PDA

View Full Version : Cancelling the F-22 is Looking Smarter All the Time


SWOHFAL
January 05, 2011, 05:58
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808704576061674166905408.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

riffraff2
January 05, 2011, 06:19
F-22 is a waste of money. The F-35 on the other hand could replace everything we now have. We need something cause all our stuff is getting very old.

SWOHFAL
January 05, 2011, 07:31
F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter compared to what our enemies will have.

Ssarge
January 05, 2011, 08:23
The Obama admin has been talking about killing, delaying or cutting back on F35s.

DABTL
January 05, 2011, 08:28
The Pentagon Budget is sacred.

We need more carrier groups to hold more new planes so our enemies will have viable targets with the next generation of pilotless aircraft.

And, John Boehner needs that engine plant in Ohio really bad.

lew
January 05, 2011, 08:29
Originally posted by riffraff2
F-22 is a waste of money. The F-35 on the other hand could replace everything we now have. We need something cause all our stuff is getting very old.

You sure about that? The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. The F35 will have nowhere near its capabilities. Both are necessary.

richbug
January 05, 2011, 16:46
Originally posted by lew


You sure about that? The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. The F35 will have nowhere near its capabilities. Both are necessary.

But when you can buy the Chinese copy for $4 at Walmart, why would you build your own?

riffraff2
January 05, 2011, 17:34
Just who are we supposed to use the F-22 against???

Space Aliens maybe?? We don't need the F-22. Well, we don't need quite as many as the Military thinks we do anyway. Now we need lots and lots of F-35's. It will replace the Harrier, Hornet, Falcon and Eagle and probably the Warthog as well.

F-22's are no good against terrorists.

John Culver
January 05, 2011, 17:43
Originally posted by riffraff2
F-22 is a waste of money. The F-35 on the other hand could replace everything we now have. We need something cause all our stuff is getting very old.

The F-35 is a single engined piece of excrement specifically BECAUSE they want it to replace everything.

You CANNOT have one plane do it all.

You seriously thing that the F-35 can replace the the F-15, and the A-10, and the F/A-18, and the F-16, and the EA18 etc?

If we want to save money buy some brand new F-15 Silent Eagles, AESA RADARS, internal weapons bays, conformal fuel tanks, work great

And upgrade the A-10 as nothing can replace that piece of pure pleasure.

Blood of Tyrants
January 05, 2011, 17:58
Originally posted by DABTL
The Pentagon Budget is sacred.

We need more carrier groups to hold more new planes so our enemies will have viable targets with the next generation of pilotless aircraft.

And, John Boehner needs that engine plant in Ohio really bad.

If you want to talk pissing away money, your liberal, America hating Rats pissed away over $9 TRILLION in FOUR YEARS and $5.8 Trillion of it was borrowed from our grandchildren! And don't forget your god, Obastard, gave away anti-missile defense so that that the Russians can nuke us without worrying if their missiles will be shot down.

BTW, pilotless aircraft are EASY targets for any decent AA or SA missile. The only reason they have been so successful in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the piloted aircraft immediately established air superiority.

However, with passive radar, stealth technology is worthless. The F-22 and F-35 both were in development for about 15 years before the first aircraft wobbled into the air.

The next major war where both sides have the ability to put up a decent air force will be won by the first one that can eliminate the other's SA and AA capabilities. Missiles can take out the SA and piloted aircraft can take out the AA platforms but pilotless aircraft cannot do either.

gunnut1
January 05, 2011, 18:40
Originally posted by riffraff2
Just who are we supposed to use the F-22 against???

Space Aliens maybe?? We don't need the F-22. Well, we don't need quite as many as the Military thinks we do anyway. Now we need lots and lots of F-35's. It will replace the Harrier, Hornet, Falcon and Eagle and probably the Warthog as well.

F-22's are no good against terrorists.

So would you be happier if the military kept using 40 year old aircraft technology? I guess we could go back to bi-planes. The US is supposed to be on the leading edge of aircraft technology. The F22 and F35 are far superior to the current livery of aircraft. The F16 is a fine aircraft. So is the F15. But the technology is stone aged.

In order to maintain superiority, you have to keep changing the technology to stay ahead.


Everything must be changed at some point.

There are lots of reasons that the F35 is over budget. The main problem is the government keeps demanding more but wants Lockheed to add the goodies at the same price.

SWOHFAL
January 05, 2011, 18:50
Originally posted by riffraff2
Just who are we supposed to use the F-22 against???

