F-22s and Typhoons

[Sequoia]

This thread is not to lament that they are not in the game but to discuss whether they would have been used in our hypothetical Syrian war in the late spring of 2008, especially in an air to ground role. My belief is yes, they would have been used to acheive air superiority over Syria but their use in a direct ground support to front line troops would have been very limited. Your views?

[BlackMoria]

I am doubtful the F-22 would have had any role in our hypothetical war. The F-22 still has not seen any operational deployment anywhere but the US for homeland defence. The aircraft has been plagued with a boondoogle of problems, resulting in the grounding of the entire fleet of aircraft at times.

My assessment is the aircraft is too expensive and too much of hangar queen to risk in 'moving mud' operations in our hypothetical war in Syrian. Despite a chance to 'blood' the aircraft in Libya, that idea was nixed and the aircraft remains a prom princess for the photo op but too much a diva to get it's hands dirty bombing Khadafi's forces - and this is 2011. It seems the F22 is destined to be the bridesmaid but never the bride for a shooting war.

The Typhoon most likely would have seen action in the conflict but it capabilities are not so advanced to matter from a game point of view. Air defence isn't modelled so it quasi-stealth capabilities really have no bearing on the game and it's payload capacity isn't much different from already deployed contemporary aircraft already reflected in the game. But speaking from a operational viewpoint, if the European nations which had them in 2008 would have bought them along to participate in the conflict.

[Dietrich]

Not that I'm any sort of TACAIR grog, but in addition to the reasons BlackMoria mentioned, the F-22 probably wouldn't be deployed to the hypothetical Syrian war because the USAF already has F-15Cs that can handle the air superiority mission sufficiently well, even aside from the fact that most other USAF/USN fighters are also quite capable in that role.

[black_prince]

The Typhoon is actually included in the British module. I doubt it would have been used in Syria in 2008 though. The first Typhoon squadron only becam operational in mid 2007 IIRC and even today, many air to ground weapons have still not been integrated on it due to budgetary restrictions. The Harriers and Tornados would have been much more capable in the air to ground role at the time, even if some capabilities were introduced early with the advent of a major conflict. Even now, in 2011, Typhoons were restricted to dropping Paveways over Lybia while the Tornados were able to employ a much more varied arsenal. As regards the air to air role, the US would have been able to handle this without the need to strain the still fragile logistics chain of the RAF's brand new fighter. The only reasons I can see for the Typhoon going to war in Syria would be:

1. To boost export sales as we would then be able to brand the Typhoon as being 'battle proven' (I could only see this happening if one of its competitors such as the Rafale were going to be deployed).

2. Overstrech of the Tornado and Harrier fleets due to other commitments.

As for the F-22, I agree with Dietrich and BlackMoria.

[Dietrich]

According to what I've read, OIF benefitted considerably from the nearly decade-long SEAD/no-fly-zone campaign conducted against Iraq in the form of Operation Southern Watch and Operation Northern Watch — by the time OIF actually launched, the Iraq integrated air defense system (IADS) was so thoroughly suppressed that pretty much all the SAM/AAA fire against Coalition fast movers was ballistic (i.e. without radar guidance).

I don't know how formidable or extensive the Syrian IADS would be in the 2008 of CMSF, but I reckon that the coalition SEAD effort would probably have to be rather more strenuous than it was immediately prior to and during OIF. Given that in CMSF's 2008 the Iraq and Afghanistan "wars" would (as far as I know, anyway) still concurrently be ongoing, the number of aircraft available for deployment against Syria would be fewer and would be probably be busier; on the other hand, thankfully the broader coalition support against Syria would take up some of that slack — in the SEAD role, for instance, the Luftwaffe could employ its Tornado ECRs.

Granted, such is in several ways beyond the scope of CMSF itself; but I, for one, find it interesting to contemplate not only the tactical ground aspect of the hypothetical invasion of Syria but also the strategic aspects and the air and sea forces involved. The more I read about OIF and its various aspects, the better sense I get of how the Syrian invasion (Operation Nemesis?) would probably be conducted, and the better I understand how to translate that into realistic and detailed scenarios for CMSF that I hope to eventually make.

[black_prince]

I don't think Syrian air defences would cause all that much trouble to be honest, although it may take a little longer to neutralise. They mostly consist of fixed batteries of SA-3s and SA-5s. The mobile stuff would cause a bit more of a headache but even Lybia had plenty of SA-8s which failed to have any succcess in the many months of air operations over that country. They do have a few batteries of S-300s which are mobile but they are huge, conspicuous systems which, once located could be knocked out with stand off weapons. Nonetheless, I imagine an S-300 hunt would take up alot of resources in the early stages of the campaign.

