Page:  / 22
Author
Message
Sylvan
Team Member
NRAMilitary
Online
Posts: 30838
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 11:48:11 AM
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By therusskibear:

Su-27 has roots in the F-14 design? Really???

What Soviet radar duplicates the AWG-9 ?

Export Su-30s with 1990's package or with "stolen" US avionocs? WTF? What is any proof of that?



If you look at the bottom plan view of the Sukhoi jets, they really do look like F14s converted to fixed wing.


you'll never get him.
He is primorski re-born.
DanW
Offline
Posts: 511
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 11:58:27 AM
[Last Edit: 8/4/2012 12:00:12 PM by DanW]
Fact is, both the F-22 and Eurofighter are limited in performance, at least in terms of close-in turning and g-forces, by the pilot. The F-22 is limited by its flight computer to keep the pilot from killing himself. I'd guess the Eurofighter is programmed the same way. Take the people out of the planes, and I'd like to see the performance.

The F-22's biggest advantages include stealth and BVR capability, but there's more:

The F-22 has longer range––significantly. The internal weapons bays magnify this advantage. The Eurofighter can't be in clean condition with weapons. It is only clean when it is unarmed, with the exception of a gun. The F-22 is clean, in full range, full combat condition. HUGE ADVANTAGE.

The F-22 can cruise at supersonic speed WITHOUT afterburner. This adds greatly not only to its range, but to the its ability to effectively cover a large area. This is why Japan was trying so hard to buy the F-22. They know how much water a pair of F-22's can cover, compared to other jets.

If anyone thinks range isn't important, then they have no clue why the P-51 made such an impact on WWII. Range is a HUGE consideration, as is speed. The top speed of the Raptor is classified. If it can exceed mach 1 with no burner, then imagine what it can do WITH burner.

The Eurofighter is a great fighter, but is a Gen 4 fighter. The F-22 is called Gen 5 because it is in a league of its own. There are no other Gen 5 fighters, except maybe the F-35. I'm not sure if it is considered Gen 5, or not.

Another item: The F-22 pilots have not been able to train with their aircraft using full capability, much, if at all, due to the Oxygen problem. That leaves the pilots at a tremendous disadvantage against anyone, in a staged fight, where the conditions probably required close-in dogfighting. My money says the F-22's were required to tie one arm behind their backs. Their flight envelope may have also been curtailed, again, due to some of the problems.

One last one....I'm not sure they were not handicapped in some way to protect secrets, too. Why in the hell should they show their full capability to another country, even if it is a close ally? We're not trying to sell them the jet, and there's no reason to show more than the capability of the opponent. The practice wouldn't benefit them. It would be more beneficial to handicap them and make them still learn to defeat the other aircraft, IMO.

If I had to go air to air, close or far, the F-22 would be my undisputed choice. Anyone choosing anything else, knowing what we know, would simply be ignorant.
Tomislav
#NO_LIMIT_POSTER
Offline
Posts: 25017
Feedback: 100% (59)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:02:13 PM
[Last Edit: 8/4/2012 12:02:34 PM by Tomislav]
If the Su-27/30/etc are simply stolen old copies of retired designs (or whatever), then why do we need cripplingly expensive planes like the F-22 and F-35 to face them down?


They are a serious threat or they are not. Pick one.
Sniper_B
Offline
Posts: 647
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:04:14 PM
I never got an answer



You feel it's tactically safer and smarter to only move by rotary air then it is to drive and occupy by MRAP?




I can see how that would defeat IEDs but the enemy always adapts. Once you go 100% air they are going to shift their assets and focus on how to kill you. That may be Ada or it may be mining the LZs but either way they are going to do their best to kill you.
mototard
Member
Offline
Posts: 2014
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:11:20 PM
[Last Edit: 8/4/2012 12:17:14 PM by mototard]
Originally Posted By Falar:
Originally Posted By targettarget:

Originally Posted By Falar:
Originally Posted By targettarget:
Fucking rights.

Both the F-22 and F-35 are fucking dogs.


If only the US hadn't killed the Avro Arrow out of jealousy.

amirite?

Not really.

Americans are pretty good at lying to themselves and believing it.

You guy spend a shit load of money (F-22, F-35, amongst a slew of other programs), but don't really get anything for it.


Yeah I see the light now. Our military sucks, thanks for educating me.


Back in the lates 80s early 90s I got in a fight in a small bar in upstate NY ( I-81 just south of the cannada boarder)
Some canadian was running his mouth about how bad ass he/they were. I asked him to please help me out on something that I never could understand.
The US has the symbol of the majestic powerful American Bald Eagle.
Canadians have a freakin maple leaf, hell I've wiped my ass with a maple leaf.

Needless to say we shut the bar down that night.

Good times.
Sylvan
Team Member
NRAMilitary
Online
Posts: 30841
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:15:05 PM
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
I never got an answer



You feel it's tactically safer and smarter to only move by rotary air then it is to drive and occupy by MRAP?

.



I can see how that would defeat IEDs but the enemy always adapts. Once you go 100% air they are going to shift their assets and focus on how to kill you. That may be Ada or it may be mining the LZs but either way they are going to do their best to kill you.


Absolutely.
Aero Scouts. FireForce.

Walk and Fly. Driving gonna get you killed

Plus you regain the mobility advantage we have completely abandoned.
10 years in Afghanistan and we still aren't fighting as well as we were on the ground in 1965.
Sniper_B
Offline
Posts: 648
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:16:05 PM
The faults of Iraq and Astan are that the DoD and mainly big Army has zero ideas on how to handle an enemy after they smash the country into the ground. We are no longer advancing and now we are occupies. We have zero weapon systems that are designed for this so install we go out on patrols that allow us to npbe ambushed 100% of the time. A lack of CAS on target in less seconds is not the root of the issue.
Sniper_B
Offline
Posts: 649
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:21:14 PM
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
I never got an answer



You feel it's tactically safer and smarter to only move by rotary air then it is to drive and occupy by MRAP?

.



I can see how that would defeat IEDs but the enemy always adapts. Once you go 100% air they are going to shift their assets and focus on how to kill you. That may be Ada or it may be mining the LZs but either way they are going to do their best to kill you.


Absolutely.
Aero Scouts. FireForce.

Walk and Fly. Driving gonna get you killed

Plus you regain the mobility advantage we have completely abandoned.
10 years in Afghanistan and we still aren't fighting as well as we were on the ground in 1965.




So when they volley fire RPGs at the LZ or get their hands on fresh Syrian manpads to adapt to the new tactics. This is going to lower the rate of attrition over the now?


What is the point. Big army hasn't learned shit from Vietnam. You go build Cops and Fobs only to hand them over the next week for no real reason. The enenmy camp is over the mountains to the east and until you occupy boots there you will never win. The same issue was never addressed in Vietnam. At least big blue knows where it hurts the most to bomb.
Sylvan
Team Member
NRAMilitary
Online
Posts: 30842
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:26:15 PM
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
I never got an answer



You feel it's tactically safer and smarter to only move by rotary air then it is to drive and occupy by MRAP?

.



I can see how that would defeat IEDs but the enemy always adapts. Once you go 100% air they are going to shift their assets and focus on how to kill you. That may be Ada or it may be mining the LZs but either way they are going to do their best to kill you.


