If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   US Air Force: The stealthy, fifth-generation, $400 million F-22 Raptor is the undisputed king of the skies. German Luftwaffe: Ja, about that   (wired.com) divider line 207
    More: Interesting, Toronto Raptors, air forces, mock combat, U.S. Air Force  
•       •       •

22834 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2012 at 10:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-31 11:12:28 AM
LOL...the premise of this article is that the Typhoons can somehow magically teleport into dogfighting range. Modern air warfare is BVR now. They would never get close enough to dogfight.

Also...read the comments section of that article. Several users point out serious flaws. The F-22s are literally fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
 
2012-07-31 11:13:13 AM

ha-ha-guy: neritz: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

We don't like war...unless we start it.

Plus one would think the British Empire (upon which the sun never sets) and Friends, could handle one pissant nation state in Central Europe. Yet they kept proving us wrong.


Sorry aboot that. We were used to fighting the French (with one hand - while sitting).
 
2012-07-31 11:14:05 AM
US Air Force: The stealthy, fifth-generation, $400 million F-22 Raptor is the undisputed king of the skies. German Luftwaffe: Ja, about that

So obviously we need to spend another $100 billion on defense contractor welfare!
 
2012-07-31 11:14:16 AM
Totes worth 400million a pop.
 
2012-07-31 11:14:30 AM
It still is the king of the skies. Being able to dominate the airspace over a larger range than the enemy while maintaining stealth. Yeah, it totally sucks. Get back to me when the Grippen can find a way to get into range without getting blown out of the sky.

You are a sniper. You are heavily camo'ed on an open battlefield. You have the benefit of optics and a long range large caliber rifle.

Your enemy is carrying a standard military rifle.

You can see him from far away and he is in your range while you are not in his. He cannot see you, but he knows your general direction.

Who would win in that scenario?
 
2012-07-31 11:14:31 AM

crab66: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

At least when we join the fight people know it. Unlike Canadia.


Yup - all that Spanish flu AND those STDs.
 
2012-07-31 11:14:41 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: Yeah, but isn't that something you can also do with a helicopter and a couple of ground stations?


how well do those helicopters and ground stations do stealth and supercruise, btw?
 
2012-07-31 11:14:57 AM
I thought we learned this lesson in Vietnam with the F4. Fighters are for fighting up close, not lobbing missiles from a hundred miles away. It's a grand idea and all - it just doesn't work in reality.
 
2012-07-31 11:15:37 AM

oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.


Not our fault that we're all the way over here and you're all the way over there. Hell, most of the time you tell us you like it that way.
 
2012-07-31 11:15:55 AM

ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?


Goering was a a shiat head, so there's that.
 
2012-07-31 11:16:57 AM
 
2012-07-31 11:19:43 AM
I wonder how much it would cost per unit for the Air Force to buy a few dozen 737s, equip them with AWAC-like radar, add a massive fire control system - and fill the belly with racks of AIM120s. Fly toward hostile air - detect enemy aircraft, unload a hundred AA missiles and leave. Land, reload, and repeat. If we are looking for a mobile AA missile launcher, there have GOT to be cheaper methods.
 
2012-07-31 11:19:48 AM

you have pee hands: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

Not our fault that we're all the way over here and you're all the way over there. Hell, most of the time you tell us you like it that way.


Yup - there's a vast ocean between 'merikuh & Canuckistan. Was Sarah Palin in your geography class?
 
2012-07-31 11:19:54 AM
I live next to Wright Patterson AFB.

...there's actually a Bong Rd. right next to the base. Its on a really high post because people steal the signs.
 
2012-07-31 11:19:59 AM

oldfarthenry: [i149.photobucket.com image 364x244]
Yeah - the CF-22 might be an oonse over-budget.
We asked the DSS to make out a cheque with the amount line left blank.

/Canuckian humour
//the extra `u' means extra yuks


They should be ready about the same time as we get our "new" helicopters to replace the aging Sea Kings.

.
..
...
Again, you'd have to be Canadian to get that.
 
2012-07-31 11:20:41 AM

you have pee hands: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

Not our fault that we're all the way over here and you're all the way over there. Hell, most of the time you tell us you like it that way.


Actually he's just up there. Or in my case down there since I have to drive south to cross into Canada.

/Michigan, America's first line of defense against Canada
 
2012-07-31 11:22:11 AM
It would be an evil person indeed who would attack the U.S's airshow superiority fighter.
 
