NationStates Jolt Archive

US deploys new top fighter jet

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The futuristic F-22A "Raptor" fighter jet, designed to dominate the skies well into the 21st century, joined the U.S. combat fleet on Thursday, 20 years after it was conceived to fight Soviet MiGs over Europe.

The Air Force said "initial operational capability" had been achieved at the 1st Fighter Wing's 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

Pilots in the squadron, the Air Force's oldest in continuous operation, have been training on the F-22, the Air Force's most advanced weapon system, for about a year.

"If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us," Gen. Ronald Keys, head of the Air Force's Air Combat command, said in a statement. He said an initial group of 12 was ready for combat worldwide or for homeland defense.

Looks like we now have another bargaining chip against Iran in the showdown over their controversial nuclear program. It seems that all the fancy surface to air missile systems that they bought from Russia can't even see this thing.

Combine that with the fact that it can drop a thousand pound bomb while flying supersonic, and I imagine smoking piles of rubble wherever Iran tries to enrich uranium.

Of course, that's assuming Israel doesn't do it first, which is seeming more and more likely. But if they can't get through the air defense, we can always do it for them, and just let them take the credit.

Either way you slice it, this is one far out machine! Welcome to the future.

US deploys new top fighter jet
[I]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The futuristic F-22A "Raptor" fighter jet, designed to dominate the skies well into the 21st century, joined the U.S. combat fleet on Thursday, 20 years after it was conceived to fight Soviet MiGs over Europe.

Talk about a sad record of achievement from the same folks that used to run the Skunkworks so well. I don't think the SR-71 took that long and I know that the F-117 didn't. Twenty years is way too long from conceptualization to IOC.

Talk about a sad record of achievement from the same folks that used to run the Skunkworks so well. I don't think the SR-71 took that long and I know that the F-117 didn't. Twenty years is way too long from conceptualization to IOC.
You can't rush perfection! ;)

Talk about a sad record of achievement from the same folks that used to run the Skunkworks so well. I don't think the SR-71 took that long and I know that the F-117 didn't. Twenty years is way too long from conceptualization to IOC.
Kelly Johnson died, and isn't running it anymore.

Figure that several of his projects (F-104, U-2, SR-71) went from original request to operational aircraft in 18 months each...

You can't rush perfection! ;)
No, it has more to do with two things:

1. Complexity, mostly of the software systems
2. Lockheed has figured out that if you make the project last a long time, you can bill all that time.

You can't rush perfection! ;)
I used to work with this program. It's not the engineers, it's the Air Force accountants. If LM had had a free hand with the program, it might have taken five years. The government auditing, that was designed to prevent $500 hammers, is just an impediment to any productivity.

Talk about a sad record of achievement from the same folks that used to run the Skunkworks so well. I don't think the SR-71 took that long and I know that the F-117 didn't. Twenty years is way too long from conceptualization to IOC.

Nah, that's not a fair assessment... Countering the Soviet air was the original intent of this bird, and without the soviet threat there is no air threat (even still) to the current and old US air that would warrant a fast passed deployment of the F22.

How long until we have the technology to make a pilotless robot plane that has all the capabilities of the f-22 but can carry more weight in fuel and missiles, and pull more Gs in a turn because it doesn't have to carry a fragile human and all the technology that goes along with keeping him alive?

It's probably right around the corner. We can have an air war without risking any American lives!

Nah, that's not a fair assessment... Countering the Soviet air was the original intent of this bird, and without the soviet threat there is no air threat (even still) to the current and old US air that would warrant a fast passed deployment of the F22.
And couple that with the fact that we already had air superiority with the F-14's 15's and 16's, and our stealth bombers, and we just didn't NEED to rush it.

Looks like we now have another bargaining chip against Iran in the showdown over their controversial nuclear program. It seems that all the fancy surface to air missile systems that they bought from Russia can't even see this thing.

The Iran missile defence is useless against the current US fighters anyway.

Nah, that's not a fair assessment... Countering the Soviet air was the original intent of this bird, and without the soviet threat there is no air threat (even still) to the current and old US air that would warrant a fast passed deployment of the F22.
India and a few other nations are fielding Russian-made fighters that outperform the good old F-15 Eagle in exercises. The Eurofighter is no slouch, either (although it's not being exported to Middle Eastern countries).

Besides, we already spent the money.

It's a beautiful aircraft and an awesome weapon.

How long until we have the technology to make a pilotless robot plane that has all the capabilities of the f-22 but can carry more weight in fuel and missiles, and pull more Gs in a turn because it doesn't have to carry a fragile human and all the technology that goes along with keeping him alive?

It's probably right around the corner. We can have an air war without risking any American lives!
Personally, that scares the hell out of me. I think there shoulders always be a human pulling the triggers. Machines don't have morality to make judgments in real time that are necessary to keep collateral damage to a minimum.

How long until we have the technology to make a pilotless robot plane that has all the capabilities of the f-22 but can carry more weight in fuel and missiles, and pull more Gs in a turn because it doesn't have to carry a fragile human and all the technology that goes along with keeping him alive?

It's probably right around the corner. We can have an air war without risking any American lives!

well really that take the point of war away from it.

but the f-22 has been around for a bit hasn't it.
Anyway , America has much more advanced planes in its arsenal than a pityfull f-22.
Think about it. if they made the f-117 in the 80/90s then what could they do nowadays. when an ipod can hold as much as my old computer.

Somehow I don't think Iran was thinking, "I think we're cool as long as they don't introduce a new jet..."

How about before we get into another war we end the WARS that we have going on in Iraq and Afkanastan. Or does three wars sound like to good of a way to waste lives and money.

How long until we have the technology to make a pilotless robot plane that has all the capabilities of the f-22 but can carry more weight in fuel and missiles, and pull more Gs in a turn because it doesn't have to carry a fragile human and all the technology that goes along with keeping him alive?

It's probably right around the corner. We can have an air war without risking any American lives!

Is that a good thing?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the same way if Eurofighter gave the Typhoon a robot pilot. But it means we no longer think about our human cost when seeing if a war is viable (assuming the other arms can similarly use robots, the Navy could for sure). After all, robots can be replaced.

"War without risking our boy's lives" sounds great until you realise we're still killing their boys. We barely think on that aspect as it is...

Nah, that's not a fair assessment... Countering the Soviet air was the original intent of this bird, and without the soviet threat there is no air threat (even still) to the current and old US air that would warrant a fast passed deployment of the F22.
I think it is a fair comment. The costs of the aircraft will continue to climb as it is in development. That's called Non-Recoverable Engineering, NRE, cost. The problem is that LM has to amortize that over all the F-22s they sell, so the damnded things end up costing far in excess of what is reasonable.

The other problem with allowing something to languish in the DT&E world is feature creep. Everyone knows some little tweak that will make it better. That adds tremendous cost and extra complexity to the whole thing.

It's always better to build something to the contract spec and get it out the door before the perfectionists take hold.

Ever hear the phrase that the 'perfect is the enemy' of the good? Holds true almost everywhere.

This sort of thing is going to replace a lot of fighters.

Old guys with experience like Myrmidonisia could fly one of these from his PC at home.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/index.html

well really that take the point of war away from it.

but the f-22 has been around for a bit hasn't it.
Anyway , America has much more advanced planes in its arsenal than a pityfull f-22.
Think about it. if they made the f-117 in the 80/90s then what could they do nowadays. when an ipod can hold as much as my old computer.
How do you figure that it takes the point of war away? War isn't about risking your own people's lives, it's about inflicting casualties and destroying weapons and infrastructure owned by the enemy. Cruise missiles do that without risking American lives, pilotless planes would do the same thing.

Is that a good thing?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the same way if Eurofighter gave the Typhoon a robot pilot. But it means we no longer think about our human cost when seeing if a war is viable (assuming the other arms can similarly use robots, the Navy could for sure). After all, robots can be replaced.

"War without risking our boy's lives" sounds great until you realise we're still killing their boys. We barely think on that aspect as it is...
Well, from the point of view "better their boys than ours" it makes perfect sense.

Nah, that's not a fair assessment... Countering the Soviet air was the original intent of this bird, and without the soviet threat there is no air threat (even still) to the current and old US air that would warrant a fast passed deployment of the F22.

No threat! Are you high!??? Communist china while contiuing to out perform the lymbering husk of an economic super (the us) has stepped up it espionage and it reasearch and develpment of it radar making the tech gap far smaller then the gov't will admit to, combine this with the developmen tof ship killing missle that render our carrier fleet into billion dollar targets and you have a major threat! America needs to wake up and see that overpriced fighters(that will be replaced soon by unmanned craft) are a waste of tax-payers money. But as long as the tax payers allow the gov't to feed at the unending trough of moooney with out consiquences I suppose they will get their"toys" and be happy about it. :mad: :headbang:

well really that take the point of war away from it.

but the f-22 has been around for a bit hasn't it.
Anyway , America has much more advanced planes in its arsenal than a pityfull f-22.
Think about it. if they made the f-117 in the 80/90s then what could they do nowadays. when an ipod can hold as much as my old computer.
I think your confusing the F-22 withe the 14's 15's and 16'

The F-22 is state of the art, and is the most g=dangerous fighter jet on the planet.

From what I can tell, it can outmanuever anything else in the air, and it's faster too. It can also supercruise, which means running supersonic without afterburners, saving fuel and increasing supersonic speed times to over a half hour of flight time instead of minutes.

How do you figure that it takes the point of war away? War isn't about risking your own people's lives, it's about inflicting casualties and destroying weapons and infrastructure owned by the enemy. Cruise missiles do that without risking American lives, pilotless planes would do the same thing.

i was counting on the idea both sides would have drones, then it would take the point of human loss from the conflict.

Personally, that scares the hell out of me. I think there shoulders always be a human pulling the triggers. Machines don't have morality to make judgments in real time that are necessary to keep collateral damage to a minimum.
Based on my 120 combat hours in the right seat of an A-6, I can tell you that men don't make moral judgements while they're 'in hot' on a target. Your life and views are very focused on the target, the altitude, airspeed, and what the enemy is shooting at you. If my mission was to drop an LGB on an apartment building, that's what I'd do.

Minimizing collateral damage is a myth that is perpetrated by the military when they talk about putting that same LGB through any window you want. The fact is that 650 pounds of explosives in a Mk83 make a big hole.

I think your confusing the F-22 withe the 14's 15's and 16'

The F-22 is state of the art, and is the most g=dangerous fighter jet on the planet.

From what I can tell, it can outmanuever anything else in the air, and it's faster too. It can also supercruise, which means running supersonic without afterburners, saving fuel and increasing supersonic speed times to over a half hour of flight time instead of minutes.

The major advance is that it's networked - all of the fighters communicate with each other without the pilot doing anything - they can pass on data and detections to each other automatically, and prioritize targets. A single fighter can illuminate a set of targets for other silent fighters to shoot at, further reducing their chance of being detected. They are also networked in real-time to SBIRS satellites which detect airborne targets using advanced thermal imagery - they can see a stealth aircraft without having to emit.

Very, very nasty.

i was counting on the idea both sides would have drones, then it would take the point of human loss from the conflict.
Not really. In that scenario you would just have the guy with the best drones or the most drones or whatever penetrating the enemy's defenses and bombing his military, industrial, and perhaps civilian sites.

