Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hoarach on May 20, 2009, 08:10:54 PM
-
See Rule #14
-
We don't need it. F-15 will still kill everything out there
-
I still say get the Propjobs out of mothballs. Flying hairdryers are overrated and too expensive.
-
See Rule #14.
:( and right now we have only 122.
We don't need it. F-15 will still kill everything out there
F-15E is not made for air superiority, and F-15Cs are old are literally falling apart.
-
:( and right now we have only 122.
F-15E is not made for air superiority, and F-15Cs are old are literally falling apart.
Really don't need traditional "air superiority". Strike is the new air superiority. Can't take off in planes the F-15E already blew up before you knew what was going on.
-
Really don't need traditional "air superiority". Strike is the new air superiority. Can't take off in planes the F-15E already blew up before you knew what was going on.
then we might as well make B-52 the main air superiority fighter
-
then we might as well make B-52 the main air superiority fighter
LOL can you imagine that?
Internal Weapons: 24 AIM-120C AMRAAM
Wing Racks: 8 AIM-54C Phoenix
Gun: GAU-8/A with 3000 rounds
-
I still say get the Propjobs out of mothballs. Flying hairdryers are overrated and too expensive.
You know, not to go in a different direction, but I wonder how some older prop jobs and early jets in straight turn-fight with guns only..
I talking taking any radar or advanced avionics out the equation.. Airplane to Airplane.. I know it's weird...But I've always wondered...
Can F-18's or F-16's turn with the likes of a Spitfire or a Mustang? How would a Jug to against an A-10? Obviously the Jug would fall apart if hit
by the A-10 if it got hit at all.. Stupid questions... Please forgive..... :pray
-
LOL can you imagine that?
Internal Weapons: 24 AIM-120C AMRAAM
Wing Racks: 8 AIM-54C Phoenix
Gun: GAU-8/A with 3000 rounds
Wow.....I can only imagine...... It'd be like a B1R except bigger, slower, and almost certain death....
Still pretty cool though! :rock
-
Bring back the Tomcat!
-
You know, not to go in a different direction, but I wonder how some older prop jobs and early jets in straight turn-fight with guns only..
I talking taking any radar or advanced avionics out the equation.. Airplane to Airplane.. I know it's weird...But I've always wondered...
Can F-18's or F-16's turn with the likes of a Spitfire or a Mustang? How would a Jug to against an A-10? Obviously the Jug would fall apart if hit
by the A-10 if it got hit at all.. Stupid questions... Please forgive..... :pray
10,000ft would be a safe altitude for an F-16 to do a Spit-S (however if you have alot guts and do it at really slow speed you might be able to pull it of at 3,000ft)
-
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc191/KnightCH/f-23-3.jpg)
That should have won :)
-
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc191/KnightCH/f-23-3.jpg)
That should have won :)
The F23 did win.... Only cost prohibited production. Otherwise, it was better in maneuver capability, weapons load, and time on target. They couldn't get the per unit cost down low enough.
We'd only have 75 if the F-23 had won.
As for the F-15 still king of the skies.... I think you need to think with your head, and not your flag waving heart. They replaced it for a reason.... A generation 4.5 fighter will wipe the floor with F-15's, and they've proven that in Flag exercises for the past 5 or 6 years.
-
We don't need it. F-15 will still kill everything out there
Except that F-15 production will halt soon and most of the F-15Cs are older than you are, and are literally falling apart in flight. Take off the draggy conformal fuel tanks and an F-15E with -229 motors will outperform an F-15C, but that ignores the point that an F-15 can not survive in a modern air defense system. Hell, the latest sam systems will shoot BOMBS out of the sky at the same time they engage the strike aircraft.
As for the F-35, all I can say is that they better kill everything on the way in because they are not stealthy from the rear and the latest triple-digit SAMS can pick them off as they run away, after shooting down the 2 bombs the F-35 is capable of carrying.
-
They were on the right track with the F-15 ACTIVE. Canards, thrust vectoring, and STOL capabilities.
-
They were on the right track with the F-15 ACTIVE. Canards, thrust vectoring, and STOL capabilities.
That was NASA testing there stuff
-
I love Fa-22 raptor, my favorite plane :D
-BigBOBCH
-
post deleted
-
The F35 is in production for a fraction of the cost and very similar in performance to the F22.
