Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: _Schadenfreude_ on April 11, 2004, 03:59:01 PM
-
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ZAQQ0GKNTIPO4CRBAEOCFEY?type=domesticNews&storyID=4798486§ion=news
-
First he killed the tanker plan, now he's trying to kill the F-22. McCain probably the single most dangerous hazard the USAF will face this century. He's totally old-skool and he's a prime example of the old way of thinking the military is trying to evolve away from.
Put his bellybutton on the line like he did in Vietnam, and he'd become an F-22 supporter like every operator in the force. Put him in an office, and he's just another bean counter with an axe to grind.
-
How important is the armed services committee and how important is McCain on it? I mean do they like decide on the budget for the military?
-
He says it's a matter of where we spend the money. He wants to expand ground forces to make sure we win the war in Iraq. 71 billion is alot of money(although i'm a big on dominating the skies), and we could use that money to pay for the war's future expenses. It's hard to make a stand for lowering taxes and ask for more money at the same time, the money must come from somewhere.
-
Why do we need the F22 again? It is cool and all, but current inventory replacement will serve us for 30 more years, won't it?
-
I heard that the Commanche was cancelled earlier in the year as well to make way for more transport helicopters. That I can understand.
-
The F22 is incredibly expencive. Why not use that money to buy more JSF's? They should be more than good enough to rule the skies....especialy with the extra numbers the USAF could buy for the cost of the F22. You would also with that increased number of JSF's have more of them operational at any one time.
The combat UAV's are the future anyway and the JSF would be competitive for alot longer than it will take to develope and mass produce combat UAV's if you look at the current and planned planes of other nations.
-
We need the F22 for a few reasons. First is that every major nation in the world has purchase orders in for fighters that are a generation newer than our F-15s and F-16s. That puts us at a definate disadvantage. F-15's can be upgraded to a certain extent, but they will never be even remotely stealthy. Which brings us to the next reason. New SAM technology has advanced to the point where the aerial battlefield is no longer survivable. New Russian designed SAM systems are not only designed to shoot down aircraft at ranges up to 200+ miles, but they are also designed to actually engage and shoot down any weapons aimed at the SAM site. That includes every single non-stealthy weapon the US has that can be launched at a SAM site before the launch vehicle itself is shot down. The F-22 is an integral part of the forces required to even begin an air war against any nation with a reasonably modern air defense system. The ability to press inside the outer edges of the air defense zones and carry out air dominance missions is critical. The B-2 and F-117 need fighter support in that environment and the F-15's and F-16 would get shot down before they got anywhere close to attacking the defending fighters or SAM sites.
The new SAM sites eat cruise missiles for lunch too, and even older technology integrated air defense systems are becoming more and more difficult to overwhelm, spoof, jam, etc. The F-22 is again critical in this arena.
Even so, JSF is also required because since the F-22 is so expensive, we'll only have a few and will need to send in cheaper aircraft to carry out missions after the stealth planes have opened up holes in the IADS. Right now, those planes in the USAF are the F-15 and F-16 (and A-10), but once again the SAM threat is big enough to make this quite risky. JSF will provide a platform similiar to the F-16 but stealthy enough to operate closer to the SAM threats while carrying out a wide variety of missions.
The USAF doesn't need this capability tomorrow or next week, it needs it today. China is toying around with the newest Russian SAM systems and Russia is marketing them to a great number of smaller countries as well. They don't take too long to ship and set up either, so we could face a current-generation threat in any country we may possibly be in conflict with.
A last example of where we need the F-22 is in national defense. The F-22 can loiter and get to a given area faster than our current fighters. When there may only be a few minutes to get to an attacking force, whether it's fighters, bombers, cruise missiles, or a terrorist in an airliner, speed matters. The F-22 is very fast.
The USAF is behind, period. Only the integration of our entire force structure and the sheer size of our military is keeping us effective, but an opponent with current-generation defenses could make it much much more difficult.
-
You will have to show me facts on that Orig, because the record does not bear out what you are saying.
-
Orig.... you said:
"The new SAM sites eat cruise missiles for lunch"
Actually the norwegian NASAMS is the only system in the world that has a cabability against cruise missiles.
-
What record are you talking about?
I'll point out one example - The shootdown of the F-117 during the Kosovo campaign. An older air defense system using a hacked together but entirely modern (conceptually) network structure managed to whack a stealth fighter. The USAF and coalition never did manage to take out even 1/2 of that air defense network. Had there been an appreciable number of enemy fighters, it could have been quite ugly for the coalition.
The French A-A missiles have greater range and maneuverability than the AMRAAM and AIM-9. The AA-11 is still one of the finest dogfight missiles in the world and the AA-12 development continues with the benefit of knowing what works with the AMRAAM.