Minimizing collateral damage is a myth that is perpetrated by the military when they talk about putting that same LGB through any window you want. The fact is that 650 pounds of explosives in a Mk83 make a big hole.

I remember being about a kilometer from a 2000-lb bomb going off - and I was prone. I was lifted off the ground by the shockwave and it felt like I was being thumped hard on the chest. There was a pretty intense shower of dirt clods and small rocks shortly after that.

They are trying to make a new "small diamter bomb" that only weighs 250 pounds and holds less than half that as explosives, but I still wouldn't want to be anywhere near it when it goes off.

Personally, that scares the hell out of me. I think there shoulders always be a human pulling the triggers. Machines don't have morality to make judgments in real time that are necessary to keep collateral damage to a minimum.
It scares me a bit too, but for different reasons. :(

It scares me a bit too, but for different reasons. :(
Well, you probably had to deal with close air support back in the day when the CEP was 750 meters.

I remember being about a kilometer from a 2000-lb bomb going off - and I was prone. I was lifted off the ground by the shockwave and it felt like I was being thumped hard on the chest. There was a pretty intense shower of dirt clods and small rocks shortly after that.

They are trying to make a new "small diamter bomb" that only weighs 250 pounds and holds less than half that as explosives, but I still wouldn't want to be anywhere near it when it goes off.
I've carried Mk81 bombs before. Those were only 250 pounds total weight. The Mk82s were always available and those are only 500 pounds total weight. Figure about half the weight for HE and half for shrapnel

Of course, that's assuming Israel doesn't do it first, which is seeming more and more likely. But if they can't get through the air defense, we can always do it for them, and just let them take the credit.


Israel has the best pilots in the world they would probaly be fine without our help.

I've carried Mk81 bombs before. Those were only 250 pounds total weight. The Mk82s were always available and those are only 500 pounds total weight. Figure about half the weight for HE and half for shrapnel
Still nothing that you want to be near when it comes down.

I think that a lot of people that say, "oh wow" about weapon systems have never seen what they can do - it's extremely frightening.

The mental picture I have of you in your glory days is of an A-6 laying down either Rockeye or Mk82 Snakeye in one big pattern. I've walked beaten zones of those sorts of things afterwards, and it's not something that people survive.

From what I can tell, it can outmanuever anything else in the air, and it's faster too. It can also supercruise, which means running supersonic without afterburners, saving fuel and increasing supersonic speed times to over a half hour of flight time instead of minutes.

O come on, the English Electric Lightning had supercruise in the 1960s! But then again, unless the Americans have developed something it doesn't exist, even I know that.

O come on, the English Electric Lightning had supercruise in the 1960s! But then again, unless the Americans have developed something it doesn't exist, even I know that.
Consider the extremely short range of the Lightning, though. And the extraordinary range of the F-22.

This sort of thing is going to replace a lot of fighters.

Old guys with experience like Myrmidonisia could fly one of these from his PC at home.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/index.html

A few pegasus missiles or other satelite killers later and these planes will be so much scrap looking at the control system.

Consider the extremely short range of the Lightning, though. And the extraordinary range of the F-22.

True, but all jet aircraft had pitiful ranges in the early days. Besdies, The Raptor has had an extra 40 years of development to its advantage, and god knows how much more funding.

And the Lightning looks so much better...

Israel has the best pilots in the world they would probaly be fine without our help.
I'm going to assume you say that out of national pride. Israel has good pilots. Their chief advantage has always been that they have experience. A secondary advantage is that they've always fought Arabs. Those guys aren't real pillars of ability or bravery.

There's lots to learn from their experience, but our pilots have been building recent experience, as well. If I had to choose between a Marine squadron and an Israeli squadron for a ground attack mission, I'd pick the Marines every time.

Still nothing that you want to be near when it comes down.

I think that a lot of people that say, "oh wow" about weapon systems have never seen what they can do - it's extremely frightening.

The mental picture I have of you in your glory days is of an A-6 laying down either Rockeye or Mk82 Snakeye in one big pattern. I've walked beaten zones of those sorts of things afterwards, and it's not something that people survive.
We practiced a lot of lay downs, but that was more to avoid Soviet IADS than to avoid AAA. When we started bombing Iraq, we switched to high altitude, high angle dives.

I like cluster bombs.

I'm going to assume you say that out of national pride. Israel has good pilots. Their chief advantage has always been that they have experience. A secondary advantage is that they've always fought Arabs. Those guys aren't real pillars of ability or bravery.

There's lots to learn from their experience, but our pilots have been building recent experience, as well. If I had to choose between a Marine squadron and an Israeli squadron for a ground attack mission, I'd pick the Marines every time.

From what I've seen in Iraq, US forces are some of the least disciplined in the world. The fact that they managed to shoot down an RAF Tornado in the first weeks of the Iraq campaign shows how trigger-happy they are, and A-10s attacking British soldiers in the first Gulf War show that America hasn't learnt its lesson.

Perhaps if you didn't shoot them, you'd have more allies.

We practiced a lot of lay downs, but that was more to avoid Soviet IADS than to avoid AAA. When we started bombing Iraq, we switched to high altitude, high angle dives.

I like cluster bombs.
I remember a film of a Libyan patrol boat being hit with Rockeye - was that you?

I remember a film of a Libyan patrol boat being hit with Rockeye - was that you?
No, but I know the guy. We got a Boghammer in the Persian Gulf, with a Skipper. That's an LGB with a rocket attached. Kind of a poor man's Harpoon.

From what I've seen in Iraq, US forces are some of the least disciplined in the world. The fact that they managed to shoot down an RAF Tornado in the first weeks of the Iraq campaign shows how trigger-happy they are, and A-10s attacking British soldiers in the first Gulf War show that America hasn't learnt its lesson.

Perhaps if you didn't shoot them, you'd have more allies.

Ummm. The Tornado shot down in Operation Iraqi Freedom was shot down by a PAC-3 surface to air missile.

It may startle you to know that the PAC-3 is entirely automated - it has to be - and is designed to be. It operates without human intervention - without human judgment - without human prioritization of targets. A PAC-3 battery is designed to eliminate short-range high-speed threats - including incoming ballistic missile warheads. Its reaction time is so short that it will fire a second or third missile at the same target if it determines that the first will be a miss - before the first missile has missed. It succesfully demonstrated this "ripple fire" automation in shooting down all ballistic missiles fired by Iraq during this most recent operation.

The Tornado was shot down because its IFF transponder was not on. In the presence of a highly automated system like PAC-3, the system will fire automatically.

It has nothing to do with "discipline".

well really that take the point of war away from it.

but the f-22 has been around for a bit hasn't it.
Anyway , America has much more advanced planes in its arsenal than a pityfull f-22.
Think about it. if they made the f-117 in the 80/90s then what could they do nowadays. when an ipod can hold as much as my old computer.
Erm...you sure about this. The F-22 is one of the most if not the most advanced stealth fighter EVER. It has the gentle sloping curves that not only assist it in evading radar but also in aerodynamics. The thing can fly an entire mission at supersonic practically and it has the most advanced weapons and communications oh and I cant forget guidance and radar systems that have been conceived. It will be a LONG time before someone else measures up to this baby....

Ummm. The Tornado shot down in Operation Iraqi Freedom was shot down by a PAC-3 surface to air missile.

It may startle you to know that the PAC-3 is entirely automated - it has to be - and is designed to be. It operates without human intervention - without human judgment - without human prioritization of targets. A PAC-3 battery is designed to eliminate short-range high-speed threats - including incoming ballistic missile warheads. Its reaction time is so short that it will fire a second or third missile at the same target if it determines that the first will be a miss - before the first missile has missed. It succesfully demonstrated this "ripple fire" automation in shooting down all ballistic missiles fired by Iraq during this most recent operation.

The Tornado was shot down because its IFF transponder was not on. In the presence of a highly automated system like PAC-3, the system will fire automatically.

It has nothing to do with "discipline".

Since when does Iraq have ballistic missiles? You can hardly count the Scud in the same category as the Trident.

And as for the A-10 attacks, does that not show indiscipline?

From what I've seen in Iraq, US forces are some of the least disciplined in the world. The fact that they managed to shoot down an RAF Tornado in the first weeks of the Iraq campaign shows how trigger-happy they are, and A-10s attacking British soldiers in the first Gulf War show that America hasn't learnt its lesson.

Perhaps if you didn't shoot them, you'd have more allies.
There's a lot of mitigating facts around all those incidents. But essential fact remains that there really is a 'fog of war'. Our friendly losses are far less than what the Soviets used to consider acceptable in peacetime training.

The futuristic F-22A "Raptor" fighter jet, designed to dominate the skies well into the 21st century, joined the U.S. combat fleet on Thursday, 20 years after it was conceived to fight Soviet MiGs over Europe.

I don't think it is anything to cheer about. It's about as outdated as the Eurofighter. The problem with building and designing large items of military equipment is that it takes so long that by the time you've finished its obsolete.

Since when does Iraq have ballistic missiles? You can hardly count the Scud in the same category as the Trident.

And as for the A-10 attacks, does that not show indiscipline?
If you had ever been on the receiving end of a FROG or a SCUD, you might re-consider that statement. Like Kimchi, I've been lifted up out off the ground by a nearby explosion from a FROG missile. Made me rue the day I agreed to attend a conference at Division headquarters.

There's a lot of mitigating facts around all those incidents. But essential fact remains that there really is a 'fog of war'. Our friendly losses are far less than what the Soviets used to consider acceptable in peacetime training.

If there is really in a fog of war (in an age of sensor fusion and battlefiled radar) why do British, Italian, Ukrainian, Spanish forces fail to strike each other?

And comparing yourself with the Soviets is hardly mitigating; they considered losses of tens of millions acceptable in WW2.

Since when does Iraq have ballistic missiles? You can hardly count the Scud in the same category as the Trident.

And as for the A-10 attacks, does that not show indiscipline?

A SCUD is a ballistic missile. A "short range ballistic missile", or if suitably modified, "a medium range ballistic missile". It fired quite a few during this last invasion.

The A-10 is a close air support aircraft. That is, it is used in close proximity to friendly forces to support them. Traditionally, this is the type of operation that involves the greatest risk for fratricide - and in previous wars, fratricide was much higher - regardless of the air force involved. The US has spent a long time trying to reduce the number of incidents of fratricide - and considering the huge number of sorties by all US aircraft in the first Gulf War, even if you only count A-10 sorties, the incidence of friendly fire was extremely low - yes, it's a tragedy that a few incidents took place - but once again it has nothing to do with discipline.

What makes fratricide more tragic nowadays is the relative accuracy and lethality of weapon systems - if someone does misidentify you, you're as good as dead.

Is that a good thing?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the same way if Eurofighter gave the Typhoon a robot pilot. But it means we no longer think about our human cost when seeing if a war is viable (assuming the other arms can similarly use robots, the Navy could for sure). After all, robots can be replaced.

"War without risking our boy's lives" sounds great until you realise we're still killing their boys. We barely think on that aspect as it is...


I agree with this, but I think we also need to remember that no war doesnt hurt the invading party. For example, even though Britian was a major gainer out of WWI, its economy was completely destroyed, which harmed millions of people. Talking about 'saving our boys' is all well and good, but can't people see that war is just a pointless exercise? Personally, I think America has a lot more to gain from commercial and cultural imperialism rather than military. George doesn't seem to see it that way, however. I think that a war in Iran would be a catastrophe for America. It can hardly keep control of Iraq and Afghanistan, how is it going to occupy a country as large as Iran as well? America wants it all its own way. George can roll out as many new fighters as often as he wants, but what will be the point if he ends up picking a fight with China next? I think our world is about to enter a dark new age.

