Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gman on January 23, 2011, 12:10:24 AM
-
Why did these programs get cut so short, and in the Comanche's case get cancelled? After spending 7 billion to design the Rah66, it gets cancelled when it would cost another 24 billion for all 1200 Helo's to be built? That's only 3 times the development cost for the entire fleet of what would have been a critically important tool on the battlefield for instant recon information, as well as the ability to approach EAD and suppress and/or destroy them far more easily than using tactical fighters. After giving the banks the 800 billion for the bailouts, you would think the government would have found a way to to move 10% of that money to critical defense systems like this AND the F22. Ten percent would have bought ALL 1200 of the Comanche's and ALL 800 odd of the F22's originally ordered. Instead, the Army has no Helo other than 30 year old Tech Blackhawk's, Huey variants, and AH64's. The Air Force has twelve squadrons of F22 instead of nearly 100. And that's if they are all operational at any given time, which is far fetched at best. The Navy has no new A/C in the pipeline save the F35, and the F/A18e/f will do a better job at some jobs than the F35, and the F18 is a horrible replacement for outer fleet defense for the F14. A slow, low fuel fraction F18F with AMRAAM missiles, that albeit seem to be a great missle, but not a lot of range compared to the threats out there to the fleet's ships, what with all the new FAST and small anti ship missiles. WTH is going to happen when the USA is put out of the power projection business, and when CVN task forces' are sent to future hot zones and all the nations threatened merely shrug and carry on. Scary times if you ask me.
Has the US government decided to throw in the towel against future threats or something? Where was the wrong turn made? In the 1990's the Chinese were begging for most favored nation trading status from the USA, and were begging to borrow from the USA and its Arab allies with $$. How did this situation reverse itself to where the Chinese are lending/buying up the USA, and are coming out with new military systems hand over fist while the USA seems to be cancelling most of the new stuff, including the RAH66, F22, and F35(pos or not).
What I've always admired about America is that despite all of its problems the military has always been the world front runner, especially when it came to advancing warfighting systems. Firepower and its overwhelming and accurate use after all was largely an American invention. It's going to be all kinds of suck for all of us in the western world if this stops being the case.
-
the apache is still a beast. the blackhawk is still the safest helicopter in the world. and the huey is a legend that will never die(isreal proves that) why waste millions of $$$ on building stuff that is better-than when we can spend much less $$$ upgrading whatever we have now so its good-enough?
the apache is scheduled to be in active u.s service till 2030 i believe. hopefully long enough for me to become an apache pilot. :airplane: :joystick: :salute
-
Its the international capitalist system at work.
Just count the number of "made in the rest of the world" stamps on products in chinese households vs "made in china" stamps on products in households on the rest of the planet and the answer is given.
Some of our hopes are:
We get less greedy or start buying domestic made goods.... ehm ooops... not gonna happen
The chinese gets tired of money and stops selling goods... not so sure about that either.
The chinese litterally drowns in money and has sold all their "made in china" lifejackets and has to set fire to their money... COULD happen.
Chinese standard of living reaches a level where they no longer can sell their goods that cheap. No... they would have to stop making babies and they wont.
ZOMBIE outbreak in China unless they have already bought Milla Jovovich
-
Please give me one solid reason why we need a stealth helicopter with a smaller payload than the Apache?
-
'cause, new automatically=better, obviously.
[/sarcasm]
-
Please give me one solid reason why we need a stealth helicopter with a smaller payload than the Apache?
the C.I.A may need one, but thats all i can think of.
-
Please give me one solid reason why we need a stealth helicopter with a smaller payload than the Apache?
I can give you dozens, ie all the AH64's shot down in the Balkans and Iraq 2003 etc. Granted not ALL of them would NOT have been shot down if they were Rah66's, but certainly some wouldn't have, and it isn't just about "stealth", the Comanche has far less of an IR and sound signature, probably the lowest of ANY helo yet devised, and the payload issue isn't as major of an issue as you think, few AH64's came close to coming home with all their ordnance expended, in fact they used their canon more frequently than anything else in many cases that I've read. The Comanche could do SO much the AH64 can't, except perhaps absorb damage, but again, I point out the first stat, and plenty of AH64's got dropped by threats they were supposed to "survive" in the last 10 years.