2012-07-31 11:22:36 AM
So the chimps at Wired found a report from another magazine, that doesn't quote any data, that says the Eurofighter is good at slow speed dogfights. Not better than the F-22, just good. Yeah, no kidding. That's been expected for years. Actually, since Air Force Gen. Jumper flew the Eurofighter in 2005:

-------------------
"The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."

The F/A-22 performs in much the same way as the Eurofighter, General Jumper said. But it has additional capabilities that allow it to perform the Air Force's unique missions.

"The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can maneuver with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is."
------------------------

The Wired chimps make the jump that the Eurofighter is actually better,though not justified. But they've had a boner for the F-22 for years. They need to go cover stuff they have some knowledge of, like which athlete tweeted the latest racial slur at the Olympics.
 
2012-07-31 11:22:59 AM

hp6sa: With all due respect to the study, analyzing tactics from the dogfights of the 1950's and 70's (i.e, Korean and Vietnam era) isn't nearly as applicable as the 90's. The Iraqi wars did feature a lot more long-range kills than in the past. If the US ever went up against China or Russia... it will be on the back of EWACS support, unlike four decades ago.

/which is not to say the F-22 is great, given all of the other problems.


Please, do tell me about its silent engines with cold burning fuel. Just because America is in-love with radar doesn't mean the rest of the world is. You know what, don't bother. Someday a dark-horse, outta left field technocrat dictator is going to teach us a bloody lesson and I wont be in the mood to say "I told you so."
 
2012-07-31 11:23:13 AM
Attrition will eventually rid the US inventory of the F-22 problem. The F-35 will likely be around to kill its pilots, occupy the maintenance hanger and leave those it's supposed to be supporting hung out to dry a lot longer. Meanwhile the Air Force will continue to field F-16's and what F-15's they can keep airworthy and pray that it's enough.
 
2012-07-31 11:23:38 AM

indarwinsshadow: oldfarthenry: [i149.photobucket.com image 364x244]
Yeah - the CF-22 might be an oonse over-budget.
We asked the DSS to make out a cheque with the amount line left blank.

/Canuckian humour
//the extra `u' means extra yuks

They should be ready about the same time as we get our "new" helicopters to replace the aging Sea Kings.

.
..
...
Again, you'd have to be Canadian to get that.


Well to be fair, it isn't like you have submarines for those ASW helicopters to practice hunting.

/well maybe the ones at that mall, they have a decent uptime
 
2012-07-31 11:25:10 AM

JeffDenver: LOL...the premise of this article is that the Typhoons can somehow magically teleport into dogfighting range. Modern air warfare is BVR now. They would never get close enough to dogfight.

Also...read the comments section of that article. Several users point out serious flaws. The F-22s are literally fighting with one hand tied behind their back.


when the F-22 pilot is blacking out intermittently and is drowsy from oxygen deprivation, i bet it does seem like the typhoons are teleporting. thats a nifty little feature the krauts put in ther...oh wait
 
2012-07-31 11:26:05 AM
No Top Gun Quotes here? Son, I am dissapoint.

During the Korean War, the Navy kill ratio was twelve-to-one. We shot down twelve of their jets for every one of ours. In Vietnam, this ratio fell to three-to-one. Our pilots depended on missles. They lost their dogfighting skills.

Sound Familiar?
 
2012-07-31 11:27:04 AM

DjangoStonereaver: I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time.
They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.


AIM-7E != AIM-120C

1960s air to air missiles were at the begining of that technology. AIM-7Es had VACUUM TUBES in their guidance systems. Compare a 1960s computer to a 2010s computer, will you base your opinion of the present state of the art on what was available 50 years ago? F-15s using '90s technology have a very good kill ratio with missiles. F-22s are even better. F-35s will have even greater capability given their further developed electronics.
 
2012-07-31 11:27:24 AM

JeffDenver: LOL...the premise of this article is that the Typhoons can somehow magically teleport into dogfighting range. Modern air warfare is BVR now. They would never get close enough to dogfight.


You can't really do BVR without radar, and you can't really use RADAR while being stealthy. That is the big flaw in the F-22 stealth argument. Even at the insanely 'hypothetical' range of an AIM-120D (50~60 miles), with the closure range of modern aircraft, you are looking at dog fighting ranges in about 1.5 minutes, so closing the gap between aircraft is not a difficult task to accomplish. And that 1.5 minutes is assuming a subsonic intercept, in supersonic closing, the time drops to about 45 seconds to knife fight range.