Absolutely.
Aero Scouts. FireForce.

Walk and Fly. Driving gonna get you killed

Plus you regain the mobility advantage we have completely abandoned.
10 years in Afghanistan and we still aren't fighting as well as we were on the ground in 1965.




So when they volley fire RPGs at the LZ or get their hands on fresh Syrian manpads to adapt to the new tactics. This is going to lower the rate of attrition over the now?


What is the point. Big army hasn't learned shit from Vietnam. You go build Cops and Fobs only to hand them over the next week for no real reason. The enenmy camp is over the mountains to the east and until you occupy boots there you will never win. The same issue was never addressed in Vietnam. At least big blue knows where it hurts the most to bomb.


There are some key differences.
Open terrain versus jungles and forests. LZs are everywhere, you aren't as cannalized.
UAVs provide intel on the landing AO.
You fly to get close, fix the enemy with air (gunships would be optimal, LAARs will work well) and walk into the fight. You don't land on top of them.
How many helos have we lost so fare to manpads? How many did the Rhodesians lose with aleuttes?

We have built cops everywhere because we have no mobilty. you could cut your troop footprint in half and still have better coverage.

big blue has no clue where to bomb. ask mchrystal. we tried tethered goat in the korengal for 10 years. didn't work at dien bein phu, doesn't work now. Mobility is the key to COIN, not fires.
Mach
Somebody text me when it's fo time
Military
Offline
Posts: 16024
Feedback: 100% (29)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:27:51 PM
[Last Edit: 8/4/2012 12:30:03 PM by Mach]
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By Mach:
Originally Posted By Ypestis:
Originally Posted By Flogger23m:
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Somebody posted that the F-22 has no capability to fire IR missiles like the Sidewinder.

Why would you have a fighter especially an air superiority fighter without IR capability? I understand the theory is that the Raptor will be able to kill its enemies at long range, but what if one slips through and gets inside the range of your radar guided missiles?


F-22s carry the AIM-9X and can carry the older M. The F-22 has two weapon bays on the left/right of the aircraft dedicated for the AIM-9. To my knowledge, nothing else can fit in them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CwA4bEPjccM/UBrxfHrgBwI/AAAAAAAAeZg/Cnf87QNOV4M/s1600/2012_F22_Supersonic_AIM9X_E01537_1269967624_3863.jpg

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/13/33de496e-3e0e-4d2c-bd14-1ffaea101ed1.Large.jpg

http://www.visualintel.net/USAF/Weapon-Systems/F-22-Raptor/021105-O-9999G-070/395869509_RpmhN-L.jpg


It can also fire the AIM 120..
And can fire them in supersonic flight; IIRC-an ability no other plan has.





Supersonic launch of amraam is standard.


In flight testing clean F-16s and F-15s (with the possible exception of a centerline tank) couldn't keep up with a fully loaded F-22 for missile launch testing.

While the supersonic launch of an AMRAAM is preferable, getting there with ease is another matter.


I don't know where you are getting your info.

In the F15 going supersonic with a full load of missles takes just a few seconds from a tactical turning airspeed. Can an eagle accelerate to supersonic as fast an F22 or maintain it for as long, of course not.

But committing on a threat and accelerating to supersonic speeds and launching missiles, including amraam, is routine.
Mach

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”
William Pitt, 1783:
happycynic
Infidel
Online
Posts: 26681
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:33:22 PM

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
If the Su-27/30/etc are simply stolen old copies of retired designs (or whatever), then why do we need cripplingly expensive planes like the F-22 and F-35 to face them down?


They are a serious threat or they are not. Pick one.

Because missiles are good enough that if everyone sees everyone and shoots at everyone, everyone dies. And since we had fewer airplanes than the enemy and tend to want to keep our pilots alive, we needed a new strategy. Let's kill them before they see us, we said.
Live Free or Die; Death is Not the Worst of Evils

- Revolutionary General John Stark
Sylvan
Team Member
NRAMilitary
Online
Posts: 30843
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:34:03 PM
Originally Posted By Mach:
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By Mach:
Originally Posted By Ypestis:
Originally Posted By Flogger23m:
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Somebody posted that the F-22 has no capability to fire IR missiles like the Sidewinder.

Why would you have a fighter especially an air superiority fighter without IR capability? I understand the theory is that the Raptor will be able to kill its enemies at long range, but what if one slips through and gets inside the range of your radar guided missiles?


F-22s carry the AIM-9X and can carry the older M. The F-22 has two weapon bays on the left/right of the aircraft dedicated for the AIM-9. To my knowledge, nothing else can fit in them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CwA4bEPjccM/UBrxfHrgBwI/AAAAAAAAeZg/Cnf87QNOV4M/s1600/2012_F22_Supersonic_AIM9X_E01537_1269967624_3863.jpg

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/13/33de496e-3e0e-4d2c-bd14-1ffaea101ed1.Large.jpg

http://www.visualintel.net/USAF/Weapon-Systems/F-22-Raptor/021105-O-9999G-070/395869509_RpmhN-L.jpg


It can also fire the AIM 120..
And can fire them in supersonic flight; IIRC-an ability no other plan has.





Supersonic launch of amraam is standard.


In flight testing clean F-16s and F-15s (with the possible exception of a centerline tank) couldn't keep up with a fully loaded F-22 for missile launch testing.

While the supersonic launch of an AMRAAM is preferable, getting there with ease is another matter.


I don't know where you are getting your info.

In the F15 going supersonic with a full load of missles takes just a few seconds from a tactical turning airspeed. Can an eagle accelerate to supersonic as fast an F22 or maintain it for as long, of course not.

But committing on a threat and accelerating to supersonic speeds and launching missiles, including amraam, is routine.


I believe you Tiger.
Mach
Somebody text me when it's fo time
Military
Offline
Posts: 16025
Feedback: 100% (29)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:49:19 PM
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Threecard:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Threecard:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:

I have read clash of wings but nothing specific on bomber harris. What I have gathered is he is a direct doctrinal decendent of hugh trenchard, whom I have studied.
I give grudging respect to him for his ruthlessness, but bomber was still ultimately wrong at the time because high explosives just weren't enough to get the effect he wanted.
My focus is on how the AF doctrine broke away from the european school and focused on precision targeting versus terror bombing. The conclusion is that it was for political gain. the american public simply wouldn't support deliberate targeting of civilian populations in the 20s and 30s. But then the AF forgot why they focused on precision day light bombing and slaughtered thousands of airmen on a doctrine forged in a politically expediant lie.



I would say that Harris is significant in his adaptability, he was behind the English shift away from Daylight precision bombing. First towards area bombing, then towards firebombing.

He was known to have remarked "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier", and in a sense represents the missing piece doctrinally of the current AF's apocalyptic warfighting vision.

As an aside, everyone in this thread should read about the tremendous friction between the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the Imperial Japanese Army and how it negatively impacted Japan during the war. I feel crazy in saying it, but I see a lot of shades of the current USAF and Army Conflict there. Which is why I say the most significant conflict in our time is that between the USAF and the Army.


