RAH66/F22

[B3YT]

My cousin who is in the RAF  in Iraq and Afghanistan with a Chinook squadron say in battle  you could have a tank pull up behind you and not hear it . A low sound will only help in first strike conditions which is not what CAS missions in Afghanistan are doing but are called in . the element of surprise is not  there .    The thing is a "stealth" helo with a shrouded tail rotor is still going to be downed with an RPG or SAF .  AH-64's supported by ground forces and fix wing aircraft  will do just as well as a single comanche and bring more fire power to bare in extended operations   .    A well flown AH64 or AH-1 can be hidden away from the enemy just as well as a machine costing 4 or 5 times the amount.   SAF does and will always  bring down the most CAS missions  due to being so close to the enemy . 

What the forces out there need is not a new piece of kit that won't work  along with older equipment  cost more to repair in the arse end of nowhere . With less durable parts due to being made of lightweight composites .   TBH at the type of ranges the AH-64's are to the enemy forces then you'd also see the Comanche . The whole argument is built on the primes that   you are fighting from fix boundaries and lines . Which it is not in Afghanistan  the enemy forces know what is heading out to them at any time . They will be waiting for your high tech pieces  of kit and be ready for them .

[Tyrannis]

I do not see why the CIA would use one... There is nothing a "stealth" helicopter could see that cannot already be seen by satellites or drones. CIA more likely to send operatives in on the ground to scout out locations... a low flying stealth helicopter would be easily seen/heard by enemy combatants.
 Considering that a total of 12 were lost in Iraq, I think that shows they have good survivability. If I Recall Correctly, all of them lost were able to land and several of the pilots were able to escape, some were captured. Most of these Apaches were destroyed later by our own missiles to prevent enemy use of them. A lot of helicopters are attacked by shoulder mounted RPGs, which a stealth helo has no advantage over. If anything the Comanche would be more susceptible to small arms fire.
My point is, at this point in US history, we do not need stealth helicopters. We are not engaged with a easily defined enemy with advanced technology.

think about what you said.

would the cia rather send operatives on the ground to scout out an unknown area, where if they are captured can possably give away sensitive and vital information, OR, have a silent, small drone that could land anywheres, hide it out, launch sudden ghost attacks,scout an area from the air instead of on the ground, and has a self destruct function so it cant be captured.

which do you think the CIA would rather want?

[flight17]

here is the issue i have. We stopped F-22 orders because they are too expensive... WE instead buy the F-35. The f-35 is less capable and MORE EXPENSIVE then the f-22 is. The F-35 is a joke of a aircraft program grossly over budget and delayed a very long time.

The F-22 is cited as being over 300mil to make per plane. However if they would have kept the contract as it was, it would have only been in the 100mil per frame range if even that. The actual cost to build the plane is only like 80mil per a/c IIRC.

[curry1]

here is the issue i have. We stopped F-22 orders because they are too expensive... WE instead buy the F-35. The f-35 is less capable and MORE EXPENSIVE then the f-22 is. The F-35 is a joke of a aircraft program grossly over budget and delayed a very long time.

The F-22 is cited as being over 300mil to make per plane. However if they would have kept the contract as it was, it would have only been in the 100mil per frame range if even that. The actual cost to build the plane is only like 80mil per a/c IIRC.
[/quote

Where is the data showing that a f-35 costs more then a f-22.  And don't give me roadkill that shows the marine version vs. the f-22.  I want the airforce f-35 vs the f-22.

[flight17]

Right now close to 2500 F-35's will be bought by the US. Costs have soared to nearly double the origional amount. Current per plane flyaway costs for the F-35 is between 100-135mil. The F-22 is 150mil at 2009 levels. Flyaway cost is the amount it takes to produce one aircraft. Program costs have soared and there is a possibility that our order could be halved. right now program costs are over 50bil if not more and are still expexct to rise. Just like Airbus and the A380, Lockheed is no longer reporting the developement costs.

Not only does it cost just as much as the F-22, the F-22 carries more ords. The F-35 carries a whopping 3000lbs total. the F-22 can carry 2000lbs of bombs and and another 4 missiles for A2A in the ground attack role. The F-22 also has 4 hard points on the wings which allow it to have drop tanks or an additional 20,000lbs of bombs. The F-35 also has 6 wing hardpoints but it only totals 15,000lbs.

so we have for ground attack:

F-35: 3000lb internal and 15000lbs external capacity= 18,000lbs
F-22: 2000lb internal bomb load, 1000lbs of missiles and 20,000lbs external= 23,000lbs

Combine the F-22's greater avionics and smaller radar profile, which one is better? Armed forces is the one area where cost shouldnt be spared, we should have the best fighters available, which is nodoubt the F-22.