-
The F35 is in production for a fraction of the cost and very similar in performance to the F22.
Did you read that in Highlights magazine waiting at the denist office?
-
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc191/KnightCH/f-23-3.jpg)
That should have won :)
The YF-23 was definitely more stealthy (yes, I'm an expert), but as I recall F-22 was more maneuverable. Decision was made by Fighter Mafia, so...
In any event, I think it's a huge mistake to cancel this program. The F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter, and does not IIRC have super-cruise. This alone is a force multiplier that is hard to overstate. The Low-Probability of Intercept radar systems, combined with its low radar cross section, give it a first-shot/first-kill ability that no other plane can currently match. The primary reason the USAF F-15 has maintained air dominance is due to training, tactics, and information dominance over the battle space, not the aircraft's capability. I don't say this to run down the F-15; it was and still is a marvelous machine. However, in the last two decades it has only been employed in a combat environment where the chips were stacked heavily in its favor. The combined arms, strike package concept employed by the US, used against adversaries with poorly trained and equiped nations, has done much to uphold the F-15's aura of superiority.
-
You know, not to go in a different direction, but I wonder how some older prop jobs and early jets in straight turn-fight with guns only..
I talking taking any radar or advanced avionics out the equation.. Airplane to Airplane.. I know it's weird...But I've always wondered...
Can F-18's or F-16's turn with the likes of a Spitfire or a Mustang? How would a Jug to against an A-10? Obviously the Jug would fall apart if hit
by the A-10 if it got hit at all.. Stupid questions... Please forgive..... :pray
The best sustained turn speed for an F-16 is faster than a Spitfire or P-51's best ias, so its turn radius would be gigantic compared to theirs, and trying to win the fight that way wouldn't work. This is a good demonstration of why turn-fighting is dumb. :P
-----------------------
I have some questions for the F-22 supporters. What are we going to do with it that we couldn't do with something more cost effective, i.e. the F-35? Unless you think war with China or Russia is a distinct possibility, the answer is going to be "nothing." Let's look at who our real enemies are, what their capabilities are, and with that information decide on the best way to fight them.
On the other hand, outfitting every Air Force fighter squadron with F-22s would be cheap compared to the cost of the strategic blunder we made in 2003. ;)
-
...What are we going to do with it that we couldn't do with something more cost effective, i.e. the F-35?...
I'm with you on this. I'm struggling to imagine the situation where a eighty or so Raptors and - say - 200 or so Lightnings, with the possibility of being backed up by 30 or 40 British / Italian / German / Australian / Canadian / other Usual Suspect allied Typhoons and Lightnings, would utterly dominate any given airspace.
Unless, of course, we're planning to invade China.
-
im still here Banshee///
-
then we might as well make B-52 the main air superiority fighter
Weren't they going to try that with the EB-52 Megafortress back around 2000?
I found pictures of the EB-52 Megafortress but forgot how to paste pictures on here.
-
Weren't they going to try that with the EB-52 Megafortress back around 2000?
I found pictures of the EB-52 Megafortress but forgot how to paste pictures on here.
You do realize that was a photoshopped joke based on a fiction novel machine, right?
-
You do realize that was a photoshopped joke based on a fiction novel machine, right?
That is why i asked it more of a question then anything. I know there are some photo shops out there, but I thought i read it was an idea for the military in the past.
I never said it was a real, sorry for the confusion.
New I read about the EB-52 somewhere.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/03/323298/us-air-force-cancels-sam-jamming-eb-52-for-second-time.html
-
Good move IMO.
With the lack of any significant enemy at the moment we dont need any more then we already have. And by the time we do have one. An even better plane will be developed.
I understand the desire to have more of these really cool weapon systems. I think they are cool too
But the reality is, Given our current enemies. We have other more pressing needs at the moment
-
Good move IMO.
With the lack of any significant enemy at the moment we dont need any more then we already have. And by the time we do have one. An even better plane will be developed.
I understand the desire to have more of these really cool weapon systems. I think they are cool too
But the reality is, Given our current enemies. We have other more pressing needs at the moment
With China moving to gain military and economic dominance in the Pacific Rim, the F-22 becomes even more important. It's range and super-cruise ability are ideal for an area where airspace is vast but airstrips sparse.