Did the british ever propose daylight precision? That I haven't seen.
They were always bomb the fuck out of the hun during the night school that I can tell.
Do you have a good book on that? Again, I am not focused on the british (as my beef is with the AAF/USAF)

We could afford a retarded relationship when the money was flowing. but now that budgets are tightening I know corporate blue is only focused on beating the other services for influence and money.
In fact, I have a document from an AF 2 star proving that point.


What? Proving that one service is competing with another over funds? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.



The difference being the AF is specifically tasked with supporting the other services and neglects doing so.
If the Navy was fucking me on sealift, I'd be raising hell. fact is, they do what they are supposed to do.
The army is pretty good at killing shit that outlives its mission.
crusader, comanche, fcs. then they take a dose of shit from pissed off politicians who lost the pork.

DoD is broke, culturally and fiscally. The AF most of all.


How often do you use sealift? Also, how much airlift capability do you think the AF has? How much should it have at the expense of COIN, A2A, and air breathing nuke capability?

Was there a reason that Arrow Air was used for the 101st?

Sylvan, the only issue I have with you is that you seem to have a grudge against the AF...individuals in the AF and big AF...at times you have implied that AF personnel are less than dedicated to a mission. In regards to individual members, and to the hierarchy.

It might be true of the hierarchy, buy I'm pretty sure that the rank and file Airmen and pilots are not the cowboys and dick measurers that you think they are. No more than anyone in any given platoon, anyway.

Your biggest problem is that you fail to think STRATEGICALLY.






My beef is with corporate AF.
I am deliberatly an ass in these threads because AF officers (pilots especially) are taught at an early age by the silverbacks that the AF is NEVER wrong. And that if the Army had its way, you would all be flying biplanes and dying and that the Army is only interested in getting rid of the AF to buy tanks. Psychiatrists call this projection. I mean it when the Army only cares about the mission and can't understand that the AF doesn't care about the mission, only the AF.
As the great pilot John Boyd said, "If you want to get a pilots attention, you have to whip his ass."
And he is right.
but, at the end, pilots, especially fighter pilots are pretty smart dudes. I know my shit. I know the AF doctrine better than any air force officer I have met. I have studied the doctrine and theory of air power and especially CAS. The truth is the truth. And as long as they haven't guzzled the blue kool aid too long, they generally come around. the greatest defenders of corporate blue I have met are always enlisted and ABMs, for some strange reason.

As to your question 90% of logistics, even in afghanistan are sea based and road based. that means we suck pakistans dick even though they are killing us. we could do it by air, but that would mean big blue would have to get off its ass, stop having fake mechanicals in hickham and fly like the 747 cargo haulers out of china do. C17 crews would fly into BAF or KAF 50 times per year, every year.
but we don't. AF lost its mission in Korea in 1950. The entire basis for the AF was laid bare as a fraud. And still we are here. Because the AF uses tax dollars to bribe political support through procurement.
I used to think the AF lost its way. but the more I read the more I realize it never had its way. It was a flying club from the start and it remains that way. Hap Arnold is probably the most honest senior leader you guys had and he was a lying bully who crushed people for shits and grins and personally targetted japan and germany from Washington DC. And he is as good as it gets at the four star level.
kenney and quesada were great men who failed to achieve success because they were intellectually honest.

mcpeak was CoSAF and Boyd retired a COL. That tells me a lot about corporate big blue.
Got to put the kids down.
More tomorrow. Plus a reading list.


i don't know where you get the info to draw conclusions like that. The AF does no such thing to the fighter pilots wing level and below that actually do the mission. I can't speach to policy makers, I had enough of the bullshit long before I got to that.

In my 16 years in the tactical AF, at the Wing level and below, nobody even reads or cares about AF doctrine. Is it mentioned in PME that everybody flushes as soon as the test is over? Sure. But that is the last we think about doctrine. We get assigned a mission and go out and kick ass. In my day, I wrote a large section of the MCM 3-1 F15 tactics manual and I did not reference AF doctrine. I wrote it based on the threat and our capabilities and weaknesses.

I challlenge you to find an AF fighter pilot that is actively flying a jet, that even knows where to go to read what the AF doctrine is, never mind know it himself. There is no cool aid. You know more about AF doctrine that fighter pilots ( Ltc and below) because AF fighter pilots don't know nor do they care what that doctrine is. We are the primary combatants, we don't get to choose our missions, we just get to perform them.
Mach

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”
William Pitt, 1783:
swede1986
The swedish version of Mr. T
Online
Posts: 15071
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:50:47 PM
I know that I'm late to the party but:

Gripen>Eurofighter>F22






I Pity The FOOL!

Flogger23m
Offline
Posts: 3844
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 1:06:03 PM
[Last Edit: 8/4/2012 1:08:12 PM by Flogger23m]
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
If the Su-27/30/etc are simply stolen old copies of retired designs (or whatever), then why do we need cripplingly expensive planes like the F-22 and F-35 to face them down?


They are a serious threat or they are not. Pick one.


Su-27s aren't stolen from anything. The new Flankers (modernized Su-30s, Su-35s) are worthy aircraft that are actually very capable. Long range, large payloads and whatnot. Do keep in mind that at times the Su-27 had some advantages over the F-15C. The R-73 was superior to the AIM-9M, the R-27ER has a longer range than the AIM-7 and AIM-120 and it could carry up to 10 or 12 air to air missiles compared to the F-15C's 8.

Now, obviously both aircraft have been upgraded. Both upgraded F-15Cs and Flankers are very formidable enemies. Though the F-22's low RCS gives it a huge advantage against Flankers and Eagles.

How does the PAK FA stack up? No idea, but others are actively improving their designs and making new ones as we speak. Just because an F-22 is better than an Flanker or F-15 doesn't mean it is not needed unless you want to fall behind. While the PAK FA won't have as low of an RCS as the F-22 (at least that is how I understand it) it will still give it a huge advantage against F-15s or Flankers. That is reason alone to get F-22s, IMO.

Originally Posted By swede1986:
I know that I'm late to the party but:

Gripen>Eurofighter>F22




Gripen is the F-5 of the 21st Century.
Sniper_B
Offline
Posts: 650
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 1:09:08 PM
Superbug has a 12 missile load out.
Flogger23m
Offline
Posts: 3845
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 1:11:10 PM
[Last Edit: 8/4/2012 1:12:34 PM by Flogger23m]
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Superbug has a 12 missile load out.


I believe 12 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9X for a total of 14. Though it doesn't have the speed to keep up with F-15s and Flankers if I am not mistaken. Not really a good interceptor.

Though I think F-22s can even double up AIM-120s on each external hard point. That would be a total of 14 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9X, for a total of 16 missiles.

Sniper_B
Offline
Posts: 651
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 1:11:18 PM
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
I never got an answer



You feel it's tactically safer and smarter to only move by rotary air then it is to drive and occupy by MRAP?

.



I can see how that would defeat IEDs but the enemy always adapts. Once you go 100% air they are going to shift their assets and focus on how to kill you. That may be Ada or it may be mining the LZs but either way they are going to do their best to kill you.


Absolutely.
Aero Scouts. FireForce.

Walk and Fly. Driving gonna get you killed

Plus you regain the mobility advantage we have completely abandoned.
10 years in Afghanistan and we still aren't fighting as well as we were on the ground in 1965.




So when they volley fire RPGs at the LZ or get their hands on fresh Syrian manpads to adapt to the new tactics. This is going to lower the rate of attrition over the now?


