• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

F-22 Infighting

you're arguments are unbef**kinglievably good! cheezy your method is right! :salute:
(Sorry had to throw in another longer word to tie in with cheezy) :icon_lol:
 
Not knowing nearly as much about this subject, all I know is what I read, see, and hear in the media. If Gates salted the media about F-22 problems, I never heard it. All I know and heard, and it was repeated over and over, is the priced tag. And the price tag argument was enough for most people to agree with limiting F-22 production to 182, not that I or anyone in the media could claim to know the calculus on whether 182 is enough or not. I remember most agreeing that it is a great, highly capable aircraft, just too darn expensive.
From a layman's point of view, it seems similar to the Seawolf submarine project. Highly capable and most Americans were proud that we developed the technology to build such a craft, but after the cold war, when you got right down to it, priorities changed and that led to the slightly cheaper Virginia Class.
Reading some of the posts further up, I don't think you could convince anyone that the F-22 cannot contribute to the GWOT, as you say Gates might have tried. We had the F-15E so why can't a version of the F-22 eventually accomplish similar tasks? But back to $$$, even in a Stike Eagle type role, it might be more efficient to have another aircraft that can carry out the same sort of GWOT, air support/strike role but not be nearly as expensive. I mean, if I wanted too, I guess I could deliver papers out of a Ferrari but why would I?

Ken, side question. how many years are you guessing till we develop the first UAV that can make an air-to-air kill on a manned fighter jet? and how long till a UAV can take out an F-22 in a dogfight?
 
majormajor42 said:
Ken, side question. how many years are you guessing till we develop the first UAV that can make an air-to-air kill on a manned fighter jet? and how long till a UAV can take out an F-22 in a dogfight?
Click to expand...

BAe Systems has it's prototype UCAV slated to fly this year, the Taranis... so maybe 3 or 4 years before a UAV makes a non-combat front air kill, I.e. on a drone... UAV's when needed... Usually Away on Vacation, could have done with a few on station Last deployment :icon_lol:

tech exists to make a frontline UCAV now i'd guess capable of full combat...
 
jmig said:
In reading the posts above, both for and against the F-22, I can't help but wonder. If the F-22 was a failure as claimed by its opponents, why did Russia spend ten years and untold Rubles to develope its version of the F-22?
Click to expand...

Smoothie said:
as a direct competitor i suppose, Russia saw the F-22 emerge, and probably considered it a threat, so Russia developed the SU/T-50 as an answer to that threat, remember the weapons world is always leapfrog, 1 person trying to outdo another... again just my 2p worth :salute:
Click to expand...


It somthing well do. If are neighbor gets a new "whatever" and rubs it in you face, your probly going to get a even newer and better "whatever" and rub it back in his face. Its just how thing work....
 
majormajor42 said:
Not knowing nearly as much about this subject, all I know is what I read, see, and hear in the media. If Gates salted the media about F-22 problems, I never heard it. All I know and heard, and it was repeated over and over, is the priced tag. And the price tag argument was enough for most people to agree with limiting F-22 production to 182, not that I or anyone in the media could claim to know the calculus on whether 182 is enough or not. I remember most agreeing that it is a great, highly capable aircraft, just too darn expensive.
From a layman's point of view, it seems similar to the Seawolf submarine project. Highly capable and most Americans were proud that we developed the technology to build such a craft, but after the cold war, when you got right down to it, priorities changed and that led to the slightly cheaper Virginia Class.
Reading some of the posts further up, I don't think you could convince anyone that the F-22 cannot contribute to the GWOT, as you say Gates might have tried. We had the F-15E so why can't a version of the F-22 eventually accomplish similar tasks? But back to $$$, even in a Stike Eagle type role, it might be more efficient to have another aircraft that can carry out the same sort of GWOT, air support/strike role but not be nearly as expensive. I mean, if I wanted too, I guess I could deliver papers out of a Ferrari but why would I?

Ken, side question. how many years are you guessing till we develop the first UAV that can make an air-to-air kill on a manned fighter jet? and how long till a UAV can take out an F-22 in a dogfight?
Click to expand...

I can certify that the USAF wanted very much to deploy the F-22 to Afghanistan. I can also certify that the F-22 has an excellent suite of sensors and communications. When combined with the raw speed of the F-22, and the air-to-ground option it has, it would have made one hell of a fine search and destroy ISR-CAS platform, which would be a very nice asset in OEF. The theater leadership (Army) was pressured by the SECDEF to prevent the deployment.