-
i'm sorry but "stealth " and helicopter don't mix . you have massive whirling blades at almost supersonic speeds attached to your craft that will make it a radars xmas . even if the blades were carbon fibre the running gear would be metal and there fore negate any "stealth " it would have . Having your weapons on bays also seems pointless for an attack copter . TBH helos are never going to be stealthy therefore just upgrade the AH-64 , UH-60 and UH-1 fleets. Speed is a helos saviour . The RN and RAF Lynx helo's are great examples of fast manoeuvrable helos . Speed and ability to change direction quickly will keep you alive more than "stealth" in a CAS role on the modern battle field.
Sound is a non issue as AH-64 attacks are from a few miles away so sound isn't going to give you away to much . The idea is to knock out the AAA with your hell fire then hit the tank with the 30mm chain gun . Hell fires can be fire without a line of sight by using target designators from ground forces or a high flying fix wing aircraft ; even a little bird scout can pick your target while you sit 3-5 miles away popping of your "STAND OFF MISSILE SYSTEM" which is what the hellfire is.
All the "problems" you state don't really exist . Helicopter battle tactics aren't like in games . It's all team work with different branches of the military working together
-
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.
-
Given today's inclusion of drone technology wouldn't you say that it is highly likely the new 'attack choppers' will be drones and that air dominance can be achieved better through numerical AND technological superiority of air-2-air drones (without risking a pilot)?
-
the C.I.A may need one, but thats all i can think of.
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.
I can give you dozens, ie all the AH64's shot down in the Balkans and Iraq 2003 etc. Granted not ALL of them would NOT have been shot down if they were Rah66's, but certainly some wouldn't have, and it isn't just about "stealth", the Comanche has far less of an IR and sound signature, probably the lowest of ANY helo yet devised, and the payload issue isn't as major of an issue as you think, few AH64's came close to coming home with all their ordnance expended, in fact they used their canon more frequently than anything else in many cases that I've read. The Comanche could do SO much the AH64 can't, except perhaps absorb damage, but again, I point out the first stat, and plenty of AH64's got dropped by threats they were supposed to "survive" in the last 10 years.
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.
-
Why did they cancel the Stargate program?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War
From 2003 to now there were 55 Helo's of the type that the Comanche was going to replace, Kiowas/AH64/Cobras, most of them being AH64's, but some Kiowas and Cobras too, but about 60% AH-64's. There were a dozen lost in the Balkans, maybe that's what you meant when you say 12 were lost.
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.
I thought about this a while...it makes a lot of sense to me the more I think aobut it.
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?
-
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.
-
and so no matter how "stealthy" you are if they see you and hit your tail your down
The Rah66 was also VERY quiet and very small...there is more to Stealth than just radar cross section. It is much harder to hear and see than what it would have replaced. It wasn't a NOTAR, but it was a shrouded tail rotor.
Also not ALL of the helo's shot down were by unguided systems. Just because you saw a bunch of helo's get shot by RPG's in BlackHawk down doesn't mean every helo in Iraq and Afghanistan was shot down by the same thing. In fact only SIX of the dozens of helo's listed were shot down by RPG fire and not even half of those were the helo's I've been talking about.
I have a picture that I took myself of an SA7/SA14 missle fired at a helo behind ours, so don't give me that.
-
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 .
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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..... :noid
-
majority of IED's encountered are 155MM arty rounds when ord is used.
-
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 .
-
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.
A drone can stay on the air far longer than an F22 and drones allow you to have a dozen in the air compared to one F22 in the air. If you're on the ground and want CAS support would you rather have 2 X f22's dropping bombs and leaving after 20 minutes or 20 drones dropping bombs and providing support for hours at a time?
There's no reason 10 drone pilots can fly 4 or more drones each either. All 4 drones per pilot arrive in a waiting area and go on autopilot loiter while the drone pilot commands one to the combat zone, drops its ordenance, flies it to the loiter zone and switches to another drone...the expended drone autopilots back to an airfield to re-arm. I don't know if this is currently possible but given today's tech I don't see why not.