If there is really in a fog of war (in an age of sensor fusion and battlefiled radar) why do British, Italian, Italian, Spanish forces fail to strike each other?

And comparing yourself with the Soviets is hardly mitigating; they considered losses of tens of millions acceptable in WW2.

Those forces flew nearly no close air support missions compared to the US forces. The Tornado, for example, was flown primarily on deep strike missions - where there's absolutely no friendly people on the ground. The Jaguar was used primarily as a battlefield photo recon aircraft - no weapons on board. The UK Harrier saw limited CAS use.

Think of the thousands of CAS sorties flown by US aircraft. You can count the friendly fire incidents on one hand. Think of those percentages before you make the assertion that "US forces are undisciplined".

Especially when you compare them with any previous recent conflict involving CAS missions by any nation.

For example, even though Britian was a major gainer out of WWI, its economy was completely destroyed, which harmed millions of people. .

How did Britain gain from the war?

If there is really in a fog of war (in an age of sensor fusion and battlefiled radar) why do British, Italian, Italian, Spanish forces fail to strike each other?

In the first Gulf war, there was no real sensor fusion in place. Friendlies put orange plastic trashbags on their vehicles for identification. In the second Gulf war, you had to play along to get the benefits of gps. I suspect, not having been there, that in the second war, the smaller forces had more limited areas of responsibilty and didn't have to make questionable decisions about targets.

this is wrong.... the US cant go against iran by itself without first UN sanctions and cooperation with the rest of the world.... if it does there will be severe repercusions - especially after iraq and the whole WMD - i think you get my meaning.

although the americans are probably the most powerful nation in the world - thinking that a country can just bomb another is just wrong -

i dont think the israel will jump in at the moment..... they are having to watch what they are doing with their neighbouring arab nations....politics is about PR and unless they can justify it 120% they will get shafted in the long term. They lose the support of the EU and the public support of the US.

I personally think that the next 'serious war' will be a trade war between the states and EU or with china against US + EU. There will be no need for planes then!!!

In the first Gulf war, there was no real sensor fusion in place. Friendlies put orange plastic trashbags on their vehicles for identification. In the second Gulf war, you had to play along to get the benefits of gps. I suspect, not having been there, that in the second war, the smaller forces had more limited areas of responsibilty and didn't have to make questionable decisions about targets.
I might add that the A-10 didn't have the kind of on-board sensors that other aircraft had. Try using your Maverick camera as your night sensor...

I don't think it is anything to cheer about. It's about as outdated as the Eurofighter. The problem with building and designing large items of military equipment is that it takes so long that by the time you've finished its obsolete.

This isn't really a problem though, because every nation suffers from the timescale problem.

Ah, the Eurofighter. The last mistake in the tragedy that has been British fighter procurement since the 1960s.

Deathsdoor']I personally think that the next 'serious war' will be a trade war between the states and EU or with china against US + EU. There will be no need for planes then!!!


Might wanna rethink those sides, there. Ten years out if Europe and China keep going the way the've been going, it'll be China and the US working together to corner world markets. There is no trade war with a monster like that, just submission.

Talk about a sad record of achievement from the same folks that used to run the Skunkworks so well. I don't think the SR-71 took that long and I know that the F-117 didn't. Twenty years is way too long from conceptualization to IOC.

I blame Congress.

Ah, the Eurofighter. The last mistake in the tragedy that has been British fighter procurement since the 1960s.

And the UK has the resources to develop fighters on its own?

It's an expensive habit.

Ah, the Eurofighter. The last mistake in the tragedy that has been British fighter procurement since the 1960s.

So, you're ok with the Joint Strike Fighter then?

And the UK has the resources to develop fighters on its own?

It's an expensive habit.

Please, we're still the 4th largest economy in the world (just, China will overtake in a few months). If Sweden can afford to develop an indigenous manned fighter, so can we. It's just that the government for some reason since the 1960s has been afraid of developing British aerospace to its full potential.

So, you're ok with the Joint Strike Fighter then?

We should get a decent workshare, and it'll be far more capable than any development of the Harrier could ever be.

Who knows, we might get the European final assembly line.

We should get a decent workshare, and it'll be far more capable than any development of the Harrier could ever be.

Who knows, we might get the European final assembly line.
Not to mention that so far, the development costs are under budget right now.

The focus of the program is producing effectiveness at an affordable price—the Air Force’s unit flyaway cost objective is $28 million (FY94$). This unit recurring flyaway cost is down from a projected, business as usual cost of $36 million.

If there is really in a fog of war (in an age of sensor fusion and battlefiled radar) why do British, Italian, Ukrainian, Spanish forces fail to strike each other?

And comparing yourself with the Soviets is hardly mitigating; they considered losses of tens of millions acceptable in WW2.
Maybe because the low numbers of troops sent by Italy, Ukrain, and Spain make friendly fire incidents statistically less likely.

This isn't really a problem though, because every nation suffers from the timescale problem.

Ah, the Eurofighter. The last mistake in the tragedy that has been British fighter procurement since the 1960s.

The Eurofighter is a pretty damn awesome aircraft. It beats the Tornado in just about every aspect. It is stealthy, carries a big weapons load, offers very good avionics, and pretty much beats anything the Russians or Chinese have at the moment. On the DARA test, where the F-22 scored 10.1:1 against the Su-35, the Eurofighter scored 4.5:1.

I agree with this, but I think we also need to remember that no war doesnt hurt the invading party. For example, even though Britian was a major gainer out of WWI, its economy was completely destroyed, which harmed millions of people. Talking about 'saving our boys' is all well and good, but can't people see that war is just a pointless exercise? Personally, I think America has a lot more to gain from commercial and cultural imperialism rather than military. George doesn't seem to see it that way, however. I think that a war in Iran would be a catastrophe for America. It can hardly keep control of Iraq and Afghanistan, how is it going to occupy a country as large as Iran as well? America wants it all its own way. George can roll out as many new fighters as often as he wants, but what will be the point if he ends up picking a fight with China next? I think our world is about to enter a dark new age.
Iran doesn't need to be occupied, just disarmed. Bombing the facilities that enrich their uranium and the reactors that produce their plutonium would accomplish that limited goal.

The Eurofighter is a pretty damn awesome aircraft. It beats the Tornado in just about every aspect. It is stealthy, carries a big weapons load, offers very good avionics, and pretty much beats anything the Russians or Chinese have at the moment. On the DARA test, where the F-22 scored 10.1:1 against the Su-35, the Eurofighter scored 4.5:1.

Short range though.

The Eurofighter is a pretty damn awesome aircraft. It beats the Tornado in just about every aspect. It is stealthy, carries a big weapons load, offers very good avionics, and pretty much beats anything the Russians or Chinese have at the moment. On the DARA test, where the F-22 scored 10.1:1 against the Su-35, the Eurofighter scored 4.5:1.

It ought to be good, considering its cost the UK nearly £20 billion, and we get less than half of the workshare.

We should have taken the EAP prototype and developed that ourselves, then the costing wouldn't have been screwed by German withdrawal/rejoining.

Iran doesn't need to be occupied, just disarmed. Bombing the facilities that enrich their uranium and the reactors that produce their plutonium would accomplish that limited goal.
Think of it the way that I think about guns for a minute.

I don't believe that guns are the cause of violence - I believe that people are. Put guns in the hands of the wrong people, and you get major problems. Let law-abiding people have them, and there's usually a benefit.

We shouldn't be saying, "we're upset that more nuclear weapons will be created, and another state will have them" - we should be upset about "who" has them.

Put nuclear weapons in the hands of people who want to wipe other countries off the map, and you get major problems.

Instead of getting rid of the nuclear weapons, we should get rid of their current leadership. Probably a much softer target.

Think of it the way that I think about guns for a minute.

I don't believe that guns are the cause of violence - I believe that people are. Put guns in the hands of the wrong people, and you get major problems. Let law-abiding people have them, and there's usually a benefit.

We shouldn't be saying, "we're upset that more nuclear weapons will be created, and another state will have them" - we should be upset about "who" has them.

Put nuclear weapons in the hands of people who want to wipe other countries off the map, and you get major problems.

Instead of getting rid of the nuclear weapons, we should get rid of their current leadership. Probably a much softer target.
How do you eliminate the leadership? Bomb Tehran and Quom?

Short range though.

Yes that is a problem. Without the centerline 1000 litre tank its like F-16 range. They can mount a pair of 1500 litres on the wings at the sacrifice of A2G munitions but for an air to air loadout she carries this

centerline: 1x 1000 litre
fuselage: 4x AIM-120 or Meteor
inner wing: 4x AIM-120 or Meteor
center-inner wing: 2x 1500 litre
center-outer wing: 4x ASRAAM or IRIS-T or AIM-9X
outer wing: 2x ASRAAM or IRIS-T or AIM-9X
gun: 150 BK27 27mm rounds
chaff: Up to 320 bundles in the LAU-138s on the AIM-9X rails
flares: 60 or 90, can't remember

Plus it has the PIRATE IRST which can see some 80km in ideal conditions, an excellent radar, the DASS provides amazing ECM.

The Typhoon is definitely one of the best fighters in the world if you exclude range. If that thing had thrust vectoring it would be even more awesome. It can pull -3 and +9 as it is...with TV it could do that so much better.

How do you eliminate the leadership? Bomb Tehran and Quom?
You would have to identify where the religious council leaders live (each particular house and building), and where the Iranian legislature lives, and where the Iranian executives live, and where the Iranian government bureaucracy lives.

You would have to get a time when some 80 percent or more of them are in specific locations, such as "at work doing the government's business". Then you would have to schedule simultaneous time-on-target attacks at all of these locations - say, all targets hit within a 60 second window - with absolutely no warning.

The US could do it. Sure, you could also hit some of the nuclear stuff - but decapitating the entire Iranian government in a single stroke is entirely feasible.

You would have to identify where the religious council leaders live (each particular house and building), and where the Iranian legislature lives, and where the Iranian executives live, and where the Iranian government bureaucracy lives.

You would have to get a time when some 80 percent or more of them are in specific locations, such as "at work doing the government's business". Then you would have to schedule simultaneous time-on-target attacks at all of these locations - say, all targets hit within a 60 second window - with absolutely no warning.

The US could do it. Sure, you could also hit some of the nuclear stuff - but decapitating the entire Iranian government in a single stroke is entirely feasible.

Not to rag on the military and intelligence of my country but we have never been too great at those types of things. Osama is still around, Mullah Omar is around, they got Saddam but it took them a while (after some close encounters), and it took them a while to get his bastardized sons. I mean it's definitely possible but it requires some SERIOUS ground intelligence.

Not to rag on the military and intelligence of my country but we have never been too great at those types of things. Osama is still around, Mullah Omar is around, they got Saddam but it took them a while (after some close encounters), and it took them a while to get his bastardized sons. I mean it's definitely possible but it requires some SERIOUS ground intelligence.
The Israelis appear to have this sort of intelligence about Iran at this time.