Space Aliens maybe?? We don't need the F-22. Well, we don't need quite as many as the Military thinks we do anyway. Now we need lots and lots of F-35's. It will replace the Harrier, Hornet, Falcon and Eagle and probably the Warthog as well.

F-22's are no good against terrorists.

243 wasn't that many, and 187 is less, especially if we just crashed one.

0302
January 05, 2011, 18:59
Yeah...let's ditch the f-22 and go bury our heads up a horse's a$$ and hope all our enemies just quit being bad. Our troops deserve air superiority and the f22 is a tool our troops need now.

riffraff2
January 05, 2011, 19:05
Originally posted by 0302
Yeah...let's ditch the f-22 and go bury our heads up a horse's a$$ and hope all our enemies just quit being bad. Our troops deserve air superiority and the f22 is a tool our troops need now.

Against who?? Must be those space aliens again.

English Mike
January 05, 2011, 19:07
Originally posted by riffraff2
Just who are we supposed to use the F-22 against???

Space Aliens maybe?? We don't need the F-22. Well, we don't need quite as many as the Military thinks we do anyway. Now we need lots and lots of F-35's. It will replace the Harrier, Hornet, Falcon and Eagle and probably the Warthog as well.

F-22's are no good against terrorists.

THIS (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/01/05/2011-01-05_chinese_stealth_fighter_jet_photos_leak_online. html) for a start.
Then there's Russia - they aren't our friends either.

riffraff2
January 05, 2011, 19:15
You can't seriously believe we are going to get into a shoooting war with either China or Russia, do you??

SWOHFAL
January 05, 2011, 19:15
Sukhoi FGFA:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sTdiEaEJ9wI/0.jpg

SWOHFAL
January 05, 2011, 19:17
Originally posted by riffraff2
You can't seriously believe we are going to get into a shoooting war with either China or Russia, do you??

Russia, no.

China, maybe. Cold War? Almost certainly.

riffraff2
January 05, 2011, 19:31
It will be one strange cold war. We buy their stuff, they buy our debt, they quit buying our debt we don't buy their stuff and basically the whole world goes into a depression. The Chinese will most probably win because we will surrender.

Someone here has it in their 'signature'. Eventually no one is going to volunteer for the military anymore because the politicians are destroying this country from within. I wouldn't join up again.

English Mike
January 05, 2011, 20:43
Originally posted by riffraff2
You can't seriously believe we are going to get into a shoooting war with either China or Russia, do you??

Why not?

Do you think any of the current global flashpoints don't harbour the capability to escalate?
Do you think China's refusal to trade on a level playing field is anything less than economic warfare?
How about the rare earth embargo?
Russia is currently under the control of a bunch of gangsters with a burning desire to see the US humiliated. What happens when, not if, they overstep the mark?

The F-22 is not only a superb aircraft; it is also a deterrent in exactly the same way an SSBN is - only it is a sight more useful.

randy762ak
January 05, 2011, 21:43
Remember just before WW-II We had CRAP and the Japs had the best -We got our asses handed to us By the A6M Zero!!

I think China will use all that wally world money to build a next to none Military and them Start banging a big stick making threats especially over Taiwan !

Remember NAM with that turkey the F-4 Phantom -- No gun Right -Missles will do the job - hahah Got our asses handed to us again -- How bout that Thunderchief The THUD!!! all it had was fast -and wasnt worth a schite otherwise .!

Yeeaa we need to build a military that can send any threat to hell in a hand basket !!! and not just nukes !!!!

Blood of Tyrants
January 05, 2011, 22:16
Stealth technology has to do with shape and materials and less to do with the airframe and engines. I believe that if we had concentrated on modifying existing airframes, engines, control systems, radar, and incorporating stealth technology through material and gradual shape changes, we could have better aircraft than the F-22 and we could have had them much cheaper.

The V-22 was in development for OVER 20 YEARS and ran BILLIONS over cost and the aircraft STILL isn't anywhere near what was promised. The process where we award a company TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars just to develop the aircraft with very, very little expectation of a workable product for well over a decade has to change.

ftierson
January 06, 2011, 01:49
Originally posted by English Mike
The F-22 is not only a superb aircraft; it is also a deterrent in exactly the same way an SSBN is - only it is a sight more useful.

That's all right...

We're giving away our nuclear deterrence too...

Might as well be consistent...