Both the Mig-29 and SU-27 (plus variants) are more maneuverable than the F-15. So are the Eurofighter, Gripen, and Rafale, and they have reduced radar cross-sections.
The SA-10/12/20 systems can engage down below 100 ft at ranges well beyond that of the HARM missile, and they're designed to be able to shoot down the HARM missile and anything else that gets within their range.
There is no record of the US losing because the US hasn't fought against an updated IADS. Every country in the world has had a chance to see what we did to Iraq however, and they're not just sitting around thinking "maybe our handful of mig-29s, SA-2s, SA-3s, and SA-6s will do better than Iraq's did." They're buying new stuff, upgrading what they have, and networking it all together with off the shelf hardware.
US fighter development, except for the F-22, has been a series of upgrades made to 1970's technology. The rest of the world has brand new equipment ready to go, waiting only for the money to kick final production into gear. JSF is a long way out, and it's not optimized for air dominance in a high threat environment like the F-22 is.
Military parity is for suckers. It's time to front for our next generation fighter because we're behind.
Nilsen, you're not correct. The Russian double-digit radar SAMs have those capabilities, as do the US Patriot and US Navy Standard Missile systems. I have also heard that the Israelis have made a great deal of progress shooting down all types of missiles with their defensive systems.
-
Sorry..The NASAMS is the only operational GROUND based system that has a capability. The latest Patriot is not yet operational and tested vs cruise missiles. The NASAMS system passed the tests that the USAF made for it when it was beeing tested in the US a few years back.
If anyone is interested i can post some links on the system tomorrow or you can do a google (+nasams +kongsberg + raytheon....
-
Originally posted by Orig
Nilsen, you're not correct. The Russian double-digit radar SAMs have those capabilities, as do the US Patriot and US Navy Standard Missile systems.
Last I checked, the Patriot was a last ditch defense due to its extreme unreliability and the Navy's anti-missile system was the PHALANX.
-
OK McCain is nutz.... I always liked him for being straight forward and kinda different but now I see he is crazy...
-
Patriot is not a very good system. And it shoots down friendly aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Actually the norwegian NASAMS is the only system in the world that has a cabability against cruise missiles.
Sounds to me like a fallacy, Nilson.
Visit this site:
Surface to Air missile systems (http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/surface_air.htm)
Pay special attention to the information on the S-400 (sa-20) triumf.
Here's another link:
triumf (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-400.htm)
"The 9M96E2 missile can intercept all types of aircraft, including tactical ballistic and medium-range theater missiles flying at altitudes from 5 meters to 30 kilometers. Their exceptionally high accuracy is ensured by the missile's main secret, the so-called transverse control engine, which rules out misses during the final approach trajectory. The transverse control engine is still without parallel in the world. Russia's top-of-the-line 9M96E2 guided air defense missile is being marketed by Russia's state-owned arms trader Rosvooruzhenye. A mockup of the missile was set up at an Athens arms exhibition in October 1998."
And another:
FAS (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm)
"The missile is equipped with an active homing head and has an estimated single shot kill probability of 0.9 for manned aircraft and 0.8 for unmanned maneuvering aircraft. "
-
The russians would kick bellybutton in any war fought with sales brochures!!!!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The russians would kick bellybutton in any war fought with sales brochures!!!!
Don't be a schmuck, Grun, I was merely providing evidence countering Nilson's assertion.
Furthermore, this missile has been tested and fielded, so it's hardly an artists conception.
-
Actually it was quite humourous.
-
Ok, time to play devil's advocate :)
By Orig:
New Russian designed SAM systems are not only designed to shoot down aircraft at ranges up to 200+ miles, but they are also designed to actually engage and shoot down any weapons aimed at the SAM site.
It's a bit funny to see a claim like "they got new SAM's we need a better airplane".
What is the defensive system and what is the offensive weapon - the F/A-22 or the S-300 and -400? This looks like reversed logic to me, it's perfectly normal for a country to improve it's air defenses, isn't it? Why is it necessary for the US to destroy a SAM site to begin with?
Just asking, flame on :D
That being said the F-22 is the best fighter plane today bar none and canceling it makes no sense after having spent so much money on it already. The US needs new airplanes someday in the future to replace the aging fleet of F-16s, F-15s and Tomcats and even a small fleet of Jack-Of-All-Trades F-22s is a better adaptation to todays world than huge amounts of cold-war equipment and a new generation fighter is imho better than spending lots of money on obsolete or older designs ( F-18E/F .. )
-
I doubt McCain seriously plans on eliminating the F-22. It sounds to me that he was punctuating a point about the unexpected costs of the Iraqi conflict by raising the spectre of cancelling a very visible, very popular, and very expensive project in the F-22. Since we're discussing his comments here, I'm guessing he at least partially succeeded in making his point.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
F22 is a money risk for our defense budget. Just like the New Attack submarine is. Useless spending.