-
With China moving to gain military and economic dominance in the Pacific Rim, the F-22 becomes even more important. It's range and super-cruise ability are ideal for an area where airspace is vast but airstrips sparse.
So then you agree that the best reason for an F-22 instead of an F-35 is fighting China? That is your opponents' argument in a nut shell.
-
With the lack of any significant enemy at the moment we dont need any more then we already have. And by the time we do have one. An even better plane will be developed.
I understand the desire to have more of these really cool weapon systems. I think they are cool too
But the reality is, Given our current enemies. We have other more pressing needs at the moment
It is crazy to be penny-wise and pound-foolish in matters of defense, espescially considering the runaway government spending (porkulus, bailouts, etc.).
Why would you not want the best possible weapon system available? The problem is that you really don't know what other nations have in the pipeline. How can you assume that what you have is going to be good enough tomorrow? Voluntarily allowing the air superiority gap to be closed when technologies of other nations are catching up, does not help our diplomatic power either. "Speak softly but carry a big stick". Upon discovering an enemy on par or even exceeding our capability is not the time to go back to the drawing board.
-
Bring back the Tomcat!
negative ghost rider, the carriers are full of super hornets :D
-
unfortunately, the shutting down of the F22 line is due to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the F22's abilities are not needed where as the F35 brings more to the fight.. It is all about money...however, as mentioned before, with China's military build up and tech advances..the F-22 should be procured in greater numbers... at least 300-400 would suffice...
-
I want my F14 back :cry
-
I hear ya there..spikes... :mad:
-
unfortunately, the shutting down of the F22 line is due to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the F22's abilities are not needed where as the F35 brings more to the fight.. It is all about money...however, as mentioned before, with China's military build up and tech advances..the F-22 should be procured in greater numbers... at least 300-400 would suffice...
I've bought too much stuff that's made in China to be worried about things that are built in that country.
-
unfortunately Motherland, China has gotten some technology from the united states whether intentional or not...I do agree to an extent with you but I would be cautious with china..
-
Well, yeah, most stuff made in China is designed elsewhere. The problem is not that it's designed badly, but where it's made. In China.
If the pilot doesn't die of lead poisoning from the paint of his oxygen system first the aircraft will probably fall apart once it gets off the runway.
-
See Rule #4
-
(http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/5/22/128875007759446887.jpg)
Racism? I'm just making jokes about the quality of goods that come out of the PRC. Which is usually poor.
I have no problem with the Chinese...
-
negative ghost rider, the carriers are full of super hornets :D
:rock
I do like the F-14, but the per-unit and maintenance costs of the F-14D are assanine compared to the F-18E/F/Gs... and if I take my friend's word (he was an AE in the Navy on the F-18C/Ds, but if someone has the actual numbers, I'd like to see them), the money the Navy would of spent (had it kept with the Tomcat until the introduction of the F-35 navy variant) upgrading and maintaining the newer F-14s would of instead bought them anywhere from 2-3 brand new F-35s or 3-4 Super Hornets. While I miss the Tomcat, I do think the Navy is moving in the right direction... besides, Hornets are sexier IMO :t .
-
i was an AT, worked on 14's radar..all 3 cruises I made..over half the 18's were hangar queens.. we had 12 out of 14 tomcats up...not too mention 18 had a way inferior radar system...apg-65 could not hold a candle to the awg-9 or the apg-71...tomcat had range,speed,and payload.. 18's half to take off with half fuel load when loaded with ord and then tank up after launch. plus the 18's have issues with cracks in their wing roots.. -35 much improvement over the 18...15 and the 16 are aging and the F22 is a necessity..
-
i was an AT, worked on 14's radar..all 3 cruises I made..over half the 18's were hangar queens.. we had 12 out of 14 tomcats up...not too mention 18 had a way inferior radar system...apg-65 could not hold a candle to the awg-9 or the apg-71...tomcat had range,speed,and payload.. 18's half to take off with half fuel load when loaded with ord and then tank up after launch. plus the 18's have issues with cracks in their wing roots.. -35 much improvement over the 18...15 and the 16 are aging and the F22 is a necessity..