Also, there's a difference between a legislative body, its bureaucracy, and the executive, who all work in government buildings on regular schedules - as opposed to guerilla leaders who move every few hours in mountainous terrain.

The Israelis appear to have this sort of intelligence about Iran at this time.

Also, there's a difference between a legislative body, its bureaucracy, and the executive, who all work in government buildings on regular schedules - as opposed to guerilla leaders who move every few hours in mountainous terrain.

Mossad has intelligence on everyone important. They are seriously awesome. I mean I love when they kill a Hamas leader and then Hamas is all like "We will never die. You will never find us!" Two days later he is dead and the pattern repeats. Mmmm they are badass.

Not to rag on the military and intelligence of my country but we have never been too great at those types of things. Osama is still around, Mullah Omar is around, they got Saddam but it took them a while (after some close encounters), and it took them a while to get his bastardized sons. I mean it's definitely possible but it requires some SERIOUS ground intelligence.
But we have been great at espionage. Then, during the Carter years, Frank Church and the Senate Intelligence committee took it on himself to dismantle the network. That was the watershed in U.S. intelligence efforts.

Mossad has intelligence on everyone important.

They could have shared the bit about Iraq not having WMD.

But we have been great at espionage. Then, during the Carter years, Frank Church and the Senate Intelligence committee took it on himself to dismantle the network. That was the watershed in U.S. intelligence efforts.

Carter's name should never be mentioned in good company. That SOB ruined our intelligence network.

DrunkenDove: I'm kinda pissed at that. I honestly thought Iraq still had WMD. I didn't buy the terrorism bullshit but the WMD was a feasible thing, especially given that I wasn't into believing Saddam had turned a new leaf after ODS and suddenly gave up his quest for a nuke. I am beginning to believe, more and more, though, that Bush and the Cabinet knew it was BS but they did it anyway.

I'm kinda pissed at that.

Indeed, lots of people are. But I'm wonder why Mossad were never able to say that Iraq had no WMD when they can apparently point out every single Iranian bunker. I've come up with two reasons:

1) Evil Jewish conspiracy
2) Mossads capabilities are being greatly overestimated.

Indeed, lots of people are. But I'm wonder why Mossad were never able to say that Iraq had no WMD when they can apparently point out every single Iranian bunker. I've come up with two reasons:

1) Evil Jewish conspiracy
2) Mossads capabilities are being greatly overestimated.
Dude, everybody thought Iraq had WMD. Some of us just didn't see them as a threat.

It's probably right around the corner. We can have an air war without risking any American lives!

Yeah, what a pity you can't have an air war without risking British lives.

Yeah, what a pity you can't have an air war without risking British lives.
Go back in the thread and read the facts before you make such an assertion.

Indeed, lots of people are. But I'm wonder why Mossad were never able to say that Iraq had no WMD when they can apparently point out every single Iranian bunker. I've come up with two reasons:

1) Evil Jewish conspiracy
2) Mossads capabilities are being greatly overestimated.

I have one reason. Donald Rumsfeld. To hell with any Jewish conspiracy and Mossad are the real deal. That guy is sadistically evil and if it were up to him we wouldn't have a navy or air force because the entire end-all-be-all of his mind is the War on Terror and obviously no other threat exists but terrorists in caves. To hell with him. I don't even doubt our CIA knew it was BS it's just that the admin kept them quiet.

hmm, this just occourerd to me, does any nation other than the united states have a dedicated electronic attack aircraft?
I know the Brits have a very good antiradiation missle.

Dude, everybody thought Iraq had WMD. Some of us just didn't see them as a threat.

Indeed. There was ample intelligence that showed Saddam had WMD. I assume some it came from mossad. It was dead wrong.

Now people are claiming that Mossad has intelligence that would allow them to completely destroy Irans nuclear programme.

So the question is: If mossad were wrong before about a smaller country that's closer to them, can we trust them to give accurate information that will allow them to completely destroy Irans nuclear programme, and not just drive it underground where it can be a problem for our children?

Indeed. There was ample intelligence that showed Saddam had WMD. I assume some it came from mossad. It was dead wrong.

Now people are claiming that Mossad has intelligence that would allow them to completely destroy Irans nuclear programme.

So the question is: If mossad were wrong before about a smaller country that's closer to them, can we trust them to give accurate information that will allow them to completely destroy Irans nuclear programme, and not just drive it underground where it can be a problem for our children?

Honestly who would think Saddam and all his evility would suddenly give up the quest for WMD after he was anally raped in ODS? I mean come on, the guy is evil.

Yeah, what a pity you can't have an air war without risking British lives.
Didn't bother to read the thread in it's entirity, did you? I won't waste my time summarizing it for you then.

Honestly who would think Saddam and all his evility would suddenly give up the quest for WMD after he was anally raped in ODS? I mean come on, the guy is evil.

Yes, but intelligence services are meant to check facts, not go on assumptions.

hmm, this just occourerd to me, does any nation other than the united states have a dedicated electronic attack aircraft?
I know the Brits have a very good antiradiation missle.

Russia has a variant of the Su-24 that is dedicated to EW. I believe a variant of the Tu-95 also does EW. They also were working on a variant of the Su-34 for EW but I don't know if the Su-34 ever got off the ground. China, I believe, is working on EW aircraft as well. Unfortunately for us, our EW EA-6 is so ancient it isn't funny. I mean it's still very effective but retiring the EF-111 was a bad idea, it had a lot of years of usefulness left on it. The EA-18G is a toss-up. I am not that much a fan of the Super Hornet honestly. The advantage of the EA-18 over the EA-6 is basically that it can carry 2 AIM-120s and 2 AGM-88s versus 1 AGM-88 and that it is supersonic and more agile and stealthy. EA-6 has better range though.

Ohh goodie, now Iranian F-4's won't be able to wipe the floor with our F-15's, because we have evened the field with F-22's!

Yes, but intelligence services are meant to check facts, not go on assumptions.

I have a feeling that they knew. I mean the CIA has made a lot of blunders in the past but I think they knew it was bogus.

Ohh goodie, now Iranian F-4's won't be able to wipe the floor with our F-15's, because we have evened the field with F-22's!

LOL Iranian F-4Es and F-14As are in such disrepair it is doubtful that more than 10 of each example can actually fly. Their Air Force is pretty pitiful, we've made sure of that.

Honestly who would think Saddam and all his evility would suddenly give up the quest for WMD after he was anally raped in ODS? I mean come on, the guy is evil.

And he is evil... why? Demented, sure, but getting his jollies off on rape isn't the same as being evil. He wasn't exactly a good guy, but I really doubt he was just itching to launch nuclear weapons at the US.

LOL Iranian F-4Es and F-14As are in such disrepair it is doubtful that more than 10 of each example can actually fly. Their Air Force is pretty pitiful, we've made sure of that.

But even if we win in the air, our M1a2's are no match for Shah II's and T-55's!

And he is evil... why? Demented, sure, but getting his jollies off on rape isn't the same as being evil. He wasn't exactly a good guy, but I really doubt he was just itching to launch nuclear weapons at the US.

Being a mass murderer, letting his f'd up sons do as they please, that's pretty evil. Hell I doubt he was even itching to launch nukes at Israel. He was just a sick, evil man.

But even if we win in the air, our M1a2's are no match for Shah II's and T-55's!

LOL...I wonder what the M1A2 could do to the Shah II at 2000m :).

And he is evil... why? Demented, sure, but getting his jollies off on rape isn't the same as being evil. He wasn't exactly a good guy, but I really doubt he was just itching to launch nuclear weapons at the US.
He wasn't the notorious rapist. His son Uday was. Also Uday wasn't his real name, it was his name in pig latin.

Saddam was a gangster. Gangsters don't shoot at the police station because the police will kill them. Gangsters also are easy to deal with because they aren't painted into a corner by ideology. They can compromise. They respond to threats and bribes. Saddam was the kind of middle eastern leader one could deal with.

Russia has a variant of the Su-24 that is dedicated to EW. I believe a variant of the Tu-95 also does EW. They also were working on a variant of the Su-34 for EW but I don't know if the Su-34 ever got off the ground. China, I believe, is working on EW aircraft as well. Unfortunately for us, our EW EA-6 is so ancient it isn't funny. I mean it's still very effective but retiring the EF-111 was a bad idea, it had a lot of years of usefulness left on it. The EA-18G is a toss-up. I am not that much a fan of the Super Hornet honestly. The advantage of the EA-18 over the EA-6 is basically that it can carry 2 AIM-120s and 2 AGM-88s versus 1 AGM-88 and that it is supersonic and more agile and stealthy. EA-6 has better range though.

Doesn't the Navy still use the ES-3?

Being a mass murderer, letting his f'd up sons do as they please, that's pretty evil. Hell I doubt he was even itching to launch nukes at Israel. He was just a sick, evil man.



LOL...I wonder what the M1A2 could do to the Shah II at 2000m :).

And it was worth over 22,000 fucked up american lives(2k of those dead), as well as half a billion dollars, and over 80k F'ed up Iraqi lives(over 25k dead) to get rid of him?

I guess its going to take until a civil war breaks out, until this administration realizes this. Vietnam had voting capabilities too, we all see how much that helped.

And it was worth over 22,000 fucked up american lives(2k of those dead), as well as half a billion dollars, and over 80k F'ed up Iraqi lives(over 25k dead) to get rid of him?

Yep. Almost any price is worth toppling a dictator.

Indeed. There was ample intelligence that showed Saddam had WMD. I assume some it came from mossad. It was dead wrong.
Now people are claiming that Mossad has intelligence that would allow them to completely destroy Irans nuclear programme.

So the question is: If mossad were wrong before about a smaller country that's closer to them, can we trust them to give accurate information that will allow them to completely destroy Irans nuclear programme, and not just drive it underground where it can be a problem for our children?
Or the WMD's are buried in the desert, or sitting in Syria or Lebanon. Personally, I have no idea, but I certainly wouldn't think it wise to discount this theory, considering the plausibility.

But even if we win in the air, our M1a2's are no match for Shah II's and T-55's!
You're joking, right?


The T-55 is most effective against light to medium armor vehicles. The basic ammunition load for the main gun is 43 rounds. External fuel cells make the tank very vulnerable, as does its thin armor protection. The T-55 has a limited ability to depress the main gun, hindering the tank’s fires in defilade from high ground. In addition the gunner’s primary sight is slaved to the main gun, which does not allow the gunner to acquire targets in a hull-down posture.
Although the half-egg shaped turret of the T-55 has good ballistic qualities, it provides cramped working conditions for the crew, resulting in a slow rate of fire; and the protection afforded by its low silhouette (1 meter lower than the M60) is counterbalanced by its poor armor protection which is thin by western standards. By the same standards, its gun control equipment is also crude. It shares the disadvantage of most Soviet tanks in having limited ability to depress the main gun, thus not being capable of firing effectively from defilade and being forced to expose itself to engage targets. Ammunition and fuel are stored in vulnerable positions. The lack of a turret basket presents loading difficulties, and there is limited ready ammunition. The driver, commander, and gunner are all in line.

maybe they arn't considering the A-10

Or the WMD's are buried in the desert, or sitting in Syria or Lebanon. Personally, I have no idea, but I certainly wouldn't think it wise to discount this theory, considering the plausibility.