Another thorny problem would have been their arsenals of ballistic and quasi balistic missiles such as the M-600/Fatah-110 which uses an inertial guidance system with GPS updates and has an electro-optical terminal seeker. Syria has its own factory for this particular missile which would suggest they have them available in significant numbers. The only saving grace is that its range is only about 200kms so it is really more of a tactical weapon.

[Magpie_Oz]

The aircraft has been plagued with a boondoogle of problems,

hmmm let's see if I can remember my school days, 12 "Heaps" = 1 "Butt Load" , 8 "Butt Loads"= 1 "Boondoogle" ?

[Noltyboy]

The Typhoon is actually included in the British module. I doubt it would have been used in Syria in 2008 though. The first Typhoon squadron only becam operational in mid 2007 IIRC and even today, many air to ground weapons have still not been integrated on it due to budgetary restrictions. The Harriers and Tornados would have been much more capable in the air to ground role at the time, even if some capabilities were introduced early with the advent of a major conflict. Even now, in 2011, Typhoons were restricted to dropping Paveways over Lybia while the Tornados were able to employ a much more varied arsenal. As regards the air to air role, the US would have been able to handle this without the need to strain the still fragile logistics chain of the RAF's brand new fighter. The only reasons I can see for the Typhoon going to war in Syria would be:

1. To boost export sales as we would then be able to brand the Typhoon as being 'battle proven' (I could only see this happening if one of its competitors such as the Rafale were going to be deployed).

2. Overstrech of the Tornado and Harrier fleets due to other commitments.

As for the F-22, I agree with Dietrich and BlackMoria.

In a real "holy sh** they just dirty bombed us and were going to invade you" situation i think the taps would have been opened money wise and the weapons fast tracked through intergration if need be. Anything could happen in this situation. I do agree that it would a little unlikely however.

[BlackMoria]

hmmm let's see if I can remember my school days, 12 "Heaps" = 1 "Butt Load" , 8 "Butt Loads"= 1 "Boondoogle" ?

Heh Heh. Something like that.

What is remarkable is that one of the reasons for the one of the fleet grounding was rusty ejection seat rails. Rust? On an aircraft that has one of the highest maintenance hours to flight hours of any aircraft. Up until recently, the Canadian Navy was flying 35 year old Sea King helicopters and rust was never a reason for grounding the fleet and this in a maritime environment.

Another issue, the F22 surely must like the desert because during a operational deployment to Guam, the rain would cause shorts and failures in the sophisticated electronics, necessitating the removal of the squadron from Guam.... and this in a 'all weather' aircraft.

[Noltyboy]

Heh Heh. Something like that.

What is remarkable is that one of the reasons for the one of the fleet grounding was rusty ejection seat rails. Rust? On an aircraft that has one of the highest maintenance hours to flight hours of any aircraft. Up until recently, the Canadian Navy was flying 35 year old Sea King helicopters and rust was never a reason for grounding the fleet and this in a maritime environment.

Another issue, the F22 surely must like the desert because during a operational deployment to Guam, the rain would cause shorts and failures in the sophisticated electronics, necessitating the removal of the squadron from Guam.... and this in a 'all weather' aircraft.

Then again Guam isnt nice to high tech aircraft.

Hence this

[Sequoia]

The Typhoon is actually included in the British module.

You're absolutely right. I'd forgoten that. I suppose what I was thinking was that the Germans in the NATO module don't have the Typhoon even though IIRC they had it deployed before the RAF. I know there was discussion in the beta forums as to what to include or not. For example the NATO web page had and still does list the Boelkow BO 105 for German air support, but it was dropped late in development.

[black_prince]

In a real "holy sh** they just dirty bombed us and were going to invade you" situation i think the taps would have been opened money wise and the weapons fast tracked through intergration if need be.

That's true, it's been done in the past. In fact, the Typhoons were actually rushed through integration of Paveway in case they were required for service in Afghanistan. They achieved this capability in July 2008-just in time to catch the tail end of our hypothetical brawl in Syria. So I think its safe to say that at best they would have played a marginal role in the conflict.

[black_prince]

I was thinking was that the Germans in the NATO module don't have the Typhoon even though IIRC they had it deployed before the RAF. I know there was discussion in the beta forums as to what to include or not. For example the NATO web page had and still does list the Boelkow BO 105 for German air support, but it was dropped late in development.

I think your right about Germany recieving the Typhoon first. I believe Italy and Germany recieved the Typhoons first as their requirement for a new fighter was most urgent. The Typhoons were replacing Phantoms in the Luftwaffe and Starfighters in the AMI. I don't know what air-to ground capabilities the Typhoons had in German service in 2008. Shame we didn't get the Boelkow BO 105s as it would have been nice for the Germans to have their own attack helicopter support.