Tomcat, I thought the newer Super Hornets (Es/Fs/Gs) made improvements to the wingroot problems. Have you heard anything about this issue still being common?
-
last time I talked to friends of mine from my old radar shop..they had still some issues.. I dont know if they had been corrected.super hornets had a slight improvement in range and the radar was still shorter range.....the Super Hornet is basically a gap filler until the F35 comes online..
-
:rock
I do like the F-14, but the per-unit and maintenance costs of the F-14D are assanine compared to the F-18E/F/Gs... and if I take my friend's word (he was an AE in the Navy on the F-18C/Ds, but if someone has the actual numbers, I'd like to see them), the money the Navy would of spent (had it kept with the Tomcat until the introduction of the F-35 navy variant) upgrading and maintaining the newer F-14s would of instead bought them anywhere from 2-3 brand new F-35s or 3-4 Super Hornets. While I miss the Tomcat, I do think the Navy is moving in the right direction... besides, Hornets are sexier IMO :t .
The F14 cost more, yes, and most people probably would pick cost over anything...
The F14 has a larger range w/o DT's than the Super Bug has with them.
Look at the AiM-54...designed specifically for the Cat as a long range A2A missle...(yes I know it is retired)
How many targets can the F-18 track and fire upon? All I know is that the F-14 can track up to 24 and fire on 6 of them.
Sure...the F-18 is more of a fighter...but wouldn't you rather have an enemy blown out of the sky instead of dog fighting him?
You must be sick to say the F-18 is sexier than the F-14.
-
Dont know that anyone's mentioned it--obviously the F15/F16 can wax most of whatever is out there, but the F22 does that 5X better while being nearly invisible on radar? I'd submit our pilot not being hit by a SAM is a noteworthy feature....and if our allies have all the manufacturing info on F35, then so do the Chinese and Russians
-
:( and right now we have only 122.
F-15E is not made for air superiority, and F-15Cs are old are literally falling apart.
TRUE.......but we can build 2 or 3 f-15's or f-18's for the cost of each f-22
-
The Phoenix missile and the AWG-9 weapon system came from the failed F111B(the navalized version of the AirForce F111A)...it was too heavy for carrier operations..in most cases the 14 had radar lock before a contact knew what it was. in 1974-1975 there was a fly off between the 14 and the 15 which the 14 prevailed in. all my years working on 14's never heard a complaint about working too much on them..IT was our job and we liked our job....the bottom line like everything else is : you get what you pay for.
-
TRUE.......but we can build 2 or 3 f-15's or f-18's for the cost of each f-22
But 15 isn't as surviveable as the 22....do very-expensive-to-train pilots lost to SAMs figure into that scenario?
-
But 15 isn't as surviveable as the 22....do very-expensive-to-train pilots lost to SAMs figure into that scenario?
i would suspect that modern electronics, and countermeasures can be built into it, allowing the survivability to improve, and still be vastly cheaper.
i could be wrong though.......
-
Nary a clue there, but Iran is getting latest Russian AA stuff (I know the F117 was used for the intense stuff in '92, was it used same in '03 as well?)
-
to upgrade the 15 alone would require major refurbishment and considering the age of the airframe would not be cost effective. IN the 14's case the airframes were intended for around 7000-7500 flight hours and we had 14A's that had over 10000 flight hours before they were retired. In the end it would be cheaper to procure the F22.
-
to upgrade the 15 alone would require major refurbishment and considering the age of the airframe would not be cost effective. IN the 14's case the airframes were intended for around 7000-7500 flight hours and we had 14A's that had over 10000 flight hours before they were retired. In the end it would be cheaper to procure the F22.
the point i was trying to make wasn't to upgrade the existing eagles anf tomcats.......it was that since there's already tooling to produce these aircraft, and with the exception of the raptor, they're still the best in the world......build new ones. incorporate the newer electronics as they're built. brand new eagles, tomcats, and hornets..........would be a force to be reckoned with.
-
the point i was trying to make wasn't to upgrade the existing eagles anf tomcats.......it was that since there's already tooling to produce these aircraft, and with the exception of the raptor, they're still the best in the world......build new ones. incorporate the newer electronics as they're built. brand new eagles, tomcats, and hornets..........would be a force to be reckoned with.