[Penguin]

The RAH-66 was cancelled by the Army and SECDEF Gates cancelled the F-22 in favor of " The Cheaper F-35/JSF". Growing up in a family that worked in the defense industry for over 60 years, you learn that it is not always about economics or ability of a weapons system. Usually politics and short sightedness are the bigger culprits. The RAH-66 problably would have been  best to have in Afghanistan. From what I remember, the Raptor was cancelled because at the time there was no 5th Generation threat around( I guess someone missed Russia and China- Epic failure of Intel) and the fact that the Raptor was designed to be a Air Superiority fighter and not a ground attack plane like the JSF and therefore, it no use in the current conflicts of Iraq/Afghanistan which was a major short sided decision.

China has no reason to fight us, in fact, they'd more likely be our ally than enemy.  Russia and the United States have no beef, either.  Why build one F-22 instead of around twenty Predator drones?

Right now close to 2500 F-35's will be bought by the US. Costs have soared to nearly double the origional amount. Current per plane flyaway costs for the F-35 is between 100-135mil. The F-22 is 150mil at 2009 levels. Flyaway cost is the amount it takes to produce one aircraft. Program costs have soared and there is a possibility that our order could be halved. right now program costs are over 50bil if not more and are still expexct to rise. Just like Airbus and the A380, Lockheed is no longer reporting the developement costs.

Not only does it cost just as much as the F-22, the F-22 carries more ords. The F-35 carries a whopping 3000lbs total. the F-22 can carry 2000lbs of bombs and and another 4 missiles for A2A in the ground attack role. The F-22 also has 4 hard points on the wings which allow it to have drop tanks or an additional 20,000lbs of bombs. The F-35 also has 6 wing hardpoints but it only totals 15,000lbs.

so we have for ground attack:

F-35: 3000lb internal and 15000lbs external capacity= 18,000lbs
F-22: 2000lb internal bomb load, 1000lbs of missiles and 20,000lbs external= 23,000lbs

Combine the F-22's greater avionics and smaller radar profile, which one is better? Armed forces is the one area where cost shouldnt be spared, we should have the best fighters available, which is nodoubt the F-22.

That is precisely how Germany lost its battles.  Every morning the Allies would attack, and the Germans would mow them down, but be pushed back a few yards, and lose a Tiger tank or two.  The next morning, the Allies would have replacements for all the casualties, but the Germans would not. 

The only purpose of a fighter is to shoot down bombers and enemy fighters, and since Haddib and Akhbar aren't stashing a MiG in their backyard, fighters serve no purpose.  However, Haddib does have a few 120mm mortar shells and Akhbar dug up an old cell phone.  If we don't catch the dastardly duo, a bunch of Marines are going to make the ultimate sacrifice.

What would stop these two fiends?  The eye-in-the-sky-that-makes-Hajjis-cry, the Predator drone.  With long-range, long-mission and precision capabilities, it can win the battle before it even starts.

-Penguin

[Tac]

As for the UCAV/UAV angle, I think about this a lot too.  I know the new LCA/LCS Class "Litoral" ships like the Freedom and Indepence are tied at the hip to the new FireScout UAV/UCAV helo's.  I guess we'll see how they work out.  I've always wondered about how tough it would be for an enemy to disrupt comms to the UAV/UCAV, and what would happen to the sattelite comm and GPS systems in the event of high altitude nuclear detonation.  An entire class of weapons would be made useless without the satellites, such as UAC/UCAV and JDAM GPS guided weapons, wouldn't they?  Then what?

Given that a manned fighter aircraft now is also dependent on GPS and satellite communications the loss of a (very unlikely) high altitude nuke taking out satellite contact would simply be that the drones that are airborne at the time would go on autopilot and would navigate back to their home base. They can do this now I think.

The difference would be that the manned fighter in such situation can still fight whereas the drone withdraws (or they could be controlled through command centers in the local region rather than satellite from the mainland US).

My point is, that the US could potentially field ten times the amount of aircraft to any conflict for the same cost as fielding manned planes... and have their pilots not die and be well rested in mainland US or behind friendly lines. Air superiority would be achieved very quickly by having a massive force in the air and CAS would be overwhelmingly effective since it'd be available in large numbers on-call 24/7.