Forrest

SWOHFAL
January 06, 2011, 05:02
Originally posted by riffraff2
It will be one strange cold war. We buy their stuff, they buy our debt, they quit buying our debt we don't buy their stuff and basically the whole world goes into a depression. The Chinese will most probably win because we will surrender.

Someone here has it in their 'signature'. Eventually no one is going to volunteer for the military anymore because the politicians are destroying this country from within. I wouldn't join up again.

I agree with both statements, but you never know when China will try to throw their weight around and things will get out of hand, with some limited engagements followed by diplomatic and economic retaliation. Taiwan is probably where it will start.

martin35
January 06, 2011, 08:04
We will never be totally prepared for the next war, pacifist won't let us,,,besides we are having some difficulty with our suicide bomber interception war. No F number is working well in that regard.

Abominog
January 06, 2011, 08:39
Originally posted by riffraff2
You can't seriously believe we are going to get into a shoooting war with either China or Russia, do you??


Not only do I believe it, but I'd bet money on war with China within the next 20 years.

SWOHFAL
January 06, 2011, 08:49
I feel soooooo much better:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12125566

:rolleyes:

chet
January 06, 2011, 10:12
Do we need to change how the MI complex works? You bet. BoT had some good points.


FYI-Our closest allies are reducing their air forces and/or eliminating their carrier based air forces. If there is a global war again, the US will almost certainly provide the bulk or the air and naval assets.

China and Russia are both producing top shelf designs. India proved they work against US targets and the USAF agreed. And they are all for sale on the open market.

The US no longer as airborne ASW, AARF, or heavy lift assets like it used to so I guess air superiority is no longer all that important anyway, huh?


Oh wait. I forgot. Chamberlain promised us peace in our time. That's still a go, right?

PARA FN FAL
January 06, 2011, 10:53
Even if we don't go to war with China or Russia we will encounter their aircraft in places like Iran, Pakistan and Venezuela.

0302
January 06, 2011, 12:34
Stealth aircraft knocked out the communication systems of the iraq's and saved a lot of American lives. If my son or daughter bothers to serve this country ( and the numerous a$$e$ that live here) I hope we can still manage to gain air superiority, not doing so would be criminal. Last I heard we killed or wounded a million or so chinamen during the korean war, so the Chinese have fought us before and still think they won. We are one generation away from losing air superiority. The marines are still flying helicopters from the 60/70's and the fixed wings are not much newer. China still plans to take possession of Taiwan, one way or the other. I suppose we wasted our money on all those m-1 Abrams tanks too, could of just used those cheaper m-60's.

Mark IV
January 06, 2011, 21:21
All academic.

I'd venture a guess that the next major war the US is engaged in will be on US soil, so air superiority will figure very little into it.

China nukes Taiwan and launches tactical and limited strategic nuclear strikes on the US, followed by every Mao-worshiping chinese restaurant coolie donning their PRC army uniform, picking up their AKs and linking up with each other to form their pre-assigned units ... not to mention what the muzzies and the south american dictators and drug lords have in mind for us

How many chinese are there in the US?

But the biggest threat to our security is the fifth column known as the US government and agencies like the state department who have been quietly installing communists in the government since FDR became president.

Joe McCarthy was right.

Rant off. Where's my expresso?

SWOHFAL
January 06, 2011, 21:37
Originally posted by 0302
Stealth aircraft knocked out the communication systems of the iraq's and saved a lot of American lives. If my son or daughter bothers to serve this country ( and the numerous a$$e$ that live here) I hope we can still manage to gain air superiority, not doing so would be criminal. Last I heard we killed or wounded a million or so chinamen during the korean war, so the Chinese have fought us before and still think they won. We are one generation away from losing air superiority. The marines are still flying helicopters from the 60/70's and the fixed wings are not much newer. China still plans to take possession of Taiwan, one way or the other. I suppose we wasted our money on all those m-1 Abrams tanks too, could of just used those cheaper m-60's.

We will never have the manpower China has, so we better have weapons that are better than our potential enemies'

homelandprotector
January 06, 2011, 22:37
WE could just buy those Chicom f-22's and save loads of cash. :D

SWOHFAL
January 06, 2011, 23:42
Originally posted by homelandprotector
WE could just buy those Chicom f-22's and save loads of cash. :D

Some of them will actually work.

easttex
January 07, 2011, 00:34
Originally posted by John Culver
And upgrade the A-10 as nothing can replace that piece of pure pleasure.