What is the point. Big army hasn't learned shit from Vietnam. You go build Cops and Fobs only to hand them over the next week for no real reason. The enenmy camp is over the mountains to the east and until you occupy boots there you will never win. The same issue was never addressed in Vietnam. At least big blue knows where it hurts the most to bomb.


There are some key differences.
Open terrain versus jungles and forests. LZs are everywhere, you aren't as cannalized.
UAVs provide intel on the landing AO.
You fly to get close, fix the enemy with air (gunships would be optimal, LAARs will work well) and walk into the fight. You don't land on top of them.
How many helos have we lost so fare to manpads? How many did the Rhodesians lose with aleuttes?

We have built cops everywhere because we have no mobilty. you could cut your troop footprint in half and still have better coverage.

big blue has no clue where to bomb. ask mchrystal. we tried tethered goat in the korengal for 10 years. didn't work at dien bein phu, doesn't work now. Mobility is the key to COIN, not fires.


You need to invade Waristan to win, plain and simple. You destroy the route of the problem. Flying around in gunships doesn't solve that issue. Buy more ch47s if you have none left after air lift.
Tomislav
#NO_LIMIT_POSTER
Offline
Posts: 25019
Feedback: 100% (59)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 1:31:06 PM
[Last Edit: 8/4/2012 1:31:30 PM by Tomislav]

Originally Posted By Flogger23m:
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
If the Su-27/30/etc are simply stolen old copies of retired designs (or whatever), then why do we need cripplingly expensive planes like the F-22 and F-35 to face them down?


They are a serious threat or they are not. Pick one.


Su-27s aren't stolen from anything. The new Flankers (modernized Su-30s, Su-35s) are worthy aircraft that are actually very capable. Long range, large payloads and whatnot. Do keep in mind that at times the Su-27 had some advantages over the F-15C. The R-73 was superior to the AIM-9M, the R-27ER has a longer range than the AIM-7 and AIM-120 and it could carry up to 10 or 12 air to air missiles compared to the F-15C's 8.

Now, obviously both aircraft have been upgraded. Both upgraded F-15Cs and Flankers are very formidable enemies. Though the F-22's low RCS gives it a huge advantage against Flankers and Eagles.

How does the PAK FA stack up? No idea, but others are actively improving their designs and making new ones as we speak. Just because an F-22 is better than an Flanker or F-15 doesn't mean it is not needed unless you want to fall behind. While the PAK FA won't have as low of an RCS as the F-22 (at least that is how I understand it) it will still give it a huge advantage against F-15s or Flankers. That is reason alone to get F-22s, IMO.



Well sure its not stolen. Was just poking fun at the poster who claimed it was based on the F-14 or something like that.

Point being, either they are viable threats, or not. It's directed at the peanut gallery which seems to think that Russian planes are unmitigated crap. To those people, why do we need F-22s and all this other overprices stuff? If Ivan is such a drunken incompetent, then why does the USAF so desperately need all these shiny hideously expensive toys?


And to mention again, the Su-27 family/MiG-35 family/Eagle/Typhoon/etc can all do a trick the budget-killing Raptor can't: Make more.
mcantu
Offline
Posts: 8651
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 1:34:29 PM

Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Somebody posted that the F-22 has no capability to fire IR missiles like the Sidewinder.

Why would you have a fighter especially an air superiority fighter without IR capability? I understand the theory is that the Raptor will be able to kill its enemies at long range, but what if one slips through and gets inside the range of your radar guided missiles?

i think youre talking about me. what i said was that the F-22 doesnt have an IRST (IR Search and Track)
Flogger23m
Offline
Posts: 3846
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 1:42:02 PM
Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Somebody posted that the F-22 has no capability to fire IR missiles like the Sidewinder.

Why would you have a fighter especially an air superiority fighter without IR capability? I understand the theory is that the Raptor will be able to kill its enemies at long range, but what if one slips through and gets inside the range of your radar guided missiles?

i think youre talking about me. what i said was that the F-22 doesnt have an IRST (IR Search and Track)


Neither do USAF F-15Cs. Though Japanese F-15Js do:

Sniper_B
Offline
Posts: 652
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 1:43:11 PM
They are putting irst in the front of a center fuel pod doe superbugs
HeavyMetal
Veteran of a Thousand Psychic Wars
Offline
Posts: 21474
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:23:15 PM
Originally Posted By swede1986:
I know that I'm late to the party but:

Gripen>Eurofighter>F22








Why should we take you guys seriously? You can't even spell 'Griffin' right?
I suppose it is possible to convey more ignorance with less words, but I doubt I will ever see it in my lifetime.--Bohr Adam

If LAV promotes using the slide lock/release to chamber a round after a mag change, then he should be ignored.-MP0117
swede1986
The swedish version of Mr. T
Online
Posts: 15073
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:26:52 PM
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
I know that I'm late to the party but:

Gripen>Eurofighter>F22








Why should we take you guys seriously? You can't even spell 'Griffin' right?


Swedish > English
I Pity The FOOL!

Ypestis
Offline
Posts: 206
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:34:19 PM
Originally Posted By Mach:
Originally Posted By Ypestis:
Originally Posted By Flogger23m:
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Somebody posted that the F-22 has no capability to fire IR missiles like the Sidewinder.

Why would you have a fighter especially an air superiority fighter without IR capability? I understand the theory is that the Raptor will be able to kill its enemies at long range, but what if one slips through and gets inside the range of your radar guided missiles?


F-22s carry the AIM-9X and can carry the older M. The F-22 has two weapon bays on the left/right of the aircraft dedicated for the AIM-9. To my knowledge, nothing else can fit in them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CwA4bEPjccM/UBrxfHrgBwI/AAAAAAAAeZg/Cnf87QNOV4M/s1600/2012_F22_Supersonic_AIM9X_E01537_1269967624_3863.jpg

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/13/33de496e-3e0e-4d2c-bd14-1ffaea101ed1.Large.jpg

http://www.visualintel.net/USAF/Weapon-Systems/F-22-Raptor/021105-O-9999G-070/395869509_RpmhN-L.jpg


It can also fire the AIM 120..
And can fire them in supersonic flight; IIRC-an ability no other plan has.





Supersonic aunch of amraam iis standard.


Apparently since 1987
Live and learn - lol
maybe I'll just stick to reading these threads
Sylvan
Team Member
NRAMilitary
Online
Posts: 30844
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:40:45 PM
Originally Posted By Mach:i don't know where you get the info to draw conclusions like that. The AF does no such thing to the fighter pilots wing level and below that actually do the mission. I can't speach to policy makers, I had enough of the bullshit long before I got to that.

In my 16 years in the tactical AF, at the Wing level and below, nobody even reads or cares about AF doctrine. Is it mentioned in PME that everybody flushes as soon as the test is over? Sure. But that is the last we think about doctrine. We get assigned a mission and go out and kick ass. In my day, I wrote a large section of the MCM 3-1 F15 tactics manual and I did not reference AF doctrine. I wrote it based on the threat and our capabilities and weaknesses.