-
A drone can stay on the air far longer than an F22 and drones allow you to have a dozen in the air compared to one F22 in the air. If you're on the ground and want CAS support would you rather have 2 X f22's dropping bombs and leaving after 20 minutes or 20 drones dropping bombs and providing support for hours at a time?
There's no reason 10 drone pilots can fly 4 or more drones each either. All 4 drones per pilot arrive in a waiting area and go on autopilot loiter while the drone pilot commands one to the combat zone, drops its ordenance, flies it to the loiter zone and switches to another drone...the expended drone autopilots back to an airfield to re-arm. I don't know if this is currently possible but given today's tech I don't see why not.
I'D rather have a couple f-22's. real pilots in em to give realtime assessment of the situation. they can adapt faster. they can change their targets faster. a live flown plane is to be feared i think moreso than a drone.
-
I'D rather have a couple f-22's. real pilots in em to give realtime assessment of the situation. they can adapt faster. they can change their targets faster. a live flown plane is to be feared i think moreso than a drone.
Actually drone pilots are far more effective in the close air support role. They move slower have a 360degrees of movement camera can see under the plane and have no fear of crashing their plane and no real adrenaline rush.
-
Actually drone pilots are far more effective in the close air support role. They move slower have a 360degrees of movement camera can see under the plane and have no fear of crashing their plane and no real adrenaline rush.
if you wanna use that angle, then i'd rather have a good old a-10 in there to support me. thing can turn on a dime, and hand ya 9 cents change, a gun to be feared, and plenty of hardpoints for ordinance mounting.
peripheral vision of the pilot, and the pilots instincts on scene i don't think will ever be matched by a drone being flown by a guy a half of the world away. the guy flying right over my head sees what's going down, and it's real to him, 'cause he's there. the guy flying the drone.....not so much, as he's in a nice safe warm room.
-
One word: Politics
-
Why did these programs get cut so short, and in the Comanche's case get cancelled? After spending 7 billion to design the Rah66, it gets cancelled when it would cost another 24 billion for all 1200 Helo's to be built? That's only 3 times the development cost for the entire fleet of what would have been a critically important tool on the battlefield for instant recon information, as well as the ability to approach EAD and suppress and/or destroy them far more easily than using tactical fighters. After giving the banks the 800 billion for the bailouts, you would think the government would have found a way to to move 10% of that money to critical defense systems like this AND the F22. Ten percent would have bought ALL 1200 of the Comanche's and ALL 800 odd of the F22's originally ordered. Instead, the Army has no Helo other than 30 year old Tech Blackhawk's, Huey variants, and AH64's. The Air Force has twelve squadrons of F22 instead of nearly 100. And that's if they are all operational at any given time, which is far fetched at best. The Navy has no new A/C in the pipeline save the F35, and the F/A18e/f will do a better job at some jobs than the F35, and the F18 is a horrible replacement for outer fleet defense for the F14. A slow, low fuel fraction F18F with AMRAAM missiles, that albeit seem to be a great missle, but not a lot of range compared to the threats out there to the fleet's ships, what with all the new FAST and small anti ship missiles. WTH is going to happen when the USA is put out of the power projection business, and when CVN task forces' are sent to future hot zones and all the nations threatened merely shrug and carry on. Scary times if you ask me.
Has the US government decided to throw in the towel against future threats or something? Where was the wrong turn made? In the 1990's the Chinese were begging for most favored nation trading status from the USA, and were begging to borrow from the USA and its Arab allies with $$. How did this situation reverse itself to where the Chinese are lending/buying up the USA, and are coming out with new military systems hand over fist while the USA seems to be cancelling most of the new stuff, including the RAH66, F22, and F35(pos or not).
What I've always admired about America is that despite all of its problems the military has always been the world front runner, especially when it came to advancing warfighting systems. Firepower and its overwhelming and accurate use after all was largely an American invention. It's going to be all kinds of suck for all of us in the western world if this stops being the case.
Oh, nevermind, I just can't bring myself to breaking another fragile F-14 lover's heart with some F-18 glory.