I have entertained that theory, that perhaps they were shipped out to the deserts in Syria or Lebanon, a strong possibility. But unfortunately, now that it has been shown that they have not been found it beckons the question of whether or not they were actually there. It's all fine and dandy to say they are buried but now we want undeniable proof (i.e. pictures of the stuff with Iraqis moving it). It's like the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

The ES-3 was put in storage in 1999. But it's role is electronic survelliance, not electronic warfare.

I have entertained that theory, that perhaps they were shipped out to the deserts in Syria or Lebanon, a strong possibility. But unfortunately, now that it has been shown that they have not been found it beckons the question of whether or not they were actually there. It's all fine and dandy to say they are buried but now we want undeniable proof (i.e. pictures of the stuff with Iraqis moving it). It's like the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

The ES-3 was put in storage in 1999. But it's role is electronic survelliance, not electronic warfare.
I agree that without proof, it is only a theory. But it is definately plausible enough to cast doubt on the other theory that Bush and Rumsfeld knew there weren't any WMD's and went ahead anyways.

I agree that without proof, it is only a theory. But it is definately plausible enough to cast doubt on the other theory that Bush and Rumsfeld knew there weren't any WMD's and went ahead anyways.

It's certainly plausible and I have entertained it very much so. Personally I would like to see that theory be true and not that our leaders are just as bad but at the moment without some evidence to the contrary I have to go with the fact that they planned this shit. And Wolfowitz is definitely a major architect.

Aside: I still believe, in the face of all doubt, that Al Qaida hit the Pentagon and WTC. I do not buy into any bullshit conspiracy theory that Bush planned that and all those who do, "Go to hell" from a NY'er.

Does anyone else remember that poster of a stealth jet bomber, saying the cost of one of those was equal to either the total third world debt, or the debt of one of the countries? It was a very long time ago that I saw it, 6 or 7 years.

Does anyone else remember that poster of a stealth jet bomber, saying the cost of one of those was equal to either the total third world debt, or the debt of one of the countries? It was a very long time ago that I saw it, 6 or 7 years.

Stealth jet bomber? No don't remember that. As far as I know the B-1B is pretty stealthy but not "stealth." The B-2 is a jet and stealth and it costs like $2.2B each or $1.6B each, I can't remember. But it's so classified nobody knows anything about it, really.

Russia has a variant of the Su-24 that is dedicated to EW. I believe a variant of the Tu-95 also does EW. They also were working on a variant of the Su-34 for EW but I don't know if the Su-34 ever got off the ground. China, I believe, is working on EW aircraft as well. Unfortunately for us, our EW EA-6 is so ancient it isn't funny. I mean it's still very effective but retiring the EF-111 was a bad idea, it had a lot of years of usefulness left on it. The EA-18G is a toss-up. I am not that much a fan of the Super Hornet honestly. The advantage of the EA-18 over the EA-6 is basically that it can carry 2 AIM-120s and 2 AGM-88s versus 1 AGM-88 and that it is supersonic and more agile and stealthy. EA-6 has better range though.
The EF-111 is just as old as the Prowler, but it had a far lower mission ready percentage. I can remember flying into Mountain Home and seeing F-111 after F-111 parked with sandbags in the intakes because the engines were out for maintenance.

You're joking, right?

*sigh*

Its an Iranian T-55, duh. Iranian ones pwn american armour. As for your link, GlobalSecurity hates Iran. It won't recognize that anything Iranian > Anything American.

The EF-111 is just as old as the Prowler, but it had a far lower mission ready percentage. I can remember flying into Mountain Home and seeing F-111 after F-111 parked with sandbags in the intakes because the engines were out for maintenance.

Really? That I did not know. I love the F-111 in a bad way too :). I know that the F-111 program had its shortcomings sometimes but it was overall pretty good no? I guess the advantage the EF-111 had on the EA-6 is range, speed, right? I mean it couldn't carry weapons really except a pair of AIM-9s that were never fitted.

*sigh*

Its an Iranian T-55, duh. Iranian ones pwn american armour. As for your link, GlobalSecurity hates Iran. It won't recognize that anything Iranian > Anything American.

LOL sarcasm is sometimes lost in the internet.

the F-22 is a waste of money the Eurofighter is about half the cost and has extremely cheap maintenance also take note that stealth is also on the Eurofighter only that it seems to be allot cheaper not that anything used by the middle east would be able to hit something going super cruise

why was the F-22 made? because the U.S wants to be able to win a war against Europe which the raptor has failed at because with the money spent on it 2 Eurofighters could be built which would be capable of kicking the raptors ass especially if the raptor is forced into endurance which will cause it all sorts of problems one being that it would take so long to maintain

the F-22 is a waste of money the Eurofighter is about half the cost and has extremely cheap maintenance also take note that stealth is also on the Eurofighter only that it seems to be allot cheaper not that anything used by the middle east would be able to hit something going super cruise

why was the F-22 made? because the U.S wants to be able to win a war against Europe which the raptor has failed at because with the money spent on it 2 Eurofighters could be built which would be capable of kicking the raptors ass especially if the raptor is forced into endurance which will cause it all sorts of problems one being that it would take so long to maintain

Hence why you aren't deciding the fate of the US military. The F-22 is meant to the counter the most advanced fighters in the world, including Russia, China, and future Indian aircraft. The F-22 was made because the F-15C just doesn't cut it anymore against the most advanced aircraft in the world. The Eurofighter is just not as capable as the F-22 for air to air and stealth is a major factor now in aerial warfare. It used to be speed and altitude. Now its stealth. You can go Mach 2.5 and climb to 90,000 feet but if your radar signature is as large as a 747 it doesn't matter how fast or high you go. Now if you can only go Mach 2.2 and climb to 60,000 feet but your radar signature is about the size of a seagull then you are going to win the war.

Really? That I did not know. I love the F-111 in a bad way too :). I know that the F-111 program had its shortcomings sometimes but it was overall pretty good no? I guess the advantage the EF-111 had on the EA-6 is range, speed, right? I mean it couldn't carry weapons really except a pair of AIM-9s that were never fitted.
Definitely speed. I think the main advantage of the Prowler is the two extra guys. We used to call them 'Queers' but having the extra crew made it possible for them to do more real-time analysis and target the active threats. I'm not really sure how much of that ability the Raven crew had, but I do know that the EWO had to split his time between his EW stuff and being a copilot.

Everything has it's place and it might be that we find a hole in the system without a fast EW aircraft that can support fast strikes.

Hence why you aren't deciding the fate of the US military. The F-22 is meant to the counter the most advanced fighters in the world, including Russia, China, and future Indian aircraft. The F-22 was made because the F-15C just doesn't cut it anymore against the most advanced aircraft in the world. The Eurofighter is just not as capable as the F-22 for air to air and stealth is a major factor now in aerial warfare. It used to be speed and altitude. Now its stealth. You can go Mach 2.5 and climb to 90,000 feet but if your radar signature is as large as a 747 it doesn't matter how fast or high you go. Now if you can only go Mach 2.2 and climb to 60,000 feet but your radar signature is about the size of a seagull then you are going to win the war.

What I fear happening is new forms of radar. Stealth has never been a big enough threat to nations to develop against. But with stealth fighters in production, it looks like systems to develop stealth aircraft(two-point radars, radiation detection, etc) will quickly ruin the advantage, if any of the strong technological nations tries to work against stealth aircraft. I mean, hell, the Rafale can already see stealth aircraft, it just can't do anything against them(see, as in know they are there).

Then we will just have a 250m dollar aircraft that can carry a few AMRAAMS and go fairly fast. Ohh goodie.

What I fear happening is new forms of radar. Stealth has never been a big enough threat to nations to develop against. But with stealth fighters in production, it looks like systems to develop stealth aircraft(two-point radars, radiation detection, etc) will quickly ruin the advantage, if any of the strong technological nations tries to work against stealth aircraft. I mean, hell, the Rafale can already see stealth aircraft, it just can't do anything against them(see, as in know they are there).

Then we will just have a 250m dollar aircraft that can carry a few AMRAAMS and go fairly fast. Ohh goodie.

Well stealth radars are insanely expensive. Hell the B-2 goes in and out of radar, very faintly. The F-22 apparently makes the B-2 look large on radar so who knows what it'll do. Most of that is classified. Even if it comes down to the fact where the F-22 can be detected and tracked, it is still far more capable than the F-15 in all respects.

Stealth jet bomber? No don't remember that. As far as I know the B-1B is pretty stealthy but not "stealth." The B-2 is a jet and stealth and it costs like $2.2B each or $1.6B each, I can't remember. But it's so classified nobody knows anything about it, really.

I saw the B-2 recently. Scary mofo, I suspect it was because of the two f-15's flying wing to it but I didn't hear any jet noise from it at all. If ever there was a reason to be pacifist that was it.

Personally I think Radar is no longer 'it' as regards air combat. The incoming Gen5 fighters and the later Gen4 fighters render it innefective in a cutting-edge war, not to mention those lovely ALARM missiles carried by Eurofighter and Tornado (and presumably there's US and Soviet equivalents around too).

The real prize goes to whoever figures out it's replacement...

I saw the B-2 recently. Scary mofo, I suspect it was because of the two f-15's flying wing to it but I didn't hear any jet noise from it at all. If ever there was a reason to be pacifist that was it.

Personally I think Radar is no longer 'it' as regards air combat. The incoming Gen5 fighters and the later Gen4 fighters render it innefective in a cutting-edge war, not to mention those lovely ALARM missiles carried by Eurofighter and Tornado (and presumably there's US and Soviet equivalents around too).

The real prize goes to whoever figures out it's replacement...

Well the ALARM is fancy and amazing. The AGM-88D HARM Block VI is going to soon be replaced with the AGM-88E AARGM Block 0, which has MMW, GPS, and all sorts of goodies that not only allow it to loiter the battlefield like the AGM-88D and ALARM but it now will be going after the control unit of the site, not just the radar, rendering the entire site useless.

The B-2 is definitely scary. From the front it has a very low-pitch rumble that can't be heard from very far away. From the rear it is a high-pitched whine, also can't be heard from very far away.

When I was at a Yankee game and 3 F/A-18Es overflew us we didn't hear them until they were on top of us but they were low, you know a flyover. The B-2 isn't going to be under 36,000 feet. You won't hear squat.

The F-22 is also modular, they can do numerous retrofits to adapt to new forms of detection. Also, these new forms are not exactly going to be put in missles anytime soon, so have fun using dumbfire to knock them out of the sky. This modular approach also allows them to configure the F-22 to better fit the exact type of aircrafts they will going against. Also, I think that the Israelis have shown that on the battlefield that American Aircraft are the way to go. Also, we have to consider hardware, targeting computers, support services, and missle technology when comparing it to other aircraft. For example, the Russians can't exactly keep their planes in parts or in good repair in the first place. Not to mention their tech is exactly damage resistant. When you consider these things, it just put the F-22 at an even higher advantage. Plus, remember this, tech is just part of the equation, strategy and expierence matter too.

The F-22 is also modular, they can do numerous retrofits to adapt to new forms of detection. Also, these new forms are not exactly going to be put in missles anytime soon, so have fun using dumbfire to knock them out of the sky. This modular approach also allows them to configure the F-22 to better fit the exact type of aircrafts they will going against. Also, I think that the Israelis have shown that on the battlefield that American Aircraft are the way to go. Also, we have to consider hardware, targeting computers, support services, and missle technology when comparing it to other aircraft. For example, the Russians can't exactly keep their planes in parts or in good repair in the first place. Not to mention their tech is exactly damage resistant. When you consider these things, it just put the F-22 at an even higher advantage. Plus, remember this, tech is just part of the equation, strategy and expierence matter too.