But they are not the best in the world anymore...
-
But they are not the best in the world anymore...
excluding the raptor?
-
correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Furball was saying the Raptor is the best.
-
F14-15-16 will never be stealthy....F35/JSF is supposed to be, but I'm dubious of any plane which has its info known to most of the free world
-
excluding the raptor?
Raptor is in its own league.
Do you think that the F-15, 16 and 18 are better than the new stuff coming out of Europe and Russia?
-
as longs as this bad boy never geos out of production Ill be happy! they look fantastic...sound fantastic and blows the crap out of everything on the ground :aok
(http://www.flygplan.info/images/a-10-29.jpg)
-
Raptor is in its own league.
Do you think that the F-15, 16 and 18 are better than the new stuff coming out of Europe and Russia?
i think so, yes.....i coul dbe wrong though.
-
as longs as this bad boy never geos out of production Ill be happy! they look fantastic...sound fantastic and blows the crap out of everything on the ground :aok
(http://www.flygplan.info/images/a-10-29.jpg)
dude, that is my new backround. :aok
-
the point i was trying to make wasn't to upgrade the existing eagles anf tomcats.......it was that since there's already tooling to produce these aircraft, and with the exception of the raptor, they're still the best in the world......build new ones. incorporate the newer electronics as they're built. brand new eagles, tomcats, and hornets..........would be a force to be reckoned with.
The thing is, focusing on the F-14 here, it's a old air-frame plus we gave all of ours (or most of them) to Iran. It would be a pain to re-build Cats, but don't you think it would be worth it in the long run?? It was the best fighter the Navy's had. ike Tomcat said, you get what you pay for. We paid big bucks to get a good, solid, lethal, and sexy airframe that lasted us for a LONG time.
-
Raptor is in its own league.
Do you think that the F-15, 16 and 18 are better than the new stuff coming out of Europe and Russia?
I've always thought its more important that we have better trained pilots and better maintained machines than we run out and get the newest and flashiest every few years. And I still think a well flown F-16 is one of the best fighters in the world, even if it isn't cutting edge tech anymore. Its small, fast, nimble, and can carry just about any piece of ordnance in the NATO inventory. It might get beat at Red Flag and other NATO exercises- but hopefully those aren't the folks who'll be fighting against it. Its folks who've been operating and training against them for twenty years.
Can an American F-16 or F-18 beat a German or British Typhoon? Maybe not. Can it beat a former Warsaw Pact or Pacific Rim pilot in a MiG-29 or SU-27? I think so.
-
the Iranian f14's were bought in 1978ish by the Shah of Iran. They purchased 80 but only 77 were delivered because of the Shah's fall.. of the 77 Iran has only a handful were flying as of 2008. The remaining 'Cats are in the boneyard..some are on display. Unfortunately when Grumman was bought out by Northup in the '90's they destroyed all the tooling for the Tomcat line.( :frown:)..
-
as longs as this bad boy never geos out of production Ill be happy! they look fantastic...sound fantastic and blows the crap out of everything on the ground :aok
(http://www.flygplan.info/images/a-10-29.jpg)
The A-10 has been out of production for a long long time. The ones flying now are in a long-term maintenance/upgrade/refurb status. Funded refurbishments include new wings, upgrades include a brand new digital avionics suite that can handle a targeting pod, new weapons, and GPS, and unfunded but highly desired upgrades include new engines.
-
IMO I think the f18 is sexier than the f14, the sight of a f18 is beautiful.
While the a10 is a beast, I hate the sound of them. They used to fly over my house all the time and you could hear them coming from a distance with their loud screeching engines.
-
It is crazy to be penny-wise and pound-foolish in matters of defense, espescially considering the runaway government spending (porkulus, bailouts, etc.).
Why would you not want the best possible weapon system available? The problem is that you really don't know what other nations have in the pipeline. How can you assume that what you have is going to be good enough tomorrow? Voluntarily allowing the air superiority gap to be closed when technologies of other nations are catching up, does not help our diplomatic power either. "Speak softly but carry a big stick". Upon discovering an enemy on par or even exceeding our capability is not the time to go back to the drawing board.
