    one Navy about 500 18E / F, which without any problems can be delivered by 5-6 aircraft carriers

    an ordinary Nimitz class aircraft carrier can provide a grouping of up to 50 fighters (f18 or others) for several days. Now the United States is physically unable to use more than 4 aircraft carriers around the world. Assuming maximum concentration, the fleet will have no more than 200 fighter jets and do not forget that the operation time of the group will be limited, as well as the intensity of flights. And given the mandatory and active use of auxiliary aircraft, I think that the maximum that China will meet is a group of 150 fighters, approximately equal to the Chinese.
    But the question is - what for do Americans only fighter jets?
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 12 August 2019 13: 32
      -1
      Expand the judgment, why can't, when they can, etc.? For example, I am sure that the United States will deploy AUS in the amount of 5-6 AB + 3-4 UDC "Tarava" with 22 f-35s on board (you need to see the composition of their TF) + strategic aviation, about Berks and Tikondirogi with KR and SAM standard I I’m not even saying, so China is doomed in this fight.
      1. yehat
        yehat 12 August 2019 13: 35
        0
        vertical take-off planes are not serious.
        with range and load problems
        they are only suitable for defense orders.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 12 August 2019 23: 44
      +5
      "Now the United States is physically unable to use more than 4 aircraft carriers
      worldwide"////
      ----
      It is in peacetime mode: preventive repairs, shifts and crew rest
      etc. If a big war is coming, then all 10 will be involved, not one will remain at the base.
  12. yehat
    yehat 12 August 2019 10: 46
    0
    and who is aware of the refueling method in the USA?
    it is very different from ours - the refueling bar is rigid (we have a hose with a cone),
    some wings, our take-up rod sticks forward, and they have a hole on top of some cars
    how do they manage to dock there - it’s behind the pilot’s back
    at the same time, there are refueling rods very similar to ours.
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 12 August 2019 12: 57
      +4
      Quote: yehat
      how do they manage to dock there - it’s behind the pilot’s back

      So that the bar is controlled by the operator in the rear cabin of the tanker. The pilot's task is to keep the plane level.
  13. yehat
    yehat 12 August 2019 13: 19
    -3
    Quote: svp67
    The USA has a lot of such refueling tanks and they will obviously duplicate their actions in such a case.

    US begins to experience a noticeable shortage of tankers
    they are much smaller, especially in the near future, than they need.
    And in general, the idea of ​​this cunning Negro is obviously stupid
    just imagine what the cost of 1 launch of a rocket from afar.
    It’s impossible to win a conflict with such tactics; you can only create a couple of episodes for PR.
    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 12 August 2019 16: 18
      +5
      Why did you fantasize about the shortage of tankers in the United States? The United States has more than 400 such aircraft. In addition, the naval have the opportunity to fuel each other with their F-18s, and there will be 50 vehicles from the Allies. Those. in fact, for every 4-5 combat vehicles they have 1 tanker. Therefore, they can fly to anyone with the necessary forces and be in the air for as long as they like. This is not our Russia from 20 il-78 to the whole country.
  14. yehat
    yehat 12 August 2019 13: 26
    +3
    Quote: akarfoxhound
    like Rudel