-
if you wanna use that angle, then i'd rather have a good old a-10 in there to support me. thing can turn on a dime, and hand ya 9 cents change, a gun to be feared, and plenty of hardpoints for ordinance mounting.
peripheral vision of the pilot, and the pilots instincts on scene i don't think will ever be matched by a drone being flown by a guy a half of the world away. the guy flying right over my head sees what's going down, and it's real to him, 'cause he's there. the guy flying the drone.....not so much, as he's in a nice safe warm room.
I don't see how you prefer one pair of eyes sitting on a lot of ordnance... who can only do one pass at a time vs a swarm of 10 drones each with a pair of eyes and carrying ordnance that can can make multiple, independent passes in the time the A10 makes one pass.
The A10 is an amazing plane but ultimately it is only one plane performing doing the job amazingly well versus multiple drones doing the same job very well, 24/7.
-
I don't see how you prefer one pair of eyes sitting on a lot of ordnance... who can only do one pass at a time vs a swarm of 10 drones each with a pair of eyes and carrying ordnance that can can make multiple, independent passes in the time the A10 makes one pass.
The A10 is an amazing plane but ultimately it is only one plane performing doing the job amazingly well versus multiple drones doing the same job very well, 24/7.
because the a-10 will not be there alone. he'll have wingmen. half of what they can carry will already be on target by the time they get there, then they can move in close to clean up.
the pilots in those aircraft will see what is going on, and it will be very real to them. because of this, they will have a sense of urgency to get the job done.
the pilots flying the drones are safe, no matter what happens. what they see is on a monitor. in essence it'll be on tv. they will not necessarily feel the same sense of urgency to get the job done.
when it comes down to it, if we're gonna put our people on the ground in harms way, then we dam well better be doing the absolute best that we can to dig em outta trouble when they call for help. to do that, you need to have real people there in realtime. not some kid sitting 5,000 miles away remotely flying a drone.
for close support..........the a-10 can't be beat. if they aren't available....then bring in the harriers.
I ALMOSGT FORGOT.......
the hog will only need that one single pass.
-
I don't see how you prefer one pair of eyes sitting on a lot of ordnance... who can only do one pass at a time vs a swarm of 10 drones each with a pair of eyes and carrying ordnance that can can make multiple, independent passes in the time the A10 makes one pass.
The A10 is an amazing plane but ultimately it is only one plane performing doing the job amazingly well versus multiple drones doing the same job very well, 24/7.
do you read what you say...
just a few posts ago you said have 10 drones in the area in standby and pretty much have them all controlled by two person. So at MOST in that situation you will only have 2 a/c overhead. having 10 aicraft just circling is a complete waste of our resources especially when the job can be done by one or two A-10's.
if you want to play endurance game then launch a couple of satelights and position them over the ME. They could give intel for decades.
lets clear this up now, Drones are not flown by people. They are completely automated. UAV's are flown by a remote pilot.
-
majority of IED's encountered are 155MM arty rounds when ord is used.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
Yes, there will be some wasted fuel, but the drones sip, while the hog gulps.
-Penguin
-
do you read what you say...
just a few posts ago you said have 10 drones in the area in standby and pretty much have them all controlled by two person. So at MOST in that situation you will only have 2 a/c overhead. having 10 aicraft just circling is a complete waste of our resources especially when the job can be done by one or two A-10's.
if you want to play endurance game then launch a couple of satelights and position them over the ME. They could give intel for decades.
lets clear this up now, Drones are not flown by people. They are completely automated. UAV's are flown by a remote pilot.
That could be a source of confusion. I am talking about UAV's then (remote controlled) that can switch to AI control for waypoint to waypoint flight.
I am saying that for every 1 manned plane.. be it F16 or A10 there can be 10 drones in the air .. based on cost and human endurance factor (UAV pilot can just switch control to another UAV pilot and go home whereas a manned AC pilot cant). So when CAP1 says the A-10 has wingmen I mean that for every A10 that is flying you can have 10 UAV's flying in the same area delivering more ordnance to separate targets at once. In that situation the UAV/Drone becomes more effective than the A10.
-
That could be a source of confusion. I am talking about UAV's then (remote controlled) that can switch to AI control for waypoint to waypoint flight.