And at the moment we have enough to suffice. the order has been filled. Actually if memory serves correct. the order has been filled and then some.
The reality is there are other things we need that we are short of right now at this moment.
I agree its crazy to be penny wise and pound foolish when preparing for future threats. But where do you draw the line? Particularly when there are current engagements that need items now.
Its also crazy to short change the needs of our troops now for the sake of a might need for a future threat.
If the time comes. We can always reramp up production of the 22 if we need to. And since R&D of new weapons systems is still being funded. By default. Anything comming out of the pipeline in the future will be more badarse then we have today.
Not to mention that the things we are moving the money to today to address the things we are currently short of for TODAYS operations. Would also be just as needed in a future conflict. And if left unaddressed we would be even shorter of if we were to become engaged in a conflict with the likes of China.
-
IMO I think the f18 is sexier than the f14, the sight of a f18 is beautiful.
While the a10 is a beast, I hate the sound of them. They used to fly over my house all the time and you could hear them coming from a distance with their loud screeching engines.
But they're sooooo lethal :)
-
This plane was so far ahead of it time, it can still kick the crap out
of alot of todays fighters.
(http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/f104-03.jpg)
-
This plane was so far ahead of it time, it can still kick the crap out
of alot of todays fighters.
(http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/f104-03.jpg)
As long as the opponent doesn't turn, maybe.
-
And at the moment we have enough to suffice. the order has been filled. Actually if memory serves correct. the order has been filled and then some.
The reality is there are other things we need that we are short of right now at this moment.
I agree its crazy to be penny wise and pound foolish when preparing for future threats. But where do you draw the line? Particularly when there are current engagements that need items now.
Its also crazy to short change the needs of our troops now for the sake of a might need for a future threat.
If the time comes. We can always reramp up production of the 22 if we need to. And since R&D of new weapons systems is still being funded. By default. Anything comming out of the pipeline in the future will be more badarse then we have today.
Not to mention that the things we are moving the money to today to address the things we are currently short of for TODAYS operations. Would also be just as needed in a future conflict. And if left unaddressed we would be even shorter of if we were to become engaged in a conflict with the likes of China.
That makes me think of the MRAP thing--this vehicle wasn't the long-term thing the brass wanted to spend their limited funds on, and possibly HUNDREDS (depends on whom you ask) of kids like JunkyII got killed in Hummers when the MRAP program could have gotten ramped up after they realized what a nightmare the IED's were gonna be.
-
But they're sooooo lethal :)
all of our aircraft are.
you don't hear them coming till they're gone. :D
-
Sorry guys, the F22 was a waste of money, in terms of air-power, the JSF/15/18 combo is plenty. . . and tbh, its going to move more and more towards drones - since civilians don't like dead people in wars.
Let me make a note here. . .from a professional Intelligence Analysts standpoint - and yes, I know my kind is not popular with the boys who have their ass7 blown off, but - China and Russia are not a military threat in the conventional sense. It is widly reported that the Russian army, Navy and Airforce are crumbling, there is a serious lack of training, a lack of recruits, and they are quite behind in technology. Sure there are cool toys they show at airshows, but we have been lucky to get a real close look at their military capabiity both in Chechnya and more importantly in Georgia (we had boots on the ground there) - so really there is no military threat outside of mutual destruction. . .
China is the third largest economy in the world after the U.S. and Japan, and China and Japan combined is still less then half of the U.S. so relax. They have a very poorly trained army, navy and airforce and their military hardwear is nowhere near even Russia's - on top of it - their Navy and Airfoce are actually managed as the Army (china only has the army) which may lead some to speculate that this would make organization better right? wrong. . . inter departmental politics in the chinese military, the way the air and sea wings are used to support the army means China still has a LONG way to go before they can project power.
cont.
-
This plane was so far ahead of it time, it can still kick the crap out
of alot of todays fighters.
(http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/f104-03.jpg)
Yeah...ok. These are the names pilots gave this marvelous F-104 (which was retired from US service in 1975) Also, with wing loading around 105 lbs2 UNLOADED...it always made me laugh they carried Sidewinders(unless the target is an airliner, the 104 will never be able to line up on it).....In air to air, anything will eat them up.