Air Force Association is on record on that point, plus that the source of the information given to the Post came from Gates' staff. Do you think his staff would carry out such a move without their bosses' authority? Gates may have once been a USAF intel officer, but he's 100% politican now, and no politician tolerates a rogue staffer!

Your side question is an ecellent one. Already Boeing, Northrup, and Lockheed are working on a UCAV design. I think we are very close actually. The F-22's datalink systems are already intended to facilitate a lead/wingman role for a traditionally manned F-22 to lead a fleet of UCAV wingmen. The F-22 would fill the role of on-scene airborne commander.

The UCAV's would be remotely controlled during critical phases of flight, such as actual combat operations. It will be fast and extremely stealthy since the manned cockpit on the F-22 and F-35 is a prime source for lost stealth characteristics. Also, a UCAV would be able to pull 20+ G's.

This is a revolutionary concept, because a vehicle capable of pulling over 20 G's at aircraft speeds will be virtually impossible to down with a SAM that has a similar G-tolerance limit. Because the SAM to be effective must be about twice the speed of the jet it engages. Else, it's time to target becomes unworkable as the SAM won't have the onboard fuel to catch up.

When exactly will this take place? I cannot say for certain. But my educated guess is that this will happen within the next ten years. I forsee that a fleet of F-22's and F-35's will be less than half the combined size of the F-15 and F-16 fleet. And that therefore the balance to flesh out the numbers shall be done with UCAV's.

My main point is I would feel a lot more comfortable if we had these UCAV's on hand already and the F-35 was closer to completion of OT&E and going out to the operational units! We are assuming a ten year gap at least, all depending upon the success of these emergent steath fighter systems out of Russia, and to whom they are exported.

I'm not worried about India. India and the US are firm allies and that alliance is getting better.

Ken
 
majormajor42 said:
how many years are you guessing till we develop the first UAV that can make an air-to-air kill on a manned fighter jet? and how long till a UAV can take out an F-22 in a dogfight?
Click to expand...


pffft we already got it.

MV5BMTI5MzY3NzE0MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNDAzMTU3._V1._SX485_SY207_.jpg
 
The F-18 is a good airplane, could we make it even better since the production line is still going? But is the F-18 a old design from 1975, the YF-17 Cobra? Maybe we can bring back the F-14 and make more improvements on it, from what I read the F-14 was the only fighter that could cacth the TU-160 Blackjack.

Cheers

Casey
 
Tu-160's not too quick at altitude, a sedate 2.05M, when tomcat was introduced it was one of the Few that could get the Blackjack, Tomcat if I recall could do 2.3M...

back onto the UAV mini-discussion, heres Taranis...

300px-TaranisModel.JPG

taranisacav.jpg

full scale will be similar in size to a BAe Hawk...

i don't see Russia as a threat to anyone, it's a nice friendly nation these days... yes the RAF Still goes and plays chase with the TU-95's but thats just russia checking response times, By my religion (Greek Orthodox) i am closer to Russia than i am to the UK... then again i'm with you on that Ken a small-medium force of manned combat aircraft and a same size fleet of UCAVs would be a nice balance... a SAM could not turn at the 20G a future UCAV might be able to... so they'd be perfect for hight SAM Risk sorties, then the manned kit alongside UCAVs rolls in and 'cleans up'... it's all about tactics, heck you could take a Mustang to Afghanistan and still use it effectively... i see UCAV's entering full squadron use by 2020 at the latest... before this decade is out (2010-2020)
 
Smoothie said:
i don't see Russia as a threat to anyone, it's a nice friendly nation these days...
Click to expand...

Russian president approves new military doctrine

RIA Novosti
05/02/201018:07
MOSCOW, February 5 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has approved the country's new military doctrine which allows preventive nuclear strikes against potential aggressors.
"The president informed the members of Russia's Security Council on Friday that he has approved two documents - the military doctrine and the Fundamentals of the state policy on nuclear deterrence until 2020," said presidential press secretary Natalia Timakova.
According to Russian officials, the adjustment of the country's military doctrine was prompted by real threats and challenges faced by Russia.
Russia's nuclear triad comprises land-based ballistic missile systems, nuclear-powered submarines equipped with sea-based ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers carrying nuclear bombs and nuclear-capable cruise missiles.
Under the new doctrine, Russia will continue developing and modernizing its nuclear triad, increasing its capability to overcome missile defenses of a potential enemy.
The new military doctrine also aims to transform the Armed Forces into a more effective and mobile military force. Their structures will be "optimized" through the use of combined arms units performing similar tasks.
The previous document was adopted in 2000. It outlined the role of the Russian military in ensuring the defense of the country and, if necessary, preparing for and waging war, although it stressed that the Russian military doctrine is strictly defensive.
Russia's military expenditure has of late been steadily growing, and the country reportedly plans to increase the current defense budget of $40 billion by 50% in the next three years.
 