I challlenge you to find an AF fighter pilot that is actively flying a jet, that even knows where to go to read what the AF doctrine is, never mind know it himself. There is no cool aid. You know more about AF doctrine that fighter pilots ( Ltc and below) because AF fighter pilots don't know nor do they care what that doctrine is. We are the primary combatants, we don't get to choose our missions, we just get to perform them.


Shit, everytime I talk about this the first word of their mouth is that I don't know the doctrine. I always assumed they did actually know the doctrine because they defended it so vehemently.

So how can they defend something they know nothing about? And why write it if you don't use it?
Sylvan
Team Member
NRAMilitary
Online
Posts: 30845
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:42:21 PM
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
I never got an answer



You feel it's tactically safer and smarter to only move by rotary air then it is to drive and occupy by MRAP?

.



I can see how that would defeat IEDs but the enemy always adapts. Once you go 100% air they are going to shift their assets and focus on how to kill you. That may be Ada or it may be mining the LZs but either way they are going to do their best to kill you.


Absolutely.
Aero Scouts. FireForce.

Walk and Fly. Driving gonna get you killed

Plus you regain the mobility advantage we have completely abandoned.
10 years in Afghanistan and we still aren't fighting as well as we were on the ground in 1965.




So when they volley fire RPGs at the LZ or get their hands on fresh Syrian manpads to adapt to the new tactics. This is going to lower the rate of attrition over the now?


What is the point. Big army hasn't learned shit from Vietnam. You go build Cops and Fobs only to hand them over the next week for no real reason. The enenmy camp is over the mountains to the east and until you occupy boots there you will never win. The same issue was never addressed in Vietnam. At least big blue knows where it hurts the most to bomb.


There are some key differences.
Open terrain versus jungles and forests. LZs are everywhere, you aren't as cannalized.
UAVs provide intel on the landing AO.
You fly to get close, fix the enemy with air (gunships would be optimal, LAARs will work well) and walk into the fight. You don't land on top of them.
How many helos have we lost so fare to manpads? How many did the Rhodesians lose with aleuttes?

We have built cops everywhere because we have no mobilty. you could cut your troop footprint in half and still have better coverage.

big blue has no clue where to bomb. ask mchrystal. we tried tethered goat in the korengal for 10 years. didn't work at dien bein phu, doesn't work now. Mobility is the key to COIN, not fires.


You need to invade Waristan to win, plain and simple. You destroy the route of the problem. Flying around in gunships doesn't solve that issue. Buy more ch47s if you have none left after air lift.


No you don't.
they simply need to know if they leave waristan they die.
They'll get the picture.
Madcap72
I wish all the ladies, were holes in the road...
Military
Online
Posts: 19334
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:42:59 PM

Originally Posted By therusskibear:
snip




Man... that post was a result of bullshit generator.

Su-27 has roots in the F-14 design? Really???

What Soviet radar duplicates the AWG-9 ?

Export Su-30s with 1990's package or with "stolen" US avionocs? WTF? What is any proof of that?


LOL Russia wouldn't even have calculators if they didn't reverse engineer the technology from America.




* Denotes Sarcasm, and or tongue in cheek humor. Do not take too seriously. Misunderstanding the use of sarcasm is a leading cause of "internet tough guy syndrome". Other side effects include; confused replies, butt hurt feelings, and anal
Sniper_B
Offline
Posts: 653
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:50:17 PM
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
I never got an answer



You feel it's tactically safer and smarter to only move by rotary air then it is to drive and



I can see how that would defeat IEDs but the enemy always adapts. Once you go 100% air they are going to shift their assets and focus on how to kill you. That may be Ada or it may be mining the LZs but either way they are going to do their best to kill you.


Absolutely.
Aero Scouts. FireForce.

Walk and Fly. Driving gonna get you killed

Plus you regain the mobility advantage we have completely abandoned.
10 years in Afghanistan and we still aren't fighting as well as we were on the ground in 1965.




So when they volley fire RPGs at the LZ or get their hands on fresh Syrian manpads to adapt to the new tactics. This is going to lower the rate of attrition over the now?


What is the point. Big army hasn't learned shit from Vietnam. You go build Cops and Fobs only to hand them over the next week for no real reason. The enenmy camp is over the mountains to the east and until you occupy boots there you will never win. The same issue was never addressed in Vietnam. At least big blue knows where it hurts the most to bomb.


There are some key differences.
Open terrain versus jungles and forests. LZs are everywhere, you aren't as cannalized.
UAVs provide intel on the landing AO.
You fly to get close, fix the enemy with air (gunships would be optimal, LAARs will work well) and walk into the fight. You don't land on top of them.
How many helos have we lost so fare to manpads? How many did the Rhodesians lose with aleuttes?

We have built cops everywhere because we have no mobilty. you could cut your troop footprint in half and still have better coverage.

big blue has no clue where to bomb. ask mchrystal. we tried tethered goat in the korengal for 10 years. didn't work at dien bein phu, doesn't work now. Mobility is the key to COIN, not fires.


You need to invade Waristan to win, plain and simple. You destroy the route of the problem. Flying around in gunships doesn't solve that issue. Buy more ch47s if you have none left after air lift.


No you don't.
they simply need to know if they leave waristan they die.
They'll get the picture.


Name one war that was won in that matter. Shit or get off the pot. Doing patrols in occupied land while ignoring where the fighters operating bases are is a complete repeat of Vietnam. The wars in Astan have never been in Astan, it's always been tribal Pakistan and to a lesser extend the federal areas. But we are afraid of a nuclear player and so instead we pretend it doesn't exist and and continue with a war of attrition against any enemy who is prepared to fight for a 100 years or longer which we are not. The strategy is flawed, and nothing you have suggested will fix that.
Sylvan
Team Member
NRAMilitary
Online
Posts: 30846
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 3:28:44 PM
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Sniper_B:
I never got an answer



You feel it's tactically safer and smarter to only move by rotary air then it is to drive and



I can see how that would defeat IEDs but the enemy always adapts. Once you go 100% air they are going to shift their assets and focus on how to kill you. That may be Ada or it may be mining the LZs but either way they are going to do their best to kill you.


Absolutely.
Aero Scouts. FireForce.

Walk and Fly. Driving gonna get you killed

Plus you regain the mobility advantage we have completely abandoned.
10 years in Afghanistan and we still aren't fighting as well as we were on the ground in 1965.




So when they volley fire RPGs at the LZ or get their hands on fresh Syrian manpads to adapt to the new tactics. This is going to lower the rate of attrition over the now?


What is the point. Big army hasn't learned shit from Vietnam. You go build Cops and Fobs only to hand them over the next week for no real reason. The enenmy camp is over the mountains to the east and until you occupy boots there you will never win. The same issue was never addressed in Vietnam. At least big blue knows where it hurts the most to bomb.


There are some key differences.
Open terrain versus jungles and forests. LZs are everywhere, you aren't as cannalized.
UAVs provide intel on the landing AO.
You fly to get close, fix the enemy with air (gunships would be optimal, LAARs will work well) and walk into the fight. You don't land on top of them.
How many helos have we lost so fare to manpads? How many did the Rhodesians lose with aleuttes?

We have built cops everywhere because we have no mobilty. you could cut your troop footprint in half and still have better coverage.

big blue has no clue where to bomb. ask mchrystal. we tried tethered goat in the korengal for 10 years. didn't work at dien bein phu, doesn't work now. Mobility is the key to COIN, not fires.