There is a persistent myth that BVR is what all warfare is about when it comes to ATA tactics, but the reality is that the range will close, and you will be stuck in a turning engagement. Year after year of exercises and training missions have shown this, and yet some desk force general somewhere insists that dogfighting ended in 1945.
 
2012-07-31 11:28:33 AM
Why is it that fighter jets don't have rockets that face backwards?
 
2012-07-31 11:30:32 AM

hdhale: In a real world scenario, if you get close enough to see a Raptor, you are either part of its ground crew, the pilot, or you are drifting in your chute after your ride got shot out from underneath you.

That said...

Cutting production was criminally stupid. They should have at least continued to produce them at a rate that justifies keeping the line open. In an actual shooting war against an air force more capable than the likes of the Iraqis, the Iranians, or vaunted Somali air corps (likely converted crop duster with a guy with an AK-47 sitting in the back seat), the Raptor will pick off the first wave of enemy, have to return to base to reload, and while that's going on the second wave (made up of far more capable aircraft) will pop on the scene, kill the drones the Americans use for recon and light attack, and make life miserable for the American ground forces.

You can't simply decide to produce a high tech aircraft from a cold start. We'll be scrambling through the boneyards in the desert looking to reactivate F-15s and F-16s in order to get enough planes in the air and then there is the small problem of not having nearly enough qualified fighter pilots. farked only begins to describe it.


I agree that the USAF needs more raptors than it has in order to maintain air superiority in a contested theatre but in your scenerio(like Desert Storm 1 and 2) the first wave is a barrage of tomahawks from sea based platforms that cripple command and control and destroy airfields meaning there is no second wave of enemy fighters and a general lack of coordinated resistance.

/Whether that would work against China is a completely seperate issue
 
2012-07-31 11:31:53 AM

Slaves2Darkness: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.


Which is kind of the opposite of what we are doing now. We're building airplanes that are too expensive to be able to be manufactured quickly enough to replace losses, and we're betting on the fact that we won't lose too many.
 
2012-07-31 11:33:20 AM

oldfarthenry: Yup - there's a vast ocean between 'merikuh & Canuckistan. Was Sarah Palin in your geography class?


Profile clicking is hard work, and I have it on good account the Brits used to have a bunch of Henrys.
 
2012-07-31 11:33:26 AM
So if you take away all the F-22 advantages and severly restrict what the pilots can do because of the oxygen issues THEN the Typhoon is on a level playing field?

Well I for one am outraged!
 
2012-07-31 11:34:01 AM

Voiceofreason01: /Whether that would work against China is a completely seperate issue


We have minimal desire for air superiority over China. We aren't landing ground troops to occupy a country of 1.3 billion. It's more about using cruise missiles to fry their infrastructure. As for the bombers, they'll be stealth flying wings (the B-2 replacement project) and won't really need air escorts. The F-22s are more to help the ROK, Japan, and Taiwan kill any fighters or bombers the Chinese send their way. It's mostly a missile show though, as China is planning to do the exact same thing to our airfields in the ROK and Japan.
 
2012-07-31 11:34:25 AM
So the F-22s are the Tau of the world's airforce?
www.gobiel.com
 
2012-07-31 11:35:56 AM

PYROY: Why is it that fighter jets don't have rockets that face backwards?


The French variant of the Typhoon does.
 
2012-07-31 11:37:02 AM

you have pee hands: oldfarthenry: Yup - there's a vast ocean between 'merikuh & Canuckistan. Was Sarah Palin in your geography class?

Profile clicking is hard work, and I have it on good account the Brits used to have a bunch of Henrys.


To be fair, I was exiled from Britain to the colonies. Your point is still valid.
 
2012-07-31 11:37:36 AM

tiiger: You can't really do BVR without radar, and you can't really use RADAR while being stealthy. That is the big flaw in the F-22 stealth argument.


Yep.

What happens if Doofistan develops an air-to-air HARM-style missile that homes in on that radar until it's close enough to go to passive infrared?

What if they make it with a low enough radar cross-section that while it's not technically "stealthy", it will be within infrared range before the radar can detect it and get shut down? Hell, you might not even notice it electronically. First warning the F-22 pilot would have is the sight of the missile's smoke/contrail heading towards him.
 
2012-07-31 11:39:16 AM
Those new Eurofighter/Typhoons sure are noisy though, have had them circling around here a few times and it sounds like Thor in a bad mood even from many miles away.
 