"The Flying Coffin" from the translation of the common German public name of Fliegender Sarg. The F-104 was also called Witwenmacher ("Widowmaker"), or Erdnagel ("ground nail") – the official military term for a tent peg.[54] The Pakistani AF name was Badmash ("Hooligan"), while among Italian pilots its spiky design earned it the nickname Spillone ("Hatpin"), along with Bara volante ("Flying coffin"). Canadian pilots sometimes referred to it as the "flying lawn dart" or "Widowmaker"
-
The real threat the U.S. faces is in Cyber-warfare, and this too is no great mystery. The U.S. is the most networked society, and that includes our military/government/intelligence communities. . . China and Russia have been working in these fields a lot lately (lots of stories out there - and thats just the half of it imo < thats NSA/Airforce stuff. . .>) - - and the U.S. is at a major disadvantage because China and Russia (and every other country except Canada) is less networked, and thus less vulnerable to a net blackout. So when the U.S. starts to think about the net as a security risk. . .thats when things like the F22 program just look really old-fahsioned.
We are not going to face another airforce as great as us, we are not going to meet an army or navy that is better trained or equipped. The future of the wars we are going to fight, other then these desert camping trips we gotta get the hell out of asap, is going to be very quiet and quite devious. . . thats the reports a lot of analysts have been writing from before 9/11. . . and 9/11 changed nothing in terms of the wars we are going to fight. . .
anyway - its a sexy plane. . . but we don't need it.
-
.
China is the third largest economy in the world after the U.S. and Japan, and China and Japan combined is still less then half of the U.S. so relax. They have a very poorly trained army, navy and airforce and their military hardwear is nowhere near even Russia's - on top of it - their Navy and Airfoce are actually managed as the Army (china only has the army) which may lead some to speculate that this would make organization better right? wrong. . . inter departmental politics in the chinese military, the way the air and sea wings are used to support the army means China still has a LONG way to go before they can project power.
cont.
So you're saying the J-10 is trash?
(http://www.militaryparitet.com/editor/assets/main_page/J-10s.jpg)
-
Is F22 considered an air-to-air only platform? What about JSF?
-
F22 has limited air to ground capability..2 JDAMS(Joint Direct Attack Munitions are carried. The F-35 is a multirole aircraft .
-
The real threat the U.S. faces is in Cyber-warfare, and this too is no great mystery. The U.S. is the most networked society, and that includes our military/government/intelligence communities. . . China and Russia have been working in these fields a lot lately (lots of stories out there - and thats just the half of it imo < thats NSA/Airforce stuff. . .>) - - and the U.S. is at a major disadvantage because China and Russia (and every other country except Canada) is less networked, and thus less vulnerable to a net blackout. So when the U.S. starts to think about the net as a security risk. . .thats when things like the F22 program just look really old-fahsioned.
We are not going to face another airforce as great as us, we are not going to meet an army or navy that is better trained or equipped. The future of the wars we are going to fight, other then these desert camping trips we gotta get the hell out of asap, is going to be very quiet and quite devious. . . thats the reports a lot of analysts have been writing from before 9/11. . . and 9/11 changed nothing in terms of the wars we are going to fight. . .
anyway - its a sexy plane. . . but we don't need it.
Having better equipment is only half the battle, a soldier that is use to having to many home comforts and relays on technology will be more in trouble when that is somehow taken away from him, than another soldier who has to continuely improvise and work with his poorer euipment, I worked with some romanians in Afghanistan and I was very impressed with what they had to live with, and how good of a job they done with it..
at somepoint we wont even have piloted airplanes, already the UAV can carry ordance and hit with them, I do agree the next threat will be cyber related..
-
Let me make a note here. . .from a professional Intelligence Analysts standpoint - and yes, I know my kind is not popular with the boys who have their ass7 blown off, but - China and Russia are not a military threat in the conventional sense. It is widly reported that the Russian army, Navy and Airforce are crumbling, there is a serious lack of training, a lack of recruits, and they are quite behind in technology. Sure there are cool toys they show at airshows, but we have been lucky to get a real close look at their military capabiity both in Chechnya and more importantly in Georgia (we had boots on the ground there) - so really there is no military threat outside of mutual destruction. . .