:(
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I doubt McCain seriously plans on eliminating the F-22. It sounds to me that he was punctuating a point about the unexpected costs of the Iraqi conflict by raising the spectre of cancelling a very visible, very popular, and very expensive project in the F-22. Since we're discussing his comments here, I'm guessing he at least partially succeeded in making his point.
-- Todd/Leviathn
The answer is no, "read my lips";)
-
Originally posted by Torque
Actually it was quite humourous.
The spirits of John Candy, Dan Akroyd and Jim Carrey are clearly not with you.
-
Buy what you can afford.
How did we win the Cold War? We out spent them on military equipment.
Could it be possible that we defeat ourselves with massive military spending?
-
The Raptor is slated to replace the F-15 and possible the F-18
The F-35 is slated to replace the AV-8B, the F-16, the F-18, and some other aircraft.
Given the F-35 would save more money in the long run than the Raptor, why are we spending money on it again? Of course, it's stealthy and it can supercruise, but all around it's just like the current USAF arsenal...
-
True GS...it has a much shorter range and it is a "point defence" system.
Norwegian NASAMS batteries each consist of:
* three or four Fire Distribution Centres;
* three or four Raytheon AN/TPQ-36A surveillance, acquisition and tracking radars;
*nine truck-mounted missile launchers (with six missiles each)
*three or four vehicle-mounted passive infrared tracking cameras for visual target identification and raid size assessment.
In this configuration, NASAMS is capable of engaging up to 54 different targets by firing 54 individually-targeted missiles within a matter of seconds. A capability unmatched by any comparable system.
Using a combat net radio, the launchers can be located up to 25km from the FDC, expanding the defended footprint. NASAMS is fully mobile and can be ready-to-fire at a new location 15 minutes after the wheels stop turning.
* The Norwegian NASAMS systems will likely receive an upgrade in the near future, including:
- upgrading the radar to the standard of Raytheon's state-of-the-art AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel 3D radar
* inserting the latest commercial-off-the-shelf computer technology to the FDC
*integrating the new Kongsberg Multi-Role Radio
*integration with Kongsberg's Ground Based Air Defence Operations Centre (GBADOC).
Spain is taking delivery of NASAMS systems in 2002-2004. The Spanish systems have the latest technology standard and will each consist of:
*one AN/MPQ-64 trailer-mounted 3D radar
*one shelter-mounted Fire Distribution Centre
*two truck-mounted NASAMS canister launcher units (with six missiles each).
http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/Aircraft/sl-amraam/
http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/Aircraft/NASAMS/
-
texace..
Isnt the JSF also "stealthy" ? perhaps not as stealthy as the Raptor but still...
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
texace..
Isnt the JSF also "stealthy" ? perhaps not as stealthy as the Raptor but still...
The JSF is also stealthy, ability to carry 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x 2000lb bombs within internal bomb bays. I'm not sure if this only applies to the conventional JSF and not the STOVL?
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Don't be a schmuck, Grun, I was merely providing evidence countering Nilson's assertion.
Furthermore, this missile has been tested and fielded, so it's hardly an artists conception.
:rofl
I suggest you drink decaff from now on...
-
Replicant..
all versions can carry the same internal load... the major diff is that the vertical takeoff version does not carry an internal gun and it has a shorter (less fuel because if lift fan mechanism) range than the other 2 versions.
-
What about the Swedish Bamse system. IIRC it is the only SAM system able to engage targets as small as incoming artillery shells.
-
Originally posted by Swager
F22 is a money risk for our defense budget. Just like the New Attack submarine is. Useless spending.
:(
lol its all useless spending till u need it.
-
The 688's still has some good years, but it will eventually have to be retired. The expencive Seawolf class was dropped after 3 were made. The Virgina class is alot cheaper to make then the Seawolf and it is not a product of the cold war. It will be smaller and better suited for land attack and to some degree....littoral warfare.
A good move imo.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What about the Swedish Bamse system. IIRC it is the only SAM system able to engage targets as small as incoming artillery shells.
Soviet S-125 intercepted 76mm shells in the test ground. It was in the 70s.
-
I'd like to play devil's advocate, too.
Haven't you guys read enough history to know that the next war will not be fought like the previous war? The worst mistake we could do is prepare to fight the next war like how we fight the current war. This has been historically proved to be valid.
So, I wonder....is the next major war going to be fought in the skies, or more on the ground?
Can you imagine how much stress it would be to have to make the right call in this regard? Think of the consequences of being wrong. Ouch.
-
yup banana.....balance is the key.
-
Originally posted by banana
So, I wonder....is the next major war going to be fought in the skies, or more on the ground?
Or in tunnels deep inside the earths crust...