You need to invade Waristan to win, plain and simple. You destroy the route of the problem. Flying around in gunships doesn't solve that issue. Buy more ch47s if you have none left after air lift.


No you don't.
they simply need to know if they leave waristan they die.
They'll get the picture.


Name one war that was won in that matter. Shit or get off the pot. Doing patrols in occupied land while ignoring where the fighters operating bases are is a complete repeat of Vietnam. The wars in Astan have never been in Astan, it's always been tribal Pakistan and to a lesser extend the federal areas. But we are afraid of a nuclear player and so instead we pretend it doesn't exist and and continue with a war of attrition against any enemy who is prepared to fight for a 100 years or longer which we are not. The strategy is flawed, and nothing you have suggested will fix that.


El Salvador.
Should we not fear a nuclear power? Just checking.

brass
Serious. Like a Paper Cut.
Offline
Posts: 22910
Feedback: 100% (65)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 3:50:07 PM
The last 7 pages have just oozed out the love between the AF and Army. Anybody else feeling it?

The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.

"Obama campaign is going to set back race relations 40 years thanks to some of the company he keeps"-Mazeman
LRRPF52
Member
Offline
Posts: 2097
Feedback: 100% (8)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:05:58 PM
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By therusskibear:

Su-27 has roots in the F-14 design? Really???

What Soviet radar duplicates the AWG-9 ?

Export Su-30s with 1990's package or with "stolen" US avionocs? WTF? What is any proof of that?



If you look at the bottom plan view of the Sukhoi jets, they really do look like F14s converted to fixed wing.


That is exactly what the Su-27 and MiG-25 appear to be inlfuenced most by, and they are awesome platforms to build on, evidenced by the Su-30 and MiG-35 with 90's-era avionics. I actually like the MiG-29/35 and Su-27/30 airframes better, since the Su-30M is a formidable opponent to the F-15C, and the MiG-35 is one to the F-16C/D and F/A-18C/D. The lighter teen fighters were really handicapped by the weight requirements of the AF lightweight daytime fighter program, and that has plagued the F-16 from fulfilling its main role as an attack aircraft laden with bombs, while also handicapping the F/A-18E/F models from ever being able to fill the shoes of the Tomcat and A-6 Intruder.

The Soviets, and now Russians, had the benefit of hindsight on lessons learned from the US teen fighters, and responded with 2 truly enviable airframes, despite their initially crude, all-metal construction, which has since been replaced with advanced composites for surfaces in the Su-30 and MiG-35, in addition to avionics suites composed of AESA, IRST, ECCM, ECM, glass cockpits directly inspired by the F/A-18C/D and F-15E. You can't look at the Gen 4 Russian birds' cockpits and come to the conclusion that these are Russian designs, unless national pride means more to you than blatant evidence. I have to swallow my national pride when I admire the Su-30 as the true beauty that it is, but I also realize it is a product of US milestones in high performance fighter design.


This may come as a surprise to some people, but much of the cutting-edge US avionics was transfered to the Societ Union by various actors, inlcuding the foreign intelligence services of other "allied" nations of the US, members of US Congress, US military officers, private analysts, and even some of the contractors themselves.

Sit in on a SAEDA briefing and you'll hear some of these cases mentioned. That said, once the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was able to procure more advanced avionics components on the open market, and has made great strides in compiling these systems into AESA, multi-mode missiles, ECCM, ECM, etc. We still haven't seen any of these systems demonstrated in actual warfare by surrogates, and the Russian air campaign into Georgia was a scathing display of the inability to coordinate these assets, make precision strikes, and put together a professional operation.

The rotary-wing assets did a lot better in Georgia 2008, but fast movers, however inappropriate for much of the "war", left with a black eye in the assessment of intel circles. Not really a theatre that provides the best opportunity to assess current Russian air forces capabilities, but it should have gone better.

Banjaxed
Your dyke sister keeps eating all the tuna.
Offline
Posts: 8773
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:11:16 PM
Originally Posted By Agent_Funky:
Originally Posted By UT-ARShooter:
The Eurofighter has canards and a delta wing. It should be very maneuverable, but those canards and all the hardpoints on that aircraft also make it show up more on radar. Good luck to the Eurofighter finding the F-22.


The F22 is supposed to be an aggressive interceptor - hardly fits the bill if it has to spend it's time hiding from the Eurofighter


That it is. It will intercept your Eurofghter with a Tomahawk from seemingly nowhere.
Chad Weinman, CEO of TacticalGear.com

"I think if any additional scrutiny needs to be paid it's probably to ammunition sourcing online and firearms and how those are purchased"
mcantu
Offline
Posts: 8652
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:13:39 PM

Originally Posted By LRRPF52:
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By therusskibear:

Su-27 has roots in the F-14 design? Really???

What Soviet radar duplicates the AWG-9 ?

Export Su-30s with 1990's package or with "stolen" US avionocs? WTF? What is any proof of that?



If you look at the bottom plan view of the Sukhoi jets, they really do look like F14s converted to fixed wing.


That is exactly what the Su-27 and MiG-25 appear to be inlfuenced most by, and they are awesome platforms to build on, evidenced by the Su-30 and MiG-35 with 90's-era avionics. I actually like the MiG-29/35 and Su-27/30 airframes better, since the Su-30M is a formidable opponent to the F-15C, and the MiG-35 is one to the F-16C/D and F/A-18C/D. The lighter teen fighters were really handicapped by the weight requirements of the AF lightweight daytime fighter program, and that has plagued the F-16 from fulfilling its main role as an attack aircraft laden with bombs, while also handicapping the F/A-18E/F models from ever being able to fill the shoes of the Tomcat and A-6 Intruder.

The Soviets, and now Russians, had the benefit of hindsight on lessons learned from the US teen fighters, and responded with 2 truly enviable airframes, despite their initially crude, all-metal construction, which has since been replaced with advanced composites for surfaces in the Su-30 and MiG-35, in addition to avionics suites composed of AESA, IRST, ECCM, ECM, glass cockpits directly inspired by the F/A-18C/D and F-15E. You can't look at the Gen 4 Russian birds' cockpits and come to the conclusion that these are Russian designs, unless national pride means more to you than blatant evidence. I have to swallow my national pride when I admire the Su-30 as the true beauty that it is, but I also realize it is a product of US milestones in high performance fighter design.


This may come as a surprise to some people, but much of the cutting-edge US avionics was transfered to the Societ Union by various actors, inlcuding the foreign intelligence services of other "allied" nations of the US, members of US Congress, US military officers, private analysts, and even some of the contractors themselves.

Sit in on a SAEDA briefing and you'll hear some of these cases mentioned. That said, once the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was able to procure more advanced avionics components on the open market, and has made great strides in compiling these systems into AESA, multi-mode missiles, ECCM, ECM, etc. We still haven't seen any of these systems demonstrated in actual warfare by surrogates, and the Russian air campaign into Georgia was a scathing display of the inability to coordinate these assets, make precision strikes, and put together a professional operation.