F-22A pilots are probably the top 1% of the top 1%. I mean the sheer physical and mental requirements to pilot that must be massive. Although I would probably love to see Top Gun 2 with the F-22A.

F-22A pilots are probably the top 1% of the top 1%. I mean the sheer physical and mental requirements to pilot that must be massive. Although I would probably love to see Top Gun 2 with the F-22A.
But they still aren't good enough to land on an aircraft carrier :).

But they still aren't good enough to land on an aircraft carrier :).

In any case I don't remember STOL being on the list of F22 features. Might be wrong, it's a while since I paid real attention to it.

In any case I don't remember STOL being on the list of F22 features. Might be wrong, it's a while since I paid real attention to it.

They could make it carrier capable if they wanted. All that would require is restrengthening the undercarriage, putting a hook (if it doesn't have one), and making the wings fold.

The Eurofighter is just not as capable as the F-22 for air to air and stealth is a major factor now in aerial warfare. It used to be speed and altitude. Now its stealth. You can go Mach 2.5 and climb to 90,000 feet but if your radar signature is as large as a 747 it doesn't matter how fast or high you go. Now if you can only go Mach 2.2 and climb to 60,000 feet but your radar signature is about the size of a seagull then you are going to win the war.
The Eurofighter is and will remain a work in progress. Every new batch gets new systems, a few new materials and so on. It's not like they're as stealthy as the F-22, but they aren't exacrtly big targets either.
Plus the French are building a radar scrambler that apparently makes it look like there really is no plane there, not as before where you can see that a scrambler is moving somewhere. Kinda like Stealth-in-a-box.

A Sidenote: This is sooooo neat! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_class_corvette) :D

Well the ALARM is fancy and amazing. The AGM-88D HARM Block VI is going to soon be replaced with the AGM-88E AARGM Block 0, which has MMW, GPS, and all sorts of goodies that not only allow it to loiter the battlefield like the AGM-88D and ALARM but it now will be going after the control unit of the site, not just the radar, rendering the entire site useless.
Plus the METEOR Missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_missile_system) will soon be ready too to replace AMRAAM for the Europeans.

The Eurofighter is and will remain a work in progress. Every new batch gets new systems, a few new materials and so on. It's not like they're as stealthy as the F-22, but they aren't exacrtly big targets either.
Plus the French are building a radar scrambler that apparently makes it look like there really is no plane there, not as before where you can see that a scrambler is moving somewhere. Kinda like Stealth-in-a-box.

A Sidenote: This is sooooo neat! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_class_corvette) :D


Plus the METEOR Missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_missile_system) will soon be ready too to replace AMRAAM for the Europeans.

Yes the bane of the US AAM force is the fact that the AIM-120D isnt in service yet (65mi when it gets here).

My issue with the F-22 is mainly that it is so expensive. It's true that it is without a doubt the best fighter jet around, and will remain so for some time - but with the price of its development, the time it took and so on, the number of planes that finally came out of it is pretty underwhelming.

In the end the US Air Force will continue to have to rely of F-15s and F-18s etc for some time until maybe the F-35 will be produced in greater numbers. 180 Planes is not enough to really fill the roles of the other planes it was meant to replace.
And ATM it doesn't look like anyone else will buy the F-22 either.

Which is all in all why I like the Saab Gripen so much...it's cheap, and very versatile. And in 90% of engagements, it'll perform just as well as the F-22.

It's not like anyone's expecting to be facing serious enemies anytime soon.

It's a beautiful aircraft and an awesome weapon.

[sigh]
How come USAF people go "OH, SOMETHING SHINY!" over the F/A-22? It's not that good a weapon system, I'm sorry to say. Nothing can touch the Phoenix system that has been retired because of political wrangling. If it weren't for manipulation on the part of Cheney, the F-14 would prove it's still the premier air-superiority fighter in the world.
I will admit that it has nice lines and symmetry, but the Tomcat was a legend unto itself. Besides, the Raptor (which in S. American countries means an abductor and killer of children) will become antiquated by the arrival of the VF-1 Valkryie. (Hey, a guy can dream, right?) ^_^

the F22..spoken about for so many years, documented on for the past 10 years through development and testing and now released and in full production to the USAF, wow.

Tbh, i don't really care, I mean although its a decent plane and i would certainly not mind having it of my wing when going into combat, I would much rather fly a Tornado or a Harrier and you know why, cause the computers are kept to a minimum, YOU are flying the plane and there is no computer telling what you can and can't do as a pilot, the fun of the chase and throwing the plane to its limits is now limited by the computer. Its a bit like old cars Vs new cars, although new cars are safer there is just something undescriable about jumping into a Jaguar E-Type and starting that magnificient 6Ltr V12 and let it burble in its full unsilenced glory. Thats what is the problem with the F22 in my view as a trainee pilot in the RAF, its too 'clinical'?

Still, if i got offered the chance to fly one, i still would, no matter how hypocritical that sounds, just so that i can either prove my fears right or wrong...and to fly one of the best fighters in the world!

The Griffin, Typhoon (Aka Eurofighter to those not in the RAF!), F/A 18, JSF and the Tornado are all good fighters, probably able to match the F22 in some aspects.

Best aircraft of all time, IMO: Lightning...0-70,000ft in 2 minutes! (35,000fpm, wow!) Find me an aircraft today that can do that. SR-71 is cool, but speed ain't everything, love to see it fly again though, as i would love to see the lightning fly again!

Some group of people in Blighty are restoring the last surviving Vulcan to its original glory, can't wait to see that! Delta winged nuclear bomber, 4 engined, ummm!

Graham Harvey

I actually quite enjoy the Mig-25 too. At it's time, it was certainly an impressive machine, and I don't think they actually built a faster interceptor yet.

Plus it can fry rabbits with its radar. :p

Ya know, the people on here who are dogging the Raptor really don't seem to know anything more about it than that it's American.

Call it Nationalistic pride if you want to, but the Raptor will eat any other jet on the planet for lunch. Period.

I'm glad the F-22s are finally running. They were a giant sinkhole, and represent what is wrong with the military. There are too many whiz-bang weapons designed to fight a war that the US is not fighting anymore. Sure, the technology may be at least a generation ahead of even the Europeans and Israelis, but is it prudent?
We need to spend less money on such useless projects and allocate more funds to other weapons and concepts designed for more surgical warfare. I'd think that there needs to be renewed focus on infantry as urban warfare spreads. There is also not enough emphasis on digitalizing the military. We need to deploy units that allow for seamless communication from foot soldiers to commanders, and also to eachother.
Even such dinosaurs as the Navy have a future. We have no need for the current 300 ship fleet, though it may be needed in the future. However, there is a future in smaller ships and patrol crafts. Even submarines have a future. The SSN Jimmy Carter is a great example. It has a minisub that can hold eight commandos without filling with water, and is rumored to have the capability to tap into undersea fiber optic cables, a valuable resource for espionage.

Albeit the F-22 is a damn lovely fighter, it's price tag makes me cry. That's why I'm more in favor of the JSF at the moment.

Call it Nationalistic pride if you want to, but the Raptor will eat any other jet on the planet for lunch. Period.
Yeah, all 180 of them.
It might be good, but at that price, you can't build enough of them if you're actually facing a serious enemy (like future Chinese J-XX's...)

180 planes means that the F-15, F-18 and so on will have to go on for some time yet, and those will get eaten for lunch by new next-generation jets like the Gripen or the Eurofighter, or even the newest Migs.

F-22A pilots are probably the top 1% of the top 1%. I mean the sheer physical and mental requirements to pilot that must be massive. Although I would probably love to see Top Gun 2 with the F-22A.
The F/A-22 is fly-by-wire, freeing the pilot to concentrate on engaging his opponents.

I'm glad the F-22s are finally running. They were a giant sinkhole, and represent what is wrong with the military. There are too many whiz-bang weapons designed to fight a war that the US is not fighting anymore. Sure, the technology may be at least a generation ahead of even the Europeans and Israelis, but is it prudent?
We need to spend less money on such useless projects and allocate more funds to other weapons and concepts designed for more surgical warfare. I'd think that there needs to be renewed focus on infantry as urban warfare spreads. There is also not enough emphasis on digitalizing the military. We need to deploy units that allow for seamless communication from foot soldiers to commanders, and also to eachother.
Even such dinosaurs as the Navy have a future. We have no need for the current 300 ship fleet, though it may be needed in the future. However, there is a future in smaller ships and patrol crafts. Even submarines have a future. The SSN Jimmy Carter is a great example. It has a minisub that can hold eight commandos without filling with water, and is rumored to have the capability to tap into undersea fiber optic cables, a valuable resource for espionage.
The real question is: can the US afford to not be first in flight?

Yeah, all 180 of them.
It might be good, but at that price, you can't build enough of them if you're actually facing a serious enemy (like future Chinese J-XX's...)

180 planes means that the F-15, F-18 and so on will have to go on for some time yet, and those will get eaten for lunch by new next-generation jets like the Gripen or the Eurofighter, or even the newest Migs.
How many J-xx's will the chinese have?

The real question is: can the US afford to not be first in flight?
http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2001/1001fighter_print.html

No, it has more to do with two things:

1. Complexity, mostly of the software systems
2. Lockheed has figured out that if you make the project last a long time, you can bill all that time.


I agree this is an extremely complex machine.

The second point is sadly to true. I think Boeing does the same crap.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2001/1001fighter_print.html
Which only goes to buttress the point I was trying to make, yes???

How many J-xx's will the chinese have?
Not to many for many years to come. :p

It's still in its infancy stage, as is the Russian 5th Gen project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_1.44). Nonetheless, F-15s, 16s and 18s can be taken out even with available aircraft, such as the new Sukhois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35), which can be bought for half-price from the Russians.

Which only goes to buttress the point I was trying to make, yes???
Yes. But my point is that at this price, the F-22 can not be fielded in sufficient numbers to really put the USAF head and shoulders above the others.

The real question is: can the US afford to not be first in flight?
Is anyone else seriously trying? I'm not saying we kill funding to all warplane programs. It'd be nice to upgrade the Air Force once in a while. But the need is not as urgent now that the Cold War is over. We need to stop focusing on this Cold War mentality and get to the military needs of the 21st century. Why doesn't the AF spend more money developing UAVs or something like that?

Is anyone else seriously trying? I'm not saying we kill funding to all warplane programs. It'd be nice to upgrade the Air Force once in a while. But the need is not as urgent now that the Cold War is over. We need to stop focusing on this Cold War mentality and get to the military needs of the 21st century. Why doesn't the AF spend more money developing UAVs or something like that?
Uh ... it does. Quite a lot of it the last time I checked.

Is anyone else seriously trying? I'm not saying we kill funding to all warplane programs. It'd be nice to upgrade the Air Force once in a while. But the need is not as urgent now that the Cold War is over. We need to stop focusing on this Cold War mentality and get to the military needs of the 21st century. Why doesn't the AF spend more money developing UAVs or something like that?


Sure we should spend more on UAV's. Also though I think China is going to be stiff competition. I think we should be on top of our game. A let down in development of new tech will only allow the Chinese to catch up quicker.