+1!!

John Culver
January 07, 2011, 02:24
Originally posted by SWOHFAL
I feel soooooo much better:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12125566

:rolleyes:

Same thing that is always said, usually right before what is years away happens.

chrsdwns
January 11, 2011, 15:41
F-35 was intended to be a low cost, high production rate strike fighter with decent LO, internal weapons and maneuverability at least at parity with an F-16 across the board.

It's a nice plane but the costs are so close to the F-22 that we might as well buy the F-22. Of course we can't do that because we have partners in the F-35 program and we won't sell the F-22 abroad.

F-22 capabilities read like something out of future technology science fiction novel. It's the plane we need for 21st century air superiority.

Evolving technology favors the F-22, not the F-35.

Mebsuta
January 11, 2011, 16:35
Originally posted by ftierson


That's all right...

We're giving away our nuclear deterrence too...

Might as well be consistent...

Forrest

I was about to say, I would counter China with submarines and strategic nukes.

We can't have MIRVs for land-based stuff anymore, so I would see if we have anything in the vault at Pantex from the Cold War days; the big 10-20 megaton warheads.

We rely on carrier groups, but if newer weapons which the Chinese have and will share make them obsolete, we would need something.

J. Armstrong
January 11, 2011, 18:12
The Eurofighter Typhoon is an excellent a/c that is handing our F15s and 16s their asses given equal pilots. It is relatively affordable and in production. The Brit pilots love it as do the US pilots who have flown it. So buy a bunch of 'em and/or license produce them here. Won't happen of course, due to "not invented here" syndrome. Damn shame.

The F22 is a great and necessary technological development, but its cost versus its likely applications means that only limited numbers are likely to be built. That is probably as it should be, but getting the right balance is sure gonna be touchy. We need to keep our development up to snuff for sure, but in a era of limited funds, you just can't "have it all" and conventional fighters are most likely to be the most useful in the widest range of foreseeable conflicts.

The F35 sure sounds like what we have done a dozen times before - try to spec an aircraft that will do "everything", and as a consequence we get an overly expensive, "underly useful" POS. I am hugely skeptical . Moreover, the different versions of the 35 have enough unique features that I question whether or not it saves any money over separate, dedicated "standard" and "S/VTOL" aircraft designs.

John Culver
January 12, 2011, 03:58
Originally posted by randy762ak
Remember just before WW-II We had CRAP and the Japs had the best -We got our asses handed to us By the A6M Zero!!



At least back then we had the ability to build things.

Now we have regulated most of our factories out of existence and sent them to?

China

Gearing up for war today, would be much harder, if not impossible, compared to back then, we have DESTROYED our industrial capability.

chet
January 12, 2011, 09:21
Originally posted by J. Armstrong
The Eurofighter Typhoon is an excellent a/c that is handing our F15s and 16s their asses given equal pilots. It is relatively affordable and in production. The Brit pilots love it as do the US pilots who have flown it. So buy a bunch of 'em and/or license produce them here. Won't happen of course, due to "not invented here" syndrome. Damn shame.

The Eurofighter is not a better aircraft than either the F 22 or F 35 or even the latest variants of in service F15 and F16's but these two sorely need a replacement.

Originally posted by J. Armstrong

The F22 is a great and necessary technological development, but its cost versus its likely applications means that only limited numbers are likely to be built. That is probably as it should be, but getting the right balance is sure gonna be touchy. We need to keep our development up to snuff for sure, but in a era of limited funds, you just can't "have it all" and conventional fighters are most likely to be the most useful in the widest range of foreseeable conflicts.


Careful. Nations have lost many wars by simply attempting to fight their last war a second time. Air war is a straight up arms race. "Conventional fighters" is simply a euphesism for "old airframes". The Russians and Chinese are at work and currently producing next generation fighters that can defeat the vast majority of our air forces now. Ask yourself: "who do they expect to be fighting and/or selling to?" Probably not Canada.

Originally posted by J. Armstrong
The F35 sure sounds like what we have done a dozen times before - try to spec an aircraft that will do "everything", and as a consequence we get an overly expensive, "underly useful" POS. I am hugely skeptical . Moreover, the different versions of the 35 have enough unique features that I question whether or not it saves any money over separate, dedicated "standard" and "S/VTOL" aircraft designs. [/B]

Here, you are spot on! If we look at our existing inventory, our greatest airframes were single service specs that were so great, the other branches opted in afterwards. "Jointness" is a curse and a HUGE part of false economy the MI has dealt out to the American public.