The rotary-wing assets did a lot better in Georgia 2008, but fast movers, however inappropriate for much of the "war", left with a black eye in the assessment of intel circles. Not really a theatre that provides the best opportunity to assess current Russian air forces capabilities, but it should have gone better.


iirc, the US 'copied' the layout of the of the MiG-25 in the F-15. the F-15 program was started as a response to the MiG-25 which the West thought was some super Mach 3 fighter
Banjaxed
Your dyke sister keeps eating all the tuna.
Offline
Posts: 8774
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:15:26 PM
Originally Posted By targettarget:

Originally Posted By Falar:
Originally Posted By targettarget:
Fucking rights.

Both the F-22 and F-35 are fucking dogs.


If only the US hadn't killed the Avro Arrow out of jealousy.

amirite?

Not really.

Americans are pretty good at lying to themselves and believing it.

You guy spend a shit load of money (F-22, F-35, amongst a slew of other programs), but don't really get anything for it.


When would be the last time Canada designed and built a fighter?
Chad Weinman, CEO of TacticalGear.com

"I think if any additional scrutiny needs to be paid it's probably to ammunition sourcing online and firearms and how those are purchased"
hobbsar
Member
Offline
Posts: 9120
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:16:43 PM
Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Somebody posted that the F-22 has no capability to fire IR missiles like the Sidewinder.

Why would you have a fighter especially an air superiority fighter without IR capability? I understand the theory is that the Raptor will be able to kill its enemies at long range, but what if one slips through and gets inside the range of your radar guided missiles?

i think youre talking about me. what i said was that the F-22 doesnt have an IRST (IR Search and Track)


OK you lost me.
Wouldn't the capability to search and track using IR be necessary to employ IR guided missiles?

Yes I am an ignorant fuck when it comes to modern air warfare technology.
Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional.
HeavyMetal
Veteran of a Thousand Psychic Wars
Offline
Posts: 21475
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:20:44 PM
Originally Posted By Banjaxed:
Originally Posted By targettarget:

Originally Posted By Falar:
Originally Posted By targettarget:
Fucking rights.

Both the F-22 and F-35 are fucking dogs.


If only the US hadn't killed the Avro Arrow out of jealousy.

amirite?

Not really.

Americans are pretty good at lying to themselves and believing it.

You guy spend a shit load of money (F-22, F-35, amongst a slew of other programs), but don't really get anything for it.


When would be the last time Canada designed and built a fighter?


When Biff Tannen was stealing George McFly's milk money.
I suppose it is possible to convey more ignorance with less words, but I doubt I will ever see it in my lifetime.--Bohr Adam

If LAV promotes using the slide lock/release to chamber a round after a mag change, then he should be ignored.-MP0117
TacticalTaco
Offline
Posts: 850
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:21:21 PM
Originally Posted By Banjaxed:
Originally Posted By targettarget:

Originally Posted By Falar:
Originally Posted By targettarget:
Fucking rights.

Both the F-22 and F-35 are fucking dogs.


If only the US hadn't killed the Avro Arrow out of jealousy.

amirite?

Not really.

Americans are pretty good at lying to themselves and believing it.

You guy spend a shit load of money (F-22, F-35, amongst a slew of other programs), but don't really get anything for it.


When would be the last time Canada designed and built a fighter?



Moose with wings taped on do not count.
Banjaxed
Your dyke sister keeps eating all the tuna.
Offline
Posts: 8775
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:24:14 PM
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Originally Posted By Banjaxed:
Originally Posted By targettarget:

Originally Posted By Falar:
Originally Posted By targettarget:
Fucking rights.

Both the F-22 and F-35 are fucking dogs.


If only the US hadn't killed the Avro Arrow out of jealousy.

amirite?

Not really.

Americans are pretty good at lying to themselves and believing it.

You guy spend a shit load of money (F-22, F-35, amongst a slew of other programs), but don't really get anything for it.


When would be the last time Canada designed and built a fighter?


When Biff Tannen was stealing George McFly's milk money.


Point is the Brits design and build shit so their criticism while misplaced is admissible. I won't have America's hat shit talking when even their fucking rifles are copies of ours.
Chad Weinman, CEO of TacticalGear.com

"I think if any additional scrutiny needs to be paid it's probably to ammunition sourcing online and firearms and how those are purchased"
mcantu
Offline
Posts: 8653
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:25:45 PM

Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Somebody posted that the F-22 has no capability to fire IR missiles like the Sidewinder.

Why would you have a fighter especially an air superiority fighter without IR capability? I understand the theory is that the Raptor will be able to kill its enemies at long range, but what if one slips through and gets inside the range of your radar guided missiles?

i think youre talking about me. what i said was that the F-22 doesnt have an IRST (IR Search and Track)


OK you lost me.
Wouldn't the capability to search and track using IR be necessary to employ IR guided missiles?

Yes I am an ignorant fuck when it comes to modern air warfare technology.

no, the seeker head of an IR AAM can directed by the radar or helmet mounted sight. iirc, the only US fighter to have had an integral IRST was the F-14D. the Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, Mig-27/35, Su-27/30 all have one
hobbsar
Member
Offline
Posts: 9121
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:31:38 PM
Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Somebody posted that the F-22 has no capability to fire IR missiles like the Sidewinder.

Why would you have a fighter especially an air superiority fighter without IR capability? I understand the theory is that the Raptor will be able to kill its enemies at long range, but what if one slips through and gets inside the range of your radar guided missiles?

i think youre talking about me. what i said was that the F-22 doesnt have an IRST (IR Search and Track)


OK you lost me.
Wouldn't the capability to search and track using IR be necessary to employ IR guided missiles?

Yes I am an ignorant fuck when it comes to modern air warfare technology.

no, the seeker head of an IR AAM can directed by the radar or helmet mounted sight. iirc, the only US fighter to have had an integral IRST was the F-14D. the Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, Mig-27/35, Su-27/30 all have one


Next question is why the Raptor does not have this capability. It would seem a nice fit with stealth technology, no pesky radar emissions.
Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional.
brass
Serious. Like a Paper Cut.
Offline
Posts: 22916
Feedback: 100% (65)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:36:20 PM
Originally Posted By hobbsar:

OK you lost me.
Wouldn't the capability to search and track using IR be necessary to employ IR guided missiles?

Yes I am an ignorant fuck when it comes to modern air warfare technology.


Missile data link.

Pilot points missile seeker at target, missile locks on and responds with "solid tone" rather than 'beep beep beep" seeking.

IRST is basically passive thermal radar, and doesn't enhance the missile seeker once launched.

The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.

"Obama campaign is going to set back race relations 40 years thanks to some of the company he keeps"-Mazeman
mcantu
Offline
Posts: 8654
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:39:32 PM

Originally Posted By RVwannaB:
Originally Posted By mcantu:iirc, the Eurofighter lost out to the Rafale in Brazil's fighter trials...


For some countries, it's more about the money than the capability. Just ask the Hungarians how happy they are about getting the Gripen over the Viper...



the Rafale also recently beat out the Eurofighter for India's medium multi-role fighter
LRRPF52
Member
Offline
Posts: 2098
Feedback: 100% (8)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 4:40:27 PM
Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By LRRPF52:
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By therusskibear:

Su-27 has roots in the F-14 design? Really???

What Soviet radar duplicates the AWG-9 ?

Export Su-30s with 1990's package or with "stolen" US avionocs? WTF? What is any proof of that?