Uh ... it does. Quite a lot of it the last time I checked.
Not as much as some sinkhole projects in aircraft. That is why I like Donald Rumsfeld as the Defense Secretary. He is one of the few people in history with the will to reform the Pentagon and improve it technologically. It's why we saw the cancellation of such expensive Cold War era projects as the Comanche helicopters, and we will see more of that in the future.

Sure we should spend more on UAV's. Also though I think China is going to be stiff competition. I think we should be on top of our game. A let down in development of new tech will only allow the Chinese to catch up quicker.
I don't want the US to spend less on tech. I want it to spend more on different tech. If we're so damn worried about China, let's help in arming the Indians and Japanese, and try to erase that damn warfighting clause from the Japanese constitution. Why should the US shoulder the entire burden?

How long until we have the technology to make a pilotless robot plane that has all the capabilities of the f-22 but can carry more weight in fuel and missiles, and pull more Gs in a turn because it doesn't have to carry a fragile human and all the technology that goes along with keeping him alive?

It's probably right around the corner. We can have an air war without risking any American lives!
sounds familiar . . .oh ya that movie stealth . . . .

sounds familiar . . .oh ya that movie stealth . . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Neuron
Might carry Nukes too...:p

Not as much as some sinkhole projects in aircraft. That is why I like Donald Rumsfeld as the Defense Secretary. He is one of the few people in history with the will to reform the Pentagon and improve it technologically. It's why we saw the cancellation of such expensive Cold War era projects as the Comanche helicopters, and we will see more of that in the future.

i LIKED those comanche helicopters dammit.

I don't want the US to spend less on tech. I want it to spend more on different tech. If we're so damn worried about China, let's help in arming the Indians and Japanese, and try to erase that damn warfighting clause from the Japanese constitution. Why should the US shoulder the entire burden?


India I think is a target for US cooperation. Japan I believe is our best bet on a good fighting ally in the East. They have the money and the people to field an army that is on par with the US. India I think has a long ways to go before it becomes a real force to be reckoned with. But I support the US/India relationship. It is always good to have allies around a potential advisary.

i LIKED those comanche helicopters dammit.

Thing about the Comanche. They already have the plans and the ability to build it. Would only take a funding mechanism to get that party started again in short time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Neuron
Might carry Nukes too...:p

As long as they don't sell these to the Chinese I say this is a good program.

India I think is a target for US cooperation. Japan I believe is our best bet on a good fighting ally in the East. They have the money and the people to field an army that is on par with the US. India I think has a long ways to go before it becomes a real force to be reckoned with. But I support the US/India relationship. It is always good to have allies around a potential advisary.
Yes, it is. But let's be subtle. The quickest way for China to become an adversary is if we invite it to become one. Much more important to our future with China is developing economic ties further, so that China must think twice before drumming up conflict with anyone. But I do believe it may be dangerous when China makes the eventual transition to democracy. That may fragment the nation.

Thing about the Comanche. They already have the plans and the ability to build it. Would only take a funding mechanism to get that party started again in short time.

Will you marry me?

Back to the topic, I agree that the low numbers of the F-22 being produced (cuz of the price) is a weakness. Albeit they can survive against one or even several less advance fighters, they aren't immortal. And if we look at China's military strategy (let's throw a million soldiers at them), I wouldn't doubt that they would depend more on swarming with cost-efficient fighters that work plenty well. I'm not putting down the F-22, I only wish the government could somehow work out a deal with the companies producing the parts to reduce the cost of the plane =\

I do believe it may be dangerous when China makes the eventual transition to democracy. That may fragment the nation.
Now that's a scary thought ... a fragmented China. :eek:

I agree that without proof, it is only a theory. But it is definately plausible enough to cast doubt on the other theory that Bush and Rumsfeld knew there weren't any WMD's and went ahead anyways.

Considering how much noise they made about how they knew where these things were right down to the last centimeter and so on, the idea that they knew that there were WMDs has significantly less merit than the idea that the knew there weren't any.

Furthermore, Bush himself has gone on record saying he would have invaded even had there been no WMDs. This does not exactly give much credibility to the idea that they knew there were WMDs and it was hidden.

Will you marry me?




Sorry already at my legal limit.;)

Yes, it is. But let's be subtle. The quickest way for China to become an adversary is if we invite it to become one. Much more important to our future with China is developing economic ties further, so that China must think twice before drumming up conflict with anyone. But I do believe it may be dangerous when China makes the eventual transition to democracy. That may fragment the nation.


Well I think the US is ahead of the curve already with economic ties. Severing them with the US and Nato nations due to a war would absolutely devastate China. With there inability to trade that removes there cash flow. Also one thing China doesn't have going for it is a lack of resources. A US naval blockade would cut off all the oil flow to the red army. No fuel means a no go for any modern military force. But I agree we shouldn't push for a confrontation. I think the US has done a good job in handling China so far. It has kept Tawain from being taken over.

Well I think the US is ahead of the curve already with economic ties. Severing them with the US and Nato nations due to a war would absolutely devastate China. With there inability to trade that removes there cash flow. Also one thing China doesn't have going for it is a lack of resources. A US naval blockade would cut off all the oil flow to the red army.

Doesn't China have, or is going to have, a couple of landline fuel pipes from Iran and other nations as well?

Doesn't China have, or is going to have, a couple of landline fuel pipes from Iran and other nations as well?

Yes, but in time of war those land lines would be rendered useless.

They could make it carrier capable if they wanted. All that would require is restrengthening the undercarriage, putting a hook (if it doesn't have one), and making the wings fold.
That was the demise of the A-12. And, as a matter of fact, your F-111 was targeted as a carrier aircraft at one time. McNamara thought it would be a good idea and wasted tons of money finding out otherwise.

That comment of mine earlier was just a pointless jab at Air Force pilots. Those of us from Navair like to remind them of our superiority any time we can.

That was the demise of the A-12. And, as a matter of fact, your F-111 was targeted as a carrier aircraft at one time. McNamara thought it would be a good idea and wasted tons of money finding out otherwise.

That comment of mine earlier was just a pointless jab at Air Force pilots. Those of us from Navair like to remind them of our superiority any time we can.

Yes the F-111B, which was a mess. It just wasn't a fighter nor could it ever be but thanks to the failure of the F-111B, the F-14 program was born. And have I told you? The F-14 is the world's greatest fighter. The F-14 not only is a God among fighters but the F-22 bows to it as it passes down the runway. Those in the DOD who have sought the end of the F-14 will all go to hell.

Yes the F-111B, which was a mess. It just wasn't a fighter nor could it ever be but thanks to the failure of the F-111B, the F-14 program was born. And have I told you? The F-14 is the world's greatest fighter. The F-14 not only is a God among fighters but the F-22 bows to it as it passes down the runway. Those in the DOD who have sought the end of the F-14 will all go to hell.
All Grumman air wings were something to be proud of. I have a patch on my jacket for the "Grumman Iron Works". You could always count on the plane to get you back on board. Best built airplanes by a long shot. It's such a shame they couldn't figure out where the pointy end went on the Intruder.

A test pilot I know made a similar comment about the X-3?. The one with the forward swept wings. He said that Grumman finally figured out which end to put the point on, but they got the wings on wrong.

All Grumman air wings were something to be proud of. I have a patch on my jacket for the "Grumman Iron Works". You could always count on the plane to get you back on board. Best built airplanes by a long shot. It's such a shame they couldn't figure out where the pointy end went on the Intruder.

A test pilot I know made a similar comment about the X-3?. The one with the forward swept wings. He said that Grumman finally figured out which end to put the point on, but they got the wings on wrong.

Hell no the Intruder was a great aircraft. Doesn't matter where the pointy end was that sucker could come back without wings, a tail, engines, or a fuselage.

And the best part? Grumman = NY based company (Long Island moreover)

<--- is from NY, Long Island moreover

Other famous NY companies (Republic & Fairchild [also Long Island])

Their products? F-105, A-10, just to name a few...

Yes the F-111B, which was a mess. It just wasn't a fighter nor could it ever be but thanks to the failure of the F-111B, the F-14 program was born. And have I told you? The F-14 is the world's greatest fighter. The F-14 not only is a God among fighters but the F-22 bows to it as it passes down the runway. Those in the DOD who have sought the end of the F-14 will all go to hell.

eh, it's time shall come, just as the A-6 was shut down by F-14 guys, some others will shut down the f-14.
( lost the page with he details, but the a-6 could fire almost any missile or bomb in the US arsenal, up to and including the blu-82)

eh, it's time shall come, just as the A-6 was shut down by F-14 guys, some others will shut down the f-14.
( lost the page with he details, but the a-6 could fire almost any missile or bomb in the US arsenal, up to and including the blu-82)

Yes the A-6 could fire and drop just about everything available except the obvious stuff like the massive Mark 53 9MT nuke (B-52 only) and the CALCM/ACM/ALCM. No it could not carry the BLU-82 (only the MC-130 because of its sheer size & weight [it's as big as an A-6]).

The A-6 was limited air to air, no gun, AIM-9 could be but never did. They even claimed AIM-120 but they never fitted it. It wasn't meant to dogfight. The F-14 is gone already BTW.

Hell no the Intruder was a great aircraft. Doesn't matter where the pointy end was that sucker could come back without wings, a tail, engines, or a fuselage.

And the best part? Grumman = NY based company (Long Island moreover)

<--- is from NY, Long Island moreover

Other famous NY companies (Republic & Fairchild [also Long Island])

Their products? F-105, A-10, just to name a few...
I used to go to Bethpage about once a year to pick up reworked A-6Es. It's a real pain in the butt place to get to when you have to depend on commercial air. Great place to leave from when you're flying your own jet.

I was a RAG instructor at VA-128 for a few years. We had a periodic deployment to NAS El Centro, CA, where we taught the new guys the finer points of bombing, large strikes, air-to-air, and how to smuggle tequila across the border.

One of the training flights was night tanking. We were flying a KA-6D and a student was trying to tank. Vertigo got the best of him and before the night was over, his plane had lost the refueling probe, aka 'Donkey Dick', and we had lost one of the our horizontal stabs. After the pilot pulled out of a dive and I quit hollering at him about losing altitude, we made a fairly uneventful landing at El Centro.

Another one of my former students ran into a antenna tower guy wire in Desert Shield. It separated the wing from the aircraft at the wing fold. That's about half way out from the root. It was night and they thought that they had just suffered a hydraulic failure on the combined side. Pretty normal emergency for those old warhorses. Anyhow, they, too, landed uneventfully in Bahrain. The main event was the investigation that followed.

The Intruder can't survive losing a wing at the root. That really sucked, too. We were in the bombing pattern, again at El Centro, and were treated to the sight of our XOs plane losing a wing and crashing. The student B/N ejected, but the XO died in the crash.

If you want to read some True Life stories by a bunch of guys I used to hang around with, look at this link.

http://www.intruderassociation.org/oldsite/Pages/therewewere.htm

I used to go to Bethpage about once a year to pick up reworked A-6Es. It's a real pain in the butt place to get to when you have to depend on commercial air. Great place to leave from when you're flying your own jet.

I was a RAG instructor at VA-128 for a few years. We had a periodic deployment to NAS El Centro, CA, where we taught the new guys the finer points of bombing, large strikes, air-to-air, and how to smuggle tequila across the border.