Again, the MI complex needs a serious enema from the public but that does not mean ending advancement.

Nature has taught us the best way not to get eaten is not to look like food.

J. Armstrong
January 12, 2011, 17:14
I'm hearing that the Typhoon is indeed viewed as significantly better than the F15, 16 ( NOT the 22 ! )by our pilots, primarily because the pilot workload is much lighter and it is easier to fly near its limits. I would certainly expect this given that both the F 15 and 16 are something like 40 year old designs. Again, note the caveat of "pilots of equall ability " - it is important.Maintainability is also alleged to be much better. I'm not privy to boatloads of this kind of info, obvviously, but a few personal contacts and much analysis in the aero and military press seems to confirm it. Anyway, we shall see.

I do not for a minute advocate sitting on our butts vis a vis a/c research and development. That would indeed be the kiss of death. What I am saying is that the cost of the F22 will severely limit the number that can be built, and that it is way overkill for more common war scenarios. Also, in an "ultimate" conflict where its' abilities are desireable, it is very possible that the ability to built the F22 might not keep up with losses due to the complexity of the airframe and systems. I also question whether it is even possible to build enough of them to meet ALL the needs Of any/all potential conflicts. It should not be ignored - we need it and the aerodynamic advances it brings, but we need to strike the balance between it and more "conventional" a/c that would perform the more numerous and likely conflicts such as those we have seen over the last decades. ( I hardly think using an F22 would be necessary or even wise in the "average" conflict of the last several decades). As I mention, getting the balance right is certainly not going to be easy, and I certainly can't claim to have the answer be any means !!.

One very important point is that pilot training and skill is paramount no matter the a/c. In this area we continue to excell, but it is certainly the last thing we want to take for granted. We must keep giving our airman to very best training as well as excellent hardware ! I'm sure there will be attempts to cut the training budgetr ( probably has been already ?) and that is the LAST thing we want to allow to happen.

When I hear F35 I see F111in my minds' eye :( I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not liking the track history !!

Love your closing line :beer: :beer:

John Culver
January 12, 2011, 18:04
and today the AF announced that the F-35 will be delayed a few more years. Last year they said 2017, now its looking like 2018-2020

By which time it will be well outclassed

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/12/donley-ioc-delay-for-f-35-implied/

J. Armstrong
January 12, 2011, 18:25
Geez, and the P51 went from drawing board to the air in just over 120 days. Of course, bureaucracy kept it out of the USAAF for nearly two years, so maybe it still is situation normal.

Some progress :rolleyes:

bykerhd
January 13, 2011, 00:03
So much for the predictions about that Chinese fighter's first actual flight being a long way off.
First Flight for New Chinese Fighter (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/11/chinese-stealth-fighter-makes-test-flight/)
How well the thing works is an unknown. But, it does fly.:uhoh:

chet
January 13, 2011, 10:40
Heck, look at the U2....it went from written requirement to concept to first flight in weeks and it's still in service after 50 years. Then, again, guys like Kelly Johnson are rare birds, indeed.

J. Armstrong
January 13, 2011, 12:01
Originally posted by chet
Heck, look at the U2....it went from written requirement to concept to first flight in weeks and it's still in service after 50 years. Then, again, guys like Kelly Johnson are rare birds, indeed.

Well, the current version ( TR2 ?? ) doesn't have much in common with the original other than configuration, but it is a prime example of how a really good design has the potential to evolve to stay competitive over time. That is, of course, what we would like to see with the F22 !!

John Culver
January 13, 2011, 12:05
Its interesting that only during war time do we actually build stuff that works, and quickly.

B-52 replacement? still on the drawing board (and the planes are hitting 50 years old and suppose to last another 30)
yes they expect to be flying EIGHTY year old airframes

Airbus A400 cargo? Original concept 1981, first flight? 2010

KC-135 Replacement? STILL working on it

CH-47 replacement? more CH-47s

ftierson
January 13, 2011, 13:00
Originally posted by John Culver
B-52 replacement? still on the drawing board (and the planes are hitting 50 years old and suppose to last another 30)
yes they expect to be flying EIGHTY year old airframes


Actually, I think that the START treaty just 'signed' shitcans the B52, so they won't be lasting another 30 years...

Just sayin'...