[Raptor]

think about what you said.

would the cia rather send operatives on the ground to scout out an unknown area, where if they are captured can possably give away sensitive and vital information, OR, have a silent, small drone that could land anywheres, hide it out, launch sudden ghost attacks,scout an area from the air instead of on the ground, and has a self destruct function so it cant be captured.

which do you think the CIA would rather want?

I think you misinterpret the role of the CIA.

[flight17]

Given that a manned fighter aircraft now is also dependent on GPS and satellite communications the loss of a (very unlikely) high altitude nuke taking out satellite contact would simply be that the drones that are airborne at the time would go on autopilot and would navigate back to their home base. They can do this now I think.

they can but what was proven a few years ago shows they dont always. The USN almost lost an helicopter over DC because of this. It failed to turn back around to base and kept flying straight for DC. It was minutes away from being shot down but then they finally got a link established to it and was able to turn it around.

[flight17]

The only purpose of a fighter is to shoot down bombers and enemy fighters, and since Haddib and Akhbar aren't stashing a MiG in their backyard, fighters serve no purpose.  However, Haddib does have a few 120mm mortar shells and Akhbar dug up an old cell phone.  If we don't catch the dastardly duo, a bunch of Marines are going to make the ultimate sacrifice.

What would stop these two fiends?  The eye-in-the-sky-that-makes-Hajjis-cry, the Predator drone.  With long-range, long-mission and precision capabilities, it can win the battle before it even starts.

-Penguin

Who says a fighter only goes against other aircraft? The AF feels the need that a fighter is only a fighter. The f-22 is still a more capable plane than the F-35 or drones for precision attacks on the ground when it boils down to the amount of ords it carries but its not used for that. Its funny how the Navy's "fighter jets" are quite capable and used for ground attack. Hell the F-14 was used almost exclusively as a ground attack aircraft towards the end of its life. It really blows my mind how the navy can get everything done with 4 aircraft platforms, yet the AF is using 20+ different types. But then again the Navy has more aircraft than the AF so go figure...

Im gonna figure out what the AF is using

NAVY- F/a-18, E-2/C-2 ,EA-6B and the 737(P-8 and C-40's) and P-3 though they are being replaced by the P-8
AF- F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, A-10, C-5, C-17, C-130, 747, KC-135, KC-10, all the different AWACS type aircraft, 2 types of UAV's, B-1, B-2, B-52 and more
when i search USAF on wiki, they had 61 aircraft variants listed in the entire AF for all their aircraft.

[KgB]

that the thing all losses were due to RPG that are UNGUIDED and so no matter how "stealthy" you are if they see you and hit your tail your down .    it's one reason the USSR started to prefer the KA family of helos after their experience in Afghanistan  . They use contra-rotating main blades that mean they don't need a easily hit tail rotor. 

Were they not shut down with US provided "Patriot" guided missiles:? And how is it easier to hit tail than the rest?

[Spikes]

My point is, at this point in US history, we do not need stealth helicopters. We are not engaged with a easily defined enemy with advanced technology.

In war you have to be one step ahead.

[CAP1]

Please give me one solid reason why we need a stealth helicopter with a smaller payload than the Apache?

 cause no one is ever gonna figure out a way to counter stealth technology, so these wil never be shot down in combat.....

[TOMCAT21]

majority of IED's encountered are 155MM arty rounds when ord is used.

[B3YT]

most helo are stationary when shot down . in CAS missions a helo can be quite close to the  enemy after the AAA threat is taken down  or when covering a retreating ground forces.   That is when they are vulnerable to be hit with SAF and shoulder mounted AT weapons such as RPG's  (They still have such threats at Kandahar  airbase) at that range it's quite a big target to hit the arse end of a helo .   As i've said stealth will never be a help to battle field attack helo's due to the close proximity they have with enemy troops . it's the nature of the mission . 
 
To help reduce the chance of being hit they will use stand off weapons to destroy dedicated AA weapon systems such as AAA and SAM  but you can't stop some guy with a 50 cal or RPG taking a shot at you as you fly-by to cover your buddies on the ground . Just like ground troops attack helos best defence is fire and manoeuvre not relying on technology to make you Invisible/quiet / cooler  as then you get lazy .  Staying alert and not staying too long in one place will save you .