One of the training flights was night tanking. We were flying a KA-6D and a student was trying to tank. Vertigo got the best of him and before the night was over, his plane had lost the refueling probe, aka 'Donkey Dick', and we had lost one of the our horizontal stabs. After the pilot pulled out of a dive and I quit hollering at him about losing altitude, we made a fairly uneventful landing at El Centro.

Another one of my former students ran into a antenna tower guy wire in Desert Shield. It separated the wing from the aircraft at the wing fold. That's about half way out from the root. It was night and they thought that they had just suffered a hydraulic failure on the combined side. Pretty normal emergency for those old warhorses. Anyhow, they, too, landed uneventfully in Bahrain. The main event was the investigation that followed.

The Intruder can't survive losing a wing at the root. That really sucked, too. We were in the bombing pattern, again at El Centro, and were treated to the sight of our XOs plane losing a wing and crashing. The student B/N ejected, but the XO died in the crash.

If you want to read some True Life stories by a bunch of guys I used to hang around with, look at this link.

http://www.intruderassociation.org/oldsite/Pages/therewewere.htm


I LOVE THE RIBBONS!

US deploys new top fighter jet

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The futuristic F-22A "Raptor" fighter jet, designed to dominate the skies well into the 21st century, joined the U.S. combat fleet on Thursday, 20 years after it was conceived to fight Soviet MiGs over Europe.

The Air Force said "initial operational capability" had been achieved at the 1st Fighter Wing's 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

Pilots in the squadron, the Air Force's oldest in continuous operation, have been training on the F-22, the Air Force's most advanced weapon system, for about a year.

"If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us," Gen. Ronald Keys, head of the Air Force's Air Combat command, said in a statement. He said an initial group of 12 was ready for combat worldwide or for homeland defense.

***

Looks like we now have another bargaining chip against Iran in the showdown over their controversial nuclear program. It seems that all the fancy surface to air missile systems that they bought from Russia can't even see this thing.

Combine that with the fact that it can drop a thousand pound bomb while flying supersonic, and I imagine smoking piles of rubble wherever Iran tries to enrich uranium.

Of course, that's assuming Israel doesn't do it first, which is seeming more and more likely. But if they can't get through the air defense, we can always do it for them, and just let them take the credit.

Either way you slice it, this is one far out machine! Welcome to the future.

I wonder if there's a handicapp feature since American pilots don't really know how to fly properly. :rolleyes:

I wonder if there's a handicapp feature since American pilots don't really know how to fly properly. :rolleyes:

Yeah because they would put pilots into a $200M aircraft without showing them how to use it. :rolleyes:

Yeah because they would put pilots into a $200M aircraft without showing them how to use it. :rolleyes:
They'll be fine, as long as they stay away from Italian ski lifts (http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/04/marines.cablecar.03/)...

The Eurofighter by the way has a button that'll put the plane back level automatically...that's a nice feature, don't you think? ;)

They'll be fine, as long as they stay away from Italian ski lifts (http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/04/marines.cablecar.03/)...Wow... what a dumbass...
The Eurofighter by the way has a button that'll put the plane back level automatically...that's a nice feature, don't you think? ;)nice... :D

BTW, there are numerous stupid accidents and dumbass mistakes made by American fighter pilots, take US spy plane/Chinese fighter jet accident (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/01/us.china.plane.02/) for example. China got so pissed off, they returned the US spy plane... in boxes.

Wow... what a dumbass...
nice... :D

BTW, there are numerous stupid accidents and dumbass mistakes made by American fighter pilots, take US spy plane/Chinese fighter jet accident (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/01/us.china.plane.02/) for example. China got so pissed off, they returned the US spy plane... in boxes.

As I recall it was the dumbass Chinese Pilot who caused that nice little news piece by flying his plane dangerously close to the American P-3.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/19/china.negotiations.03/

The EP-3, Osborn said, was on autopilot and flying "straight and level" at the time of the accident.

jesus...

Besides this, Americans fighter jet pilots are very shitty shooters. No wonder thousands of Iraqis died since the war.

Remember what happen to 4 canadian soldiers in afghanistan who got bombed by an american fighter jet? I don't believe it was an accident, just pure stupidity.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/19/china.negotiations.03/



jesus...

Yea, that Chinese pilot must have been aiming for it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/19/china.negotiations.03/



jesus...

Besides this, Americans fighter jet pilots are very shitty shooters. No wonder thousands of Iraqis died since the war.

Wow......your hatred of Americans is disturbing.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/19/china.negotiations.03/



jesus...

Besides this, Americans fighter jet pilots are very shitty shooters. No wonder thousands of Iraqis died since the war.

Remember what happen to 4 canadian soldiers in afghanistan who got bombed by an american fighter jet? I don't believe it was an accident, just pure stupidity.

You really should do research about that before you make asshole statements like that.

They'll be fine, as long as they stay away from Italian ski lifts (http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/04/marines.cablecar.03/)...

The Eurofighter by the way has a button that'll put the plane back level automatically...that's a nice feature, don't you think? ;)

Good feature for G-LOC. My planes for NS feature a system that, if the pilot becomes unconscious, puts it immediately back level.

I wonder if there's a handicapp feature since American pilots don't really know how to fly properly. :rolleyes:

How do you fly "properly"?

We did invent powered flight, no?

How do you fly "properly"?

We did invent powered flight, no?

Touche. I wouldn't say invent, achieve more like it. My laughing matter of his comment was the fact that the F-22 is that expensive and the people that fly it don't know how? The DOD has made some dumb moves in recent times but that would take the cake. F-22 pilots are probably the top 1% of the top 1%. The sheer physical and mental requirements it takes to fly that has to be phenomenal. I bet F-22 pilots are probably combat trained in mulitple aircraft and probably far better than all the pilots combined in some countries. Hell that's like letting a 16 year old behind the wheel of a $300,000 car. Can we say waste of money?

How do you fly "properly"?

We did invent powered flight, no?

No, we didn't. The Wright brothers did. I really dislike countries, almost any of them, claiming they invented something. I really only see that being true, when it was a government project.

Wow... what a dumbass...
nice... :D

BTW, there are numerous stupid accidents and dumbass mistakes made by American fighter pilots, take US spy plane/Chinese fighter jet accident (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/01/us.china.plane.02/) for example. China got so pissed off, they returned the US spy plane... in boxes.


How about stupid and dumbass mistakes made by the CAF? Oh shoot, you don't have one.

No, we didn't. The Wright brothers did. I really dislike countries, almost any of them, claiming they invented something. I really only see that being true, when it was a government project.

Yes we did, as in context of what I had typed. The Wright brothers were Americans, and Americans are "shitty" pilots as per what the poster said, so by that reasoning "we" invented powered flight.

How about stupid and dumbass mistakes made by the CAF? Oh shoot, you don't have one.

As I recall it that was US Spyplane: 1, Chinese J-8: 0...

BTW PLAF not CAF.

As I recall it that was US Spyplane: 1, Chinese J-8: 0...

BTW PLAF not CAF.


Canadian Air Force

Canadian Air Force

Musta missed that one...close enough...lol CAF...F-18As without AIM-120s.

Yes we did, as in context of what I had typed. The Wright brothers were Americans, and Americans are "shitty" pilots as per what the poster said, so by that reasoning "we" invented powered flight.

And if all americans were the same, it would be right. Even in context, its wrong. All the americans who had anything to do with the invention of powered flight are dead. Americans back then as a whole don't equal Americans now.

Canadian Air Force
It's Canadian Air Farce

God, I love that show. :D

Yep. Almost any price is worth toppling a dictator.
Well, that's nice. I'm sure the childhood friend of mine who they brought back in pieces from Iraq might have different thoughts. Anyone who'd say almost anything is worth toppling a dictator has not seriously examined the worth of their principles or the relative costs to potential benefits of such a worldview. Remember, the Soviets preemptively attacked the Finns claiming national security. It seems we've begun keeping very fine company.

Touche. I wouldn't say invent, achieve more like it. My laughing matter of his comment was the fact that the F-22 is that expensive and the people that fly it don't know how? The DOD has made some dumb moves in recent times but that would take the cake. F-22 pilots are probably the top 1% of the top 1%. The sheer physical and mental requirements it takes to fly that has to be phenomenal. I bet F-22 pilots are probably combat trained in mulitple aircraft and probably far better than all the pilots combined in some countries. Hell that's like letting a 16 year old behind the wheel of a $300,000 car. Can we say waste of money?
I was going to make this an NS free day, but I'm going to make this one exception.

The pilots that are selected for Raptors are probably better than average. They are probably a mix of conversions from F-15/16s and nuggets. The Air Force has to do that so that they can have a command structure in place. You can't have a squadron with all LtCol -- Hot Shot -- Pilots. Not just for ego reasons, but for practical ones like establishing chains of command. The F-117 squadrons deployed with a good mix of junior and senior officers and there's no reason to think that the Raptors will do otherwise.

Second, the biggest problem a pilot has is processing information. Good sticks don't have to think about how to fly the plane, that's just what they do. Fighting the plane is another matter. That's why two guys have always been better than one. Lockheed had set out with the goal of sensor fusion in the F-22 and display simplification so that a single pilot could easily comprehend and act on all the information that's coming in to the cockpit. The F-22 should be the easiest plane, ever, to fight well.

If you want to give someone credit for being super-human, how about sending some kudos to the engineers? Almost anyone can be a good stick, it takes real ability to be an innovator.

I was going to make this an NS free day, but I'm going to make this one exception.

The pilots that are selected for Raptors are probably better than average. They are probably a mix of conversions from F-15/16s and nuggets. The Air Force has to do that so that they can have a command structure in place. You can't have a squadron with all LtCol -- Hot Shot -- Pilots. Not just for ego reasons, but for practical ones like establishing chains of command. The F-117 squadrons deployed with a good mix of junior and senior officers and there's no reason to think that the Raptors will do otherwise.

Second, the biggest problem a pilot has is processing information. Good sticks don't have to think about how to fly the plane, that's just what they do. Fighting the plane is another matter. That's why two guys have always been better than one. Lockheed had set out with the goal of sensor fusion in the F-22 and display simplification so that a single pilot could easily comprehend and act on all the information that's coming in to the cockpit. The F-22 should be the easiest plane, ever, to fight well.

If you want to give someone credit for being super-human, how about sending some kudos to the engineers? Almost anyone can be a good stick, it takes real ability to be an innovator.

Oh trust me I give kudos to the engineers of the F-22 and every aircraft we have. I didn't think it'd be that easy though to fly. I would imagine it would require a lot of mental stress, especially when they were fighting in it.

Oh trust me I give kudos to the engineers of the F-22 and every aircraft we have. I didn't think it'd be that easy though to fly. I would imagine it would require a lot of mental stress, especially when they were fighting in it.
I wish I could elaborate on all the slick things that the F-22 will do. It doesn't think for the pilot, like the old Pilot's Associate project did, but it sure does make it easy for the pilot to comprehend what he is facing. In past aircraft, just managing the sensors has been a time-consuming chore. Imagine if the aircraft were smart enough to present you with the right display when it was important. That's where the F-22 and the L-M JSF is headed. Technology is really going to make a difference in how the pilot interacts with the aircraft. Our DoD contractors are still places where you can get a good job, do cutting edge research, and not worry about the work being outsourced to India.