Forrest

cpgor
January 13, 2011, 15:50
So much for the F-35 as a cost effective replacement:

F-35 looking more like white elephant


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609

Mark IV
January 13, 2011, 16:10
Originally posted by chet
Heck, look at the U2....it went from written requirement to concept to first flight in weeks and it's still in service after 50 years. Then, again, guys like Kelly Johnson are rare birds, indeed.

If Kelly Johnson were here, he'd fire everybodys' asses and bring in his team from the Skunkworks.

0302
January 13, 2011, 20:32
Should be buying a-1 skyraiders,ov-10's, a -10's , cobra's, uav's for the grunts benefit, low and slow and time on station. I love watching skyraider videos delivering ordnance on target. And plenty of cluster bombs.

J. Armstrong
January 13, 2011, 20:54
Originally posted by 0302
Should be buying a-1 skyraiders,ov-10's, a -10's , cobra's, uav's for the grunts benefit, low and slow and time on station. I love watching skyraider videos delivering ordnance on target. And plenty of cluster bombs.

Gotta disagree on the Spads. GREAT a/c in their day, but there is no reason to bring back those big radial R3350s. Parts and specialized labor intensive, not very relable - hell, we don't even make the correct avgas for them anymore. Don't get me wrong, I love 'em -but their days of combat have gone the way of the steam locomotive and the great sailing ships.

Also, while in principle I understand and agree with the " low and slow" philosophy, you will find it a tough sell in the face of modern anti aircraft weaponry.

blackmatt
January 13, 2011, 21:57
Originally posted by homelandprotector
WE could just buy those Chicom f-22's and save loads of cash. :D


I love it. We've come full circle from Lenin's "we'll hang the capitalist with the rope he sold us" line.

Actually it's a good idea but I say we buy the Sukoi design of the Ruskies. Russians have no scrupples and will sell to anyone. We already outsourced our manned space program to them.

The old joke about the Air Force is becoming reality: Our planes will cost so much one day that the USAF will be able to buy one airplane, but boy will it be nice.

We've practically reached that with out strategic bomber force. How many B2's did we end up building ? About 20. When that one crashed in Guam it was like the annual budget of a small state disappeared in about 10 seconds.

Hell yes, buy them from the Russians, equip them with our black box ECM and ATA missles. We'll be better off and have alot more money left over than going the F35 route.

This, of course, is all just a lroundabout way of saying our major weapons system devlopment and procurement system is hopelessly broken.

0302
January 14, 2011, 01:00
A modern version of a skyraider could be built with prop and modern engine, the current enemies don't seem to have much modern anti aircraft weaponry, and the unit cost should be less, the usmc cobra is a good example, simple, reliable and still grunt friendly.

SWOHFAL
January 14, 2011, 02:11
Not every design needs to be "gee whiz" to be effective, with the A-10 being a case in point. It needs to be relatively slow and heavily armored with a large gun, since aiming at Mach 2 at tanks on the ground isn't that useful. Sure we could use missiles that cost $1 million or more each, but that's sure going to add up fast and not very flexible. Some new engine designs and better electronics would be all that an A-10 needs for an upgrade for another century of use.

John Culver
January 14, 2011, 02:16
Originally posted by blackmatt


Hell yes, buy them from the Russians, equip them with our black box ECM and ATA missles. We'll be better off and have alot more money left over than going the F35 route.

This, of course, is all just a lroundabout way of saying our major weapons system devlopment and procurement system is hopelessly broken.

Nah keep the russian missiles, the AA-11s are pretty damned good (superior to the AIM-9X in many ways)

chet
January 14, 2011, 16:10
Originally posted by 0302
A modern version of a skyraider could be built with prop and modern engine, the current enemies don't seem to have much modern anti aircraft weaponry, and the unit cost should be less, the usmc cobra is a good example, simple, reliable and still grunt friendly.


But, we've lost around 60 aircraft to hostile fire in OIF/OEF combined, almost all of it rotary wing (not counting UAVs). What does that tell you about low and slow against low tech Johnny Jihad? Guaranteed, the only reason we haven't lost more is that SOMEBODY at Langley made sure Rambo's Stingers were off the table early in OEF. But, last I checked, CAS a/c were still popping quite a bit of chaff on runs in AFG. There is a reason for that....it's dangerous. Lower and slower will do nothing to mitigate that danger. Turbo prop CAS does not have enough benefits to recommend it over a squadron of whiskey Cobras.