2012-07-31 11:40:01 AM

hdhale: In a real world scenario, if you get close enough to see a Raptor, you are either part of its ground crew, the pilot, or you are drifting in your chute after your ride got shot out from underneath you.




oyster.ignimgs.com
/sympathises with having your ride shot out from underneath you
 
2012-07-31 11:40:55 AM
Germany -0-
USA 2

/done
 
2012-07-31 11:41:08 AM

PYROY: Why is it that fighter jets don't have rockets that face backwards?


The smart ass answer is that planes fire guided missiles, not unguided rockets.
The real answer is that aerodynamically, it makes sense to mount missiles facing forward (less drag, or less weight if you have to put a cowling over them.) and a forward firing missile is not wasting thrust counteracting the momentum and velocity of the aircraft that launched it, decreasing to zero relative motion, then trying to build it all back up again (this requires a huge motor, relatively speaking, which adds tons of weight to a weapon.)

The cool thing is that some missiles, like the Python 4 (Israel) AIM-9X (alledgedly) and the AA-11 Archer (Russia) have 150~180 off boresight capability, so they can literally detach from the plane forwards and then rotate in the air in a quick 20+ g turn to hit something behind the aircraft. They are very, very cool to see launch, as they peel away from the wing, swoop around and nail some target 1~5 km behind the launching aircraft. Dynamically they make more sense then a rearward launching missile.
 
2012-07-31 11:42:55 AM

dittybopper: tiiger: You can't really do BVR without radar, and you can't really use RADAR while being stealthy. That is the big flaw in the F-22 stealth argument.

Yep.

What happens if Doofistan develops an air-to-air HARM-style missile that homes in on that radar until it's close enough to go to passive infrared?

What if they make it with a low enough radar cross-section that while it's not technically "stealthy", it will be within infrared range before the radar can detect it and get shut down? Hell, you might not even notice it electronically. First warning the F-22 pilot would have is the sight of the missile's smoke/contrail heading towards him.


Supposedly the big dished radar planes will uplink to the F-22s so they wont have to emit much. But this pretends that only we get to use electronic warfare, stealth, and drones. I hate to talk about it over the internet, but air-to-air drones are much simpler to develop than people who fly planes like to make them out to be.
 
2012-07-31 11:43:38 AM

Carth: The F22 was designed on a premise, destroy the target before reaching visual range, that has never been tested in war and wasn't backed up with much independent research.


Maybe not, but damn if it doesn't sound good, huh? Think about it Chief, we take 'em out before they even know we're there! We'll have air supremacy at all times and there's nothing they can do about it. Yeah, this is the ship for us. Let's get a thousand of 'em right away, and another two thousand after that. We can't wait for testing, besides, they'll eliminate any threats before they're in visual, says so right here in the white paper.
 
2012-07-31 11:43:45 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.


Exactly. And we will do it again.

/glad they never got the Me262 up with their best pilots early in the war.
 
2012-07-31 11:44:02 AM
All we need are Stingers, machine guns and RPG's stored at every street corner. No one will attack us.
 
2012-07-31 11:46:25 AM

dittybopper:
Yep.
What happens if Doofistan develops an air-to-air HARM-style missile that homes in on that radar until it's close enough to go to passive infrared?
What if they make it with a low enough radar cross-section that while it's not technically "stealthy", it will be within infrared range before the radar can detect it and get shut down? Hell, you might not even notice it electronically. First warning the F-22 pilot would have is the sight of the missile's smoke/contrail heading towards him.


Not only does the missile you posit already exist, but it is a system that many ATA missiles have as well. Also, the missile would not leave a smoke or contrail as most ATA missiles only burn for a short period of time, they coast at high speed to the kill, so there would be nothing save a very small cross section to try and spot in that big blue sky. A SAM might leave a smoke trail, since they burn for longer.

Now, the F-22 does have a threat link with launch authority to AWACS aircraft, and other friendlies, so the F-22 could sneak nose cold in towards a group of spotted aircraft and launch using telemetry from the radar aircraft, but then you have to posit that in that scenario the radar aircraft is such a huge target you really wouldn't want to expose it near the front, given that unlike the west, the East has 160~190 nm missiles designed specifically to terminate AWACS and other similar ELINT aircraft. The Vympe R-33, 37, and Novator K-100 all come to mind as examples.
 
2012-07-31 11:46:50 AM
The F-22 was built to defeat the practical threat from small (read Middle-Eastern) air forces. Long-range stealth missions designed to deny enemy air support and maintain control of the area. It was not designed for a major offensive engagement with a superpower like China. China has 1,300 fighters and 600 bombers (Source). It is a war of numbers that we would lose no matter