I am saying that for every 1 manned plane.. be it F16 or A10 there can be 10 drones in the air .. based on cost and human endurance factor (UAV pilot can just switch control to another UAV pilot and go home whereas a manned AC pilot cant). So when CAP1 says the A-10 has wingmen I mean that for every A10 that is flying you can have 10 UAV's flying in the same area delivering more ordnance to separate targets at once. In that situation the UAV/Drone becomes more effective than the A10.
i understand what you're trying to say.
but put yourself in the infantrymans shoes. would you feel better knowing that the job is being done with sheer excellence, and being able to actually see the pilot of that a10 as he blasts by, or would you feel better with a remote controlled airplane flown by a guy half way around the world, that has 0 clue of what exactly is going on there?
and a single a-10 can deliver a devastaing blow to the enemy. putting up 10 of any sort of aircraft to do the job of one is a massive waste.
-
Another thing about the A-10 is it doesnt need A2G missiles/rockets or bombs to do SERIOUS damage. Its the worlds only flying cannon. Literally, when asked, the designer said it was designed around the gun not the gun being fitted into the A-10 design. Also the A-10 can take damage, if one of those UAV's gets hit its done.
another thing, if we need ten planes in the area, we have ten planes there. There is no need for 10 UAV's just flying around when the job only requires 1 plane whatever type it is.
-
As a boot, I'd like to see my seargent calling in air support from his laptop, rather than hope and pray that the Death Santa and his hogs are around. Furthermore, I wouldn't want that 30mm cannon going off by my buddies, or those who we are trying to protect- not vaporize!
With 10 drones (which have great cameras by the way: FLIR, night vision and TV), every company in the battalion can have at least one, and smaller ones can have 2 or three each! Instead of having to call the Colonel, I can just give a holler to the Captain.
With A-10's:
Sarge: Hey, look! Hajji has formed an angry mob!
Me: Right, I'll get the radio operator. Hey Luke! Is the Colonel awake yet?
Luke: Gimme a minute!
Radio: We're sorry, the number you have dialed is no longer availible
Luke: Son of a *****!
Sarge: Looks like no Hogs today, boys, RUN!
With Drones:
Sarge: Hey, look! It's an angry mob!
Me: Captain! We could use some help with the mob!
Captain: *Opens Laptop* *click, click*
Pilot: Eye-in-the-sky-that-makes-Hajjis-cry pain delivery service, how may I help you?
Captain: Yes, we'd like a double order of :ahand with a side of awesome sauce
Pilot: *Click* *Click*
BOOM!
See the difference?
-Penguin
-
it truly scares me some of the stuff i see from our youth.
-
it truly scares me some of the stuff i see from our youth.
:headscratch:
-Penguin
-
With Drones:
Sarge: Hey, look! It's an angry mob!
Me: Captain! We could use some help with the mob!
Captain: *Opens Laptop* *click, click*
Pilot: Eye-in-the-sky-that-makes-Hajjis-cry pain delivery service, how may I help you?
Captain: Yes, we'd like a double order of :ahand with a side of awesome sauce
Pilot: *Click* *Click*
BOOM!
See the difference?
-Penguin
but wait... the internet is out... now what will you do?
-
Or,
Oops, the Hogs are busy
Oops, the Colonel is asleep
Oops, the Hogs are being fixed
If the internet is out, then the radio can be used to get link to a FOB, just like with the Hogs.
-Penguin
-
Or,
Oops, the Hogs are busy
Oops, the Colonel is asleep
Oops, the Hogs are being fixed
If the internet is out, then the radio can be used to get link to a FOB, just like with the Hogs.
-Penguin
but remember the number is no longer available and the Colonel is asleep....
Guess your just SOL either way :bolt:
-
Or,
Oops, the Hogs are busy
Oops, the Colonel is asleep
Oops, the Hogs are being fixed
If the internet is out, then the radio can be used to get link to a FOB, just like with the Hogs.
-Penguin
the hogs will be busy. they'll be busy making our ground troops problems go away. and they will do it more efficiently than anyone could imagine.
almost forgot......the hogs are pretty much the only warplane that will go un-effected when those that wish us harm figure out codes, and how to interfere with out satellite comms.