Fighter Pilots a Dying Breed?

Apparently the US Air Force trained more UAV operators than pilots last year.
The Tactical Mission is also slipping away from the Air Force, close on 600 US Army UAV's are in theatre.
It's a trend reflected in most large Defence Forces, looking at ways to stretch thin budgets.
 
yeah preventative strikes, no biggie... if i recall the US has had that for a while now but it's never had to be used, and Russia, and i believe them when they say Strictly defensive look how good they are at defence... need i mention Moscow in the early 40's :icon_lol: seriously though i think the biggest threats right now are China, Iran and Home-Grown/Overseas Terror Networks... :kilroy:

Ken as a ground trooper and understanding you had involvement with UAVs has just moved you up my "would i split my rat pack with them?" list, you UAV lot do a great job, even if you ain't on station when needed at times... good job we have the Coalition, RAF Only has a predator or two at Cheech AFB if i recall, and micro-UAV's for infantry support... need more and bigger guns. As50 will do me nicely or the L129A1... anyhoo back on topic, i can see Raptor production slowly drawing down, then something kicking off and more getting ordered... usually the way things are these days... should give the money saved to us ground forces, we could do with a bit more pukka kit at times...
 
Wing_Z said:
Apparently the US Air Force trained more UAV operators than pilots last year.
The Tactical Mission is also slipping away from the Air Force, close on 600 US Army UAV's are in Afghanistan.
It's a trend reflected in most large Defence Forces, looking at ways to stretch thin budgets.
Click to expand...

USAF pilot officers used to hate UAV assignments (it was 'beneath' them)
My simple solution: USAF UAV pilots = Warrant Officer :d


Note: I'm currently grooming every 2Lt I see with certain career fields that should be warrants in hopes that when they make general officer....:engel016:
 
I hate ruperts.... big stlye... then again i am a squaddie so all i do is complain, eat and sh*t :icon_lol: UAV's are handy, you can scout an area ahead of you for the enemy if there is enemy you can call a bigger UAV or aircraft in to move some mud, or if they're in an urban area by the time aircraft is on station it goes to guys like me, a very handy tool these UAVs :ernae: the operators get massive respect from me... and they deserve it, they might not be frontline but without them the tactical picture would be a lot less clear :ernae:
 
Panther_99FS said:
USAF pilot officers used to hate UAV assignments (it was 'beneath' them)
My simple solution: USAF UAV pilots = Warrant Officer :d


Note: I'm currently grooming every 2Lt I see with certain career fields that should be warrants in hopes that when they make general officer....:engel016:
Click to expand...

That's starting to change. As I was training the young lieutenants we got immediately out of UPT, I reminded them that while in a few months they would be leading aircrew on combat missions as the aircraft commander, all their fellow UPT grads would be co-pilots and wingmen, years removed from actual combat leadership experience. We are kinding of going back to World War II era situations where it wasn't uncommon for lieutenants to be aircraft commanders.

The young officers we got were all highly motivated and eager to perform well. To tell the truth, I was very impressed by them. Their OPR's are going to look very good relative their peers out of UPT.

I don't think the USAF will ever go to warrant officers. General Swartz is totally against the idea and it was an answer I got to hear in person when he came to my now old squadron.

Oh, and in the interest of keeping things fully accurate, the term used to describe these aircraft has changed a few times -- mostly because a lot of folks didn't fully understand what they were and how they were operated. The term now is RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft). Yeah, just a name, but a lot more accurate.

Things are changing rather rapidly also in the sense that this year was the first year when the numbers of RPA's acquired exceeded the number of traditionally manned aircraft of all types. I think it's a safe bet that within the next ten years about half of all attack aircraft will be RPA's. These UPT grads we got are just one more step on that evolution in thought.

The third generation of RPA's are already in the design phase. It's only a matter of time before more pilots are being assigned to RPA's than other aircraft types. Ultimately, for me at least, it makes no difference where the cockpit is located. It's the mission that matters.

Cheers,

Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top