A "modern Skyraider" already exists in the Embraer Super Tucano, an armed T-6 Texan, or the Piper Enforcer, you pick. Just realize that rolling in on a gun run at a blazing 300 mph is not a pleasant prospect when any MANPAD from the last 50 years will easily smoke your fanny during your gently arcing egress - Grails, Blowpipes, Mistrals, Redeyes, you name it, including 12.7 and 14.5. AFG terrain, in general, affords a lot of advantages to a LAAD system built around the Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball, unlike Vietnam.

CAS capability should not be taken for granted, even against low tech targets with zero air to air gear. Buying simpler, cheaper aircraft is a FALSE ECONOMY when those aircraft would be compromised by weapons that are cheaper, effective, and more numerous.

Like it or not, the jet age is here to stay and we will be dragged kicking and screaming into Gen 4 fighters either by our own MI complex or our enemy's. Not much of a choice is it? We've learned these lessons with "last war-itis" CAS and air superiority in the past. Unfortunately, nostalgia is not an effective warfighting strategy.

ftierson
January 14, 2011, 17:18
Even reading something like Hell in a Very Small Place will tell you about the problems that slow and low presents you even if you're only talking AAA, let alone missiles. And that was 1954...

Forrest

Super B
January 17, 2011, 02:03
Build more A-10s. They are cheap to build (on purpose) and can do the job better than any air superiority fighter that is squeezed into the CAS role

SWOHFAL
January 17, 2011, 03:05
Originally posted by Super B
Build more A-10s. They are cheap to build (on purpose) and can do the job better than any air superiority fighter that is squeezed into the CAS role

Nah, everything has to cost $100M a copy and go mach 2 unless it's a transport. Probably needs stealth too, to better sneak up on tanks and armored vehicles.

Ssarge
January 17, 2011, 19:00
The F35 program is so far behind schedule that at Eglin AFBs F35 school had to bring in F16s from Luke AFB to get the program underway. JSFs will be in later sometime "in the spring". They also have cut the number of JSFs at the school in half.

Artful
January 22, 2011, 02:26
So the Sukhoi T-50's first flew last year and scheduled deployment is within 4 years and the Chicom's new J-20 flew Tuesday but our Pentagon thinks it will take 10 years for them to deploy? Are the Russians still the super boogy men they sold us on in the 60's, or do we think the Chicom's are too busy working for Walmart to make their military toys.

I think we need hire people who weren't trained in the "New Math"...

As far as cancellation of F-22 and depending upon the F-35 - I think they will both be replaced by UAV fighter and bombers with stealth and cheaper to build airframes with greater performance - like it or not if you can get the human out of the airframe and use the full capability of the machine it will hand any conventional manned aircraft it's head on a platter. Our current aircraft are limited to keep our pilots from over taxing their own fraile bodies. :tongue:

http://www.g2mil.com/sperwer.jpg

The cheap UAV fighters will act more like anti-aircraft missiles; launch them and let the computers do the reacting faster than human can input manuvers. Trained UAV ground controllers are needed, but just for the input to confirm target approval. They are not bothered by long flights, fear, or G forces as they have fun playing nintendo for real.

The controller skills are not critical as most UAV dogfights will occur with pre-programmed maneuvers. The UAV controller can just click the "PURSUE AND DESTROY" button and let the UAV do the preprogrammed thinking of how to do it. If the UAV loses its data link, it follows a contingency programming of either "SEEK AND DESTROY" or "RETURN TO BASE."

Fighter UAVs will prove disastrous for modern air forces dominated by fighter pilots, and knights of the sky mentality, which explains why the US Air Force refuses to evaluate this idea seriously. The development of fighter UAVs by other nations is just a matter of time as the technology is becoming wide spread.

Less sophisticated nations don't have the money, who once purchased top fighter aircraft for manned pilots, and they have learned they are no match for a sophisticated well-trained team of aircraft like those of the US Air Force currently flys. Plus look at Iran and other countries that have trouble maintaining it's fleet of foreign purchased aircraft.