-
what if its a hog pilot flying the UAV? :neener:
-
what if its a hog pilot flying the UAV? :neener:
no self respecting hog pilot will go sit in a room and fly a uav.
-
You do realize that the people flying the UAV's did fly in the airforce before moving to UAVs? Many of them will make the switch because they are starting families and want to be with their wife/children?
This article mentions some F-16 and F-15 pilots now flying UAVs.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/January%202009/0109UAV.aspx
However I think the thread has gone off topic which is why I have quit posting. My point was simply 10 X is better than 1 F-22 for the current environment. Where X can be an A-10, F-16, Reaper/Predator, etc.
As per some of the posters wild theories...
Once you get over the Cool factor of the F-22 and RAH-66 and look at the logistics, it makes more sense to spend money elsewhere.
-
"My point was simply 10 X is better than 1 F-22 for the current environment. Where X can be an A-10, F-16, Reaper/Predator, etc."
but... the whole point of the F-22 is to be the plane that will be operating in a future environment. :headscratch:
-
Right, but that means we ought to save it for later.
-Penguin
-
it's just idiotic. the F-35 is a far inferior plane to not only the F-22, but the F-15 and F/A-18 as well.
it would cost more to overhaul a squadron of F-15s than it would to build a squadron of F-22s. a single aircraft does not cost $140 million, my friends in the aviation buisiness tell me
-
it's just idiotic. the F-35 is a far inferior plane to not only the F-22, but the F-15 and F/A-18 as well.
it would cost more to overhaul a squadron of F-15s than it would to build a squadron of F-22s. a single aircraft does not cost $140 million, my friends in the aviation buisiness tell me
The plane itself probably doesnt, but i bet with everything we put into them it does. Hell a simple 737 is nearly 90mil depending on variant so it wouldnt supprise me for an F-22 that is technology wise is far more complex and advanced.
-
it wont cost the manufacturer that much but it will the department of defence . ever hear of mark up? how do you think they stay in business? the f22 ect is already out of date in some ways . the possible enemies that the f22 would be used against could (and have to some extent) gain a SAM system that can lock onto stealth aircraft. if i remember the RAF tracked a B2 across it's airspace a few years ago and got a lock onto it with a modified SAM system when it approached the airfield . I think I read that the radar operators followed a "hole" in the radar . they linked up weather radars that showed thin cloud layers and watched a hole travel across the radar screen in the cloud layer .
Obviously not very practical as they knew it was coming but it does show that if you know what do look for you can find it or bodge your way to a solution . it's one reason that the euro fighter is not stealth and why most other countries are not to bothered by such "black" projects. really such airframes are made for a "bling" factor more than any other.
the f35 is not as bad an aircraft as people suggest . The RAF and Fleet Air Arm have shown that STOL or VTOL aircraft with limited payloads can be useful; even more so than some conventional designs . I'm sure the USMC can also attest to this . being able to operate from smaller or rough areas can make it difficult to stop operations from
being undertaken . thats why all Saab aircraft have been designed to be able to take off from roads or grass strips (like the viggen and grippen).
-
For Close Air Support the boots on the ground will want assets that will be available to them for the longest period of time. UAV's fill in that role nicely. The amount of bad press about them being unethical is a testament to their effectiveness in the area.
However I think relying completely on UAV's would be a bad idea since they haven't been used against a capable enemy yet. An enemy that has the ability to engage them in the field or the capability to take out satellite's that support them.
until that happens, please keep the A-10 handy...
:)
-
For Close Air Support the boots on the ground will want assets that will be available to them for the longest period of time. UAV's fill in that role nicely. The amount of bad press about them being unethical is a testament to their effectiveness in the area.
However I think relying completely on UAV's would be a bad idea since they haven't been used against a capable enemy yet. An enemy that has the ability to engage them in the field or the capability to take out satellite's that support them.
until that happens, please keep the A-10 handy...
:)
The day they reveal an A-10 UAV version, I'm giving up my life to join the Air Force, even if only to sweep the hangers they'll never park them in. :D
-
Where is bosco? Doesn't he fly UAVs? I'm curious to hear what he has to say to this.