If you look at the bottom plan view of the Sukhoi jets, they really do look like F14s converted to fixed wing.


That is exactly what the Su-27 and MiG-25 appear to be inlfuenced most by, and they are awesome platforms to build on, evidenced by the Su-30 and MiG-35 with 90's-era avionics. I actually like the MiG-29/35 and Su-27/30 airframes better, since the Su-30M is a formidable opponent to the F-15C, and the MiG-35 is one to the F-16C/D and F/A-18C/D. The lighter teen fighters were really handicapped by the weight requirements of the AF lightweight daytime fighter program, and that has plagued the F-16 from fulfilling its main role as an attack aircraft laden with bombs, while also handicapping the F/A-18E/F models from ever being able to fill the shoes of the Tomcat and A-6 Intruder.

The Soviets, and now Russians, had the benefit of hindsight on lessons learned from the US teen fighters, and responded with 2 truly enviable airframes, despite their initially crude, all-metal construction, which has since been replaced with advanced composites for surfaces in the Su-30 and MiG-35, in addition to avionics suites composed of AESA, IRST, ECCM, ECM, glass cockpits directly inspired by the F/A-18C/D and F-15E. You can't look at the Gen 4 Russian birds' cockpits and come to the conclusion that these are Russian designs, unless national pride means more to you than blatant evidence. I have to swallow my national pride when I admire the Su-30 as the true beauty that it is, but I also realize it is a product of US milestones in high performance fighter design.


This may come as a surprise to some people, but much of the cutting-edge US avionics was transfered to the Societ Union by various actors, inlcuding the foreign intelligence services of other "allied" nations of the US, members of US Congress, US military officers, private analysts, and even some of the contractors themselves.

Sit in on a SAEDA briefing and you'll hear some of these cases mentioned. That said, once the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was able to procure more advanced avionics components on the open market, and has made great strides in compiling these systems into AESA, multi-mode missiles, ECCM, ECM, etc. We still haven't seen any of these systems demonstrated in actual warfare by surrogates, and the Russian air campaign into Georgia was a scathing display of the inability to coordinate these assets, make precision strikes, and put together a professional operation.

The rotary-wing assets did a lot better in Georgia 2008, but fast movers, however inappropriate for much of the "war", left with a black eye in the assessment of intel circles. Not really a theatre that provides the best opportunity to assess current Russian air forces capabilities, but it should have gone better.


iirc, the US 'copied' the layout of the of the MiG-25 in the F-15. the F-15 program was started as a response to the MiG-25 which the West thought was some super Mach 3 fighter


This is what happens without knowledge of the history of intelligence operations, particularly regarding military aviation technology. The MiG-25 was actually taken from prototypes in the US and Canada. One of those became an actual production aircraft known as the A-5 Vigilante, which was an awesome plane in its day. Imagine an A-5 with 2 vertical stabs, supersized to Russian "bigger is better" approach, and you have your Ye-155 program.





One of the main differences is that USSR built the MiG-25 with Nickel alloy, making is a heavy beast with crazy low G limitations, and the US built the A-5 with cutting-edge for the period alloys, avionics, even fly-by-wire. Both planes were built for speed.
swede1986
The swedish version of Mr. T
Online
Posts: 15074
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 5:08:13 PM
Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By RVwannaB:
Originally Posted By mcantu:iirc, the Eurofighter lost out to the Rafale in Brazil's fighter trials...


For some countries, it's more about the money than the capability. Just ask the Hungarians how happy they are about getting the Gripen over the Viper...



the Rafale also recently beat out the Eurofighter for India's medium multi-role fighter


That decision was mostly based on the level of technology transfer rather than cost. The Indians need Western technology if they are to counter the next generation of Chinese fighters.
I Pity The FOOL!

mcantu
Offline
Posts: 8656
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 5:14:40 PM

Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By RVwannaB:
Originally Posted By mcantu:iirc, the Eurofighter lost out to the Rafale in Brazil's fighter trials...


For some countries, it's more about the money than the capability. Just ask the Hungarians how happy they are about getting the Gripen over the Viper...



the Rafale also recently beat out the Eurofighter for India's medium multi-role fighter


That decision was mostly based on the level of technology transfer rather than cost. The Indians need Western technology if they are to counter the next generation of Chinese fighters.

good point. i think the Indian's use French targeting systems on their Russian supplied tanks.

these are the results of recent Swiss fighter trials:


brass
Serious. Like a Paper Cut.
Offline
Posts: 22917
Feedback: 100% (65)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 5:21:10 PM
Originally Posted By hobbsar:

Next question is why the Raptor does not have this capability. It would seem a nice fit with stealth technology, no pesky radar emissions.


I think it has to do with the AESA Radar on the F-22, combined with the high speed data link from other aircraft and radars, allowing it to fight without activating the onboard radar.

"Systemology" is what the US military has down pat, each aircraft is part of a network that shares information, similar to the AEGIS ships. This allows an F-22 to lock and launch radar guided missiles using an E-3 or other radar.

That is the part some countries aren't putting together, each plane isn't a complete system on it's own, it's all cooperative/integrated. We are far past the days of Mustangs having to individually find and fight Zeros.
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.

"Obama campaign is going to set back race relations 40 years thanks to some of the company he keeps"-Mazeman
RVwannaB
Offline
Posts: 284
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 5:40:03 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 11:03:04 PM by RVwannaB]
Originally Posted By Flogger23m:Gripen is the F-5 of the 21st Century.


True statement.

Originally Posted By mcantu:the Rafale also recently beat out the Eurofighter for India's medium multi-role fighter


Just because one airplane beats out another in competition to for what a country will buy, does not mean it's the best plane. It's also about the $$$ which is what happened in the Hungarians case.
paris-dakar
Typical White Person, Behaving Stupidly
Offline
Posts: 19889
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 6:00:12 PM
[Last Edit: 8/4/2012 6:02:52 PM by paris-dakar]
Originally Posted By mcantu:
iirc, the US 'copied' the layout of the of the MiG-25 in the F-15. the F-15 program was started as a response to the MiG-25 which the West thought was some super Mach 3 fighter


To me the F15 always looked like an A5 Vigilante with twin tails.

ETA Looks like the A5 came first.
The spirit of self-satisfaction is the infallible mark of the inferior mind.
Fyodor Mikhailevich Dostoevsky
Shung
EBR crew chief
Offline
Posts: 9756
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/4/2012 6:04:23 PM
Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By hobbsar:
Somebody posted that the F-22 has no capability to fire IR missiles like the Sidewinder.

Why would you have a fighter especially an air superiority fighter without IR capability? I understand the theory is that the Raptor will be able to kill its enemies at long range, but what if one slips through and gets inside the range of your radar guided missiles?

i think youre talking about me. what i said was that the F-22 doesnt have an IRST (IR Search and Track)


OK you lost me.
Wouldn't the capability to search and track using IR be necessary to employ IR guided missiles?

Yes I am an ignorant fuck when it comes to modern air warfare technology.


not necessary.. The IR seeker can be slaved to a lot of sensors.. radar, helmet, IRST....

but ultimately its the Sidewinder sensor itself that must get a lock
My gratitude to the other animal that Jessica Alba touches, and to the coldest Tomcat pilot of the 80's !
Page:  / 22