If they can make a cheap home grown UAV fighter for say a 50th the cost of one of our sophisticated planes and it takes 10-15 UAV's to take out one F22 - they are way ahead - look for them to perform like WW2 wolf packs - swirling gang of killer bee's comes at your F22 and how may can you take out before they give you a fatal sting and take you out. :bigangel:

Look at the advantagest, fighter UAVs in storage require no spare parts, no fuel for training flights (which will all be nintendo simulations), and no life will be lost during common training accidents. They can be stored in bunkers for wartime use decades in the future. While they may become "obsolete" over time, they can always be used in a future warfare since sending them aloft puts no one at risk, except enemy fighters and you already paid for them. And like our current designs you could design it to be upgradable. Always able to take more G's than a manned machine you could add rocket pods for burst of acceleration that would kill a human (mach 1 to mach 6 in 4 seconds sounds good doesn't it), you don't need expensive engines just pulse/ram jet simple to machine, off the shelf components in a fresh design. Maybe two high mach missles one IR one radar, if you don't just want to use the front of the UAV as a mobile high velocity shotgun/buzz-bomb.

I'm sorry I don't see the point of lots of this expense we doing - A UAV version of the A-10, F-22, and Tornado and leave the kiddies in their Airconditioned trailer fighting a war like it's the 21st century. :wink:

riffraff2
January 22, 2011, 05:57
That technology is still a ways off yet so we do still need a next gen of manned fighters. Some F-22's and a lot of F-35's will do the trick.

Artful
January 22, 2011, 13:47
Closer than you think

http://defense-update.com/images_new1/usaf_mq-9_reaper_with_weapons.jpg
http://www.suite101.com/content/unmanned-aerial-vehicle-craziness-a210612
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSpOYZR0klA

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8164538&page=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZht4Qvjorg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/12/article-0-0A69FEDA000005DC-668_634x406.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1294037/Taranis-The-143million-unmanned-stealth-jet-hit-targets-continent.html?ITO=1490

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/x-45_ucav.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav_a1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDrxxjff7D8

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/4296188
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/WV/uav_x47b_470_1208-mdn.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dobrNcrdRxw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTNAfSMF-A0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dobrNcrdRxw

http://www.gizmag.com/mantis-uav-test-flight/13386/picture/105385/
http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/mantis-test-flight-2.jpg
BAE Mantis
The largest fully-autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) ever to be built in the UK has completed initial flight trials in Woomera, South Australia. Built by BAE Systems for the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) the Mantis is the companyís first genuine fly-by-wire, all-electric aircraft and is designed to execute its mission with a much-reduced need for human intervention by understanding and reacting to its environment. BAE said Mantis successfully completed a series of trials demonstrating its capabilities and the potential for large unmanned systems to carry out intelligence-gathering at long distances.
Behavior: All a soldier will have to do to send the self-piloted Mantis on a mission is push a button. From there, it can calculate flight plans, fly around obstacles, and check in with ground controllers when it spots something interesting, like smoke or troop movement. At the end of the mission, it flies home and lands itself. Mantisís maiden flight went off without a hitch in Australia last October, an astoundingly fast developmentóit didnít even exist in 2007. BAE Systems expects it to be ready for sale within two years and hopes to use it as a proving ground for systems in its forthcoming automated stealth bomber, the Taranis



Gates and his wiz-kids are pushing that way
http://www.offiziere.ch/?p=1930

ByronF
January 22, 2011, 14:20
One reason it's not needed: no point buying expensive weapons for an administration unwilling to exert force against anyone but its own citizens

One reason we'll get it anyow: Jeffy Immelt sorely wants to provide the engines, and now that he's part of the inner chamber.

SWOHFAL
January 24, 2011, 12:37
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12266973

Looks like the Chinese got the info that they couldn't steal from us by buying up F-117 parts from Serbia.

101ABN327
January 24, 2011, 13:14
Originally posted by riffraff2
Just who are we supposed to use the F-22 against???

Space Aliens maybe?? We don't need the F-22. Well, we don't need quite as many as the Military thinks we do anyway. Now we need lots and lots of F-35's. It will replace the Harrier, Hornet, Falcon and Eagle and probably the Warthog as well.

F-22's are no good against terrorists.

CHINA! Write it down...

davedude
January 24, 2011, 16:31
Some commentary on the subject from one of my favorite sites:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20110114.aspx

No answers but adds perspective.

Look around the warplanes article index for more.

Dave Dude

John Culver
January 24, 2011, 21:53
Originally posted by SWOHFAL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12266973

Looks like the Chinese got the info that they couldn't steal from us by buying up F-117 parts from Serbia.

There spies (who we refuse to execute) did much damage as well.

One just got 32 years in prison (but likely will be out in months)

http://www.ky3.com/sns-bc-us--chinaspycase,0,1800234.story

SWOHFAL
January 25, 2011, 10:35
Indian involved in design of B-2 sells secrets to China:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12272941