Joking aside, what you are talking about is when new weapon systems or tactics make old weapon systems or tactics obsolete. Like how the Afghans found out the hard way just how efficient a machine gun really is, or how the zulus discovered the potential of the gunpowder, or when the Iraqis discovered the advantage of air supremacy and attack helicopters..etc...etc...etc. ..
I dont think that we are looking at any revolution like that right now. Maybe the balance is shifting more towards the ground units in the air vs ground power though..
-
Yes, the JSF is stealthy, but as far as I know it can carry as much of a payload as the Raptor. I could be wrong.
At the moment, the emphasis on stealth brings about advances in SAM technology. Soon, it won't matter how stealthy you are...
-
Guess with a war running at 5 billion a month the money has to start being saved somewhere.
...-Gixer
War costs could scuttle new fighter, McCain says
The need to add troops in Iraq means the U.S. can't afford the F/A-22, the senator argued.
By Jim Wolf
Reuters
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon may have to scrap its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq, Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed Services Committee, said yesterday.
"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said on NBC's Meet the Press.
McCain said both the Army and the Marine Corps must be expanded overall, a position at odds with that of President Bush's administration. The United States has 129,000 troops in Iraq, a number McCain said must rise.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R., Ind.) joined McCain in calling for more troops.
"It's clear that we're stretched, and the Iraqi security forces are not prepared yet to fight and to turn back insurgents," Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News Sunday.
McCain said that as part of a broad overhaul of U.S. priorities, the Pentagon may have to scrap the $71 billion Air Force program to buy F/A-22 air-to-air fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp.
"We may have to cancel this airplane that's going to cost between $250 million and $300 million a copy," McCain said.
"We've got to change the way we do business and put the priority where it belongs," McCain said. "And that is making sure that we succeed in Iraq."
Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said the United States needed more specially trained forces in Iraq.
"People that are in there have to know what the heck we're doing," Roberts said on the CBS program Face the Nation. "If we do have those troops, yes, let's send them."
The Air Force hopes to buy at least 277 F/A-22 fighters, which it describes as key to dominating the skies in future combat.
It is about to enter operational testing en route to replacing the F-15C.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has resisted calls for any lasting increase in the U.S. occupation force in Iraq and argued against permanently boosting the size of U.S. armed forces unless such action is sought by military commanders themselves.
-
They've come this far, the've built the airplane, they've already started an operation F-22 squadron in Florida, and now they're going to let war costs scuttle it?
Can't they take money form elsewhere, like, I don't know, their saleries? Perhaps they can get the rich folks to help out?
-
Bet there is alot of unhappy people in the Air Force right now. Nothing decent to bomb in Iraq and now they've axed their new toy.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Bet there is alot of unhappy people in the Air Force right now. Nothing decent to bomb in Iraq and now they've axed their new toy.
...-Gixer
So all the good targets Rumsfeld wanted to bomb on 9/12 are already gone? Damn.
-
Last time I checked, Iran was still building a reactor...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Last time I checked, Iran was still building a reactor...
Well, if it is the Russians who are helping them build it, and it is anything like chernobyl, our worries are over.
I think a little encouragement is in order here.
-
Heh, not only are the russians helping to build it, they are also supplying dozens of complete state-of-the-art SAM systems to cover it...something tells me the Iranians know what the Israelis have planned for that damn reactor.
-
Numbers rule the sky. Technology comes secondary, I'm sure you all haven't forgotten Germany already?
6 F22s vs 14 JSFs (I don't know the actual price of the JSF) - JSF is better to build an airforce out of. F22s are better to burn bigger holes in our country's pockets.
-SW
-
Originally posted by texace
They've come this far, the've built the airplane, they've already started an operation F-22 squadron in Florida, and now they're going to let war costs scuttle it?
Can't they take money form elsewhere, like, I don't know, their saleries? Perhaps they can get the rich folks to help out?
why dont they have a bake sale? or go door to door selling candy.
schools do that when they books, instruments or athletic equipment.
-
Originally posted by whels
lol its all useless spending till u need it.
You hit the nail on the head with that point.
Never Give Up Never Surrender
-
I hate to say it, but the problem with the Comanche and the YF22 is that they have a pilot.
I read somewhere that there will be no more manned xplanes.
As we all know the pilot can't take the Gs. Get him out of the cockpit and you will beat anything that is flying with a pilot.
Unmanned vehicles are going to replace the bulk of the current strike force, the only question is when. Then military pilots will be no more than glorified stick jockeys sitting in a chair somewhere looking at a screen, like us.
As for McCain, I used to be a big supporter until I realized he wants to privatize the ATC system and FSS like Europe. Basically this means as a GA pilot anywhere you go, you will be charged. It has pretty much killed GA in Europe for everyone except the rich. Now I say Fk McCain!