    for all the fantastic characteristics of Rudel, can you name at least one other pilot who constantly bombed for 7 years literally everything that can be called a target?
    But he cuddled both tanks and bridges, and all the usual types of tactical targets, distinguished himself in attacking the battleship Marat and other ships, entered into an air battle with fighters more than once, shot him down many times.
    And about the number of tanks. He is one of the few who flew successfully on ju-87g with two guns for attack. Finally, look at the documentary footage of what experienced shrews did in 40-41.
  15. gregor6549
    gregor6549 12 August 2019 13: 46
    +2
    To be honest, article uv. Dmitry Verkhoturov was somewhat surprised. The author suggested that the main task of the US Navy and Air Force in the Pacific Ocean is to disrupt the lines of communication of China in the Pacific Ocean. For this, the United States allegedly needs to conquer air superiority over certain areas of the Pacific Ocean, and above all over those adjacent to the territory of China, and to achieve this superiority, they are going to send a certain amount of F22 directly into the mouth of the PLA. To suggest that the exercises were practicing the interaction of the US Air Force and Australia, including the development of air refueling of various types of aircraft, would apparently be too small for an article. For example, for Australia, a vital issue is not a violation of China's sea communications, but the protection of its own. In particular, Australia receives the lion's share of petroleum products from Singapore. For the United States, one of the main tasks in the Pacific region is also to provide reliable cover for its aircraft carrier groups from air strikes, especially since China has repeatedly threatened, in which case, to "accidentally" sink one two US aircraft carriers with its "aircraft carrier killer" ballistic missiles, allegedly capable of independently detecting AUG in the ocean, identify the aircraft carriers in these AUG and strike at them. After that, save the surviving sailors from sinking aircraft carriers and show the whole world how they, the Chinese, are not only strong, but also noble. It is assumed that such losses for the United States will be unacceptable and they, with their tail between their legs, will crawl away from China. At the same time, it is somehow forgotten that the United States has something to answer and this answer can lead to the 3rd World War. And the experience of Pearl Harbor also says something.
    In any case, he woke the Americans from hibernation, managed to quickly gain strength and take back everything that Japan thought to conquer and then force (though not without the help of the USSR) Japan to capitulate.
    What am I doing? And to the fact that the United States in the Pacific region (TAP) can have dozens of very different tasks, including the task of covering their l; their communications in the water and in the ocean, as well as covering the AWACS and U (not necessarily deck) aircraft, which, as a rule, they are in the air much longer than fighters with their regular refueling and are more noticeable and easier targets for enemy air defense and air forces. And here the ability of the US Air Force to refuel its aircraft in the air from its tankers and Allied tankers can play a very important role.
    In general, one can assume anything, but without knowing the real plans of the command of the US Air Force and Navy and their allies in the TAR, one can argue endlessly and with zero result. And there is a proposal not to replace the lack of these activities with an excess of enthusiasm and cesspoolism. Well, not the boys here finally gathered. Yes, and with the rules of the site it does not quite fit. Those. does not fit at all.
  16. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 12 August 2019 14: 25
    0
    And we still do not want to do refueling on the basis of the pass liner.
  17. Operator
    Operator 12 August 2019 14: 27
    0
    Quote: gregor6549
    In particular, Australia receives the lion's share of oil products from Singapore

    Not anymore - gas fields off the coast of Australia completely covered the country's demand for hydrocarbons and ensured the import of liquefied natural gas at the level of 90 million tons, making Australia the world leader last December.
    1. Operator
      Operator 12 August 2019 15: 07
      0
      Export, naturally.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 12 August 2019 15: 26
        -6
        Quote: Operator
        Export, naturally.

        And these same sheep farmers!
        Many of our status as an energy superpower does not give rest.
    2. gregor6549
      gregor6549 12 August 2019 15: 22
      0
      Yes, Australia has become one of the world leaders in gas exports, but gas has not yet replaced gas products and it is not known when it will replace it. She even dwells some thermal power plants with coal. And gas prices in Australia are very sensitive to the international situation and the world level of oil prices. And considering that rail transport in Australia is just beginning to develop and all the main cargo transportation within the country is carried out by road, and also that almost every family has a car in Australia, Australia's dependence on oil imports will remain for a long time to come. Those. she has something to protect in the event of a major conflict in the TAP. Another thing is that Australia has not enough strengths of its own and it has to enter into military alliances with other countries, including the United States. The same States are far from the last in the import of agricultural products and natural resources from Australia.
      1. Operator
        Operator 12 August 2019 15: 34
        0
        Well, firstly, cars run very well on gas, and secondly, no one bothers in the event of a military conflict to produce synthetic gasoline / kerosene from gas (which is technically much easier than coal)
        1. gregor6549
          gregor6549 12 August 2019 15: 52
          0
          Yes, some cars are equipped with gas cylinders there, which have to cover long distances every day, but most of the cars use gasoline or diesel fuel. And not all engines benefit from gas. This time. Secondly, "nobody interferes" and "done" are two big differences. As a rule, something is done when there is a solid demand for this “something” and there are people willing to invest a lot of money in the production of this “something”.
          Of course, you can also recall the machines of the 2 World War with gas-generating plants on wood, but this is already from great need and hopelessness. In the same Germany during the war, the need forced to engage in the production of synthetic fuel, but they could not cover all the needs of Germany.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 12 August 2019 23: 53
      +1
      Australia receives gasoline from Singapore. She has few of her
      oil refineries. And there are no strategic oil reserves.
      The Americans scold them for this.
  18. yehat
    yehat 12 August 2019 16: 24
    0
    Quote: arkadiyssk
    Why did you fantasize about the shortage of tankers in the United States? The United States has more than 400 such aircraft. In addition, the navy has the opportunity to fuel each other with their F-18s, and well, under 50 vehicles it will be from the allies

    because recently they began to convert the naval drone into a refueling tank just in connection with the shortage of refueling tanks (obsolescence and depreciation of the fleet)
    And to refuel a fighter from a fighter is not refueling, but garbage.
  19. yehat
    yehat 13 August 2019 10: 18
    -1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    If a big war is coming, then all 10 will be involved, not one will remain at the base

    you confuse the USA of the 40s today. Now the mobilization capabilities of this state are many times lower.
    Of course, by the time of war they would try to put more Aviks into operation, but about 10 at once, and even with a normal warrant, you only have to dream.