1, Ever hear of EMP hardening? We design aircraft to fling nukes and then survive the EMP blast.
2, Getting close enough to track IR doesn't help you much when youv already been dead for 5 mins.
3, Your saying what? The eye can see it during day or modern equipment can? Iceland has no military right?
4, There isnt any single adversaries of similiar equipment so how can there be multiples?
5, If remote fighters were ever to be a possibility then I doubt any country other then America will be first to field them. Actually we already do, at least the recon/attack type. Dont worry Angus, nobody is going to be able to challenge NATO in our lifetimes.
It's thinking like this that gets you VERY dead, VERY fast. The Raptor is a GREAT aircraft. Top of the line. But it isn't invincible.
1. The Raptor might survive the EMP blast, but what about the E-3 that's transmitting the data? That's an easy missile/guns kill. And the signal station back home? While we're talking nukes, that would probably be knocked out pretty quickly. And what about electronic warfare? I know it's insane, but every computer can be hit with a virus. The Raptor can transmit and receive EVERYTHING it's computer processes. So what happens when some insane lunatic with a mastery of computer writes a virus that, when transmitted to the Raptor, powers down it's computer? Yeah, it's not likely any time soon, but it is VERY possible. Computers are never completely secure.
2. Who says you have to be close? IR can be tracked from anywhere... from a carefully placed balloon to a ground station, and while I'm not familiar with the quality of our IR technology, who's to say it cannot be tracked by satelite?
3. No, computers will see it. Look at the thread in the O Club about the transonic light refraction. If a camera can pick that up, it can pick up a plane.
4. VERY VERY wrong. The Raptor has three major advantages: Stealth, BVR equipment, and supercruise. As we have been discussing, stealth isn't perfect. F-117s have been detected. So, lets say Russia launches some Su-37s to intercept. The BVR equipment can only track so many aircraft at once. Russia has no problems sacrificing hundreds of men for a small victory. So, we kill 12-13 of those Su-37s. Supercruise requires time to accelerate, time you cannot be maneuvering because the Gs will knock you out pretty quickly. So, a VERY hot engine, moving in a straight line. Nice IR missile target. So lets say the Raptor gets down and dirty. Anyone doubt an Su-37 is an even match in maneuverability with an F-22? And what about the MiG 1.44 project. The Su-47?
5. Remotes are dangerous, but they have their weaknesses. I'm honestly not too worried about those, but do not ever think it's impossible to challenge NATO anytime soon. Everyone is vulnerable.
These are all pretty far-fetched ideas that seem impossible, but just how long ago would we have scoffed at a plane invisible to radar, that cruises at mach 2 while firing missiles so far over the horizon the pilot's might never meet? Technology changes fast, and the Raptor may already be obsolete. It's kinda hard to judge how well she would stack up against a modern enemy when all she has done is play war-games with other American birds.