Well hopefully Russia doesn't put too many of these out....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei_class_submarine
-
I always thought of it like this...
F-22: Air to air for the most part, can do air to ground. More of a specialized fighter/interceptor. Very stealthy, good "first attack" fighter.
F-35: Pretty much fills the role of a more stealthy F-18E/F. Does all tasks well, but in an A2A fight, you would most likely see an F-22 win with equal pilots.
I think the only fighter in the world that could really compete with the F-22 in a 1 vs 1 fight is an Su-47 (if it ever went live).
-
Reminds me of how a project to give the F-4 better engines was killed off.
It's speed approached/matched/exceeded that of the F-16. So, to save sales on the LWF, they killed the project. I always liked the idea of bringing back the Phantom. After a total cockpit redesign, of course.
Clock in the middle of the dash. My god.
Still, yeah. Upgraded Phantom would be fine for the CURRENT war. I mean, give it some water-cooled turbines and it screams like the Eagle.
On the subject of dusting off old birds, I used to wonder whether we could simply drag out the old prop jockeys and slap missiles on 'em and save tons of money. Then I realized the cost of modern aircraft comes from the systems, not the airframe. Too bad.
-
So you're saying the J-10 is trash?
(http://www.militaryparitet.com/editor/assets/main_page/J-10s.jpg)
I would. I test flew one at the local Walmart last weekend and it was already burning oil. The worst part is the mandatory "Dealer Upgrade Pack", which is $99,999.00 for paint sealant and scotchguard.
-
Yeah...ok. These are the names pilots gave this marvelous F-104 (which was retired from US service in 1975) Also, with wing loading around 105 lbs2 UNLOADED...it always made me laugh they carried Sidewinders(unless the target is an airliner, the 104 will never be able to line up on it).....In air to air, anything will eat them up.
You might want to stop repeating ill informed propaganda, or just talk to a few experienced Starfighter pilots. I know several people who flew the 104 and everyone of them liked the aircraft. Everyone of them also said that if you did not respect the envelope, you were dead. It's no different from any other airframe with a narrow flight envelope.
-
F-15 is dying... F-22, was the best, then the cost kicked in. F-35 is cheaper than the F-22 and better than the F-15, with stealth, plus it can land on carriers, and can take off vertically.
-FYB
-
So you're saying the J-10 is trash?
It had the potential to be scary, about 20 years ago. The engine is garbage, the radar is aged, it has zero low observable characteristics, and China can't even make the R-77M missiles you'd have to have for it to make a contribution in a modern air war.
-
It had the potential to be scary, about 20 years ago. The engine is garbage, the radar is aged, it has zero low observable characteristics, and China can't even make the R-77M missiles you'd have to have for it to make a contribution in a modern air war.
I believe someone else in here put it perfectly... "I've seen the crap that is made in China, and I am not worried about Chinese made crap."
-
When I mentioned the F-4 project that was killed off for the F-16, I may have been in error. The proposal I was thinking of was the F-4X, a high-performance variant for Israel with speed similar to the SR-71 Blackbird, and offensive capabilities beyond anything currently in the USAF arsenal. Water injection was projected to give the aircraft a top speed in excess of Mach 3 (over 2,000 mph (3,200 km/h) at high altitudes). It was forced to be modified for reconnaissance use, then finally scrapped, for fears that a high-performance Phantom II would endanger sales of the F-15 Eagle (rather than the F-16 as I originally stated)
A separate IAI project was also proposed, centered around the F-4 Phantom. This Super Phantom project was separate from the Boeing Super Phantom proposal. The IAI-made F-4 "Super Phantom" or F-4-2000 was demonstrated at the Paris Air Show in 1987. It could exceed Mach 1 without afterburners, making it the first aircraft in my knowledge with supercruise capacity. McDonnell Douglas scuttled Kurnas 2000 development because it equaled the F/A-18C/D in performance and endangered any future sales of the F/A-18. One prototype was constructed.
Source: Wikipedia
Sorry for any confusion.
-
I believe someone else in here put it perfectly... "I've seen the crap that is made in China, and I am not worried about Chinese made crap."
<<<<semi-hijack>>>>
you should be. isn't cessna contracting to china to build the skycatcher?
<<end semi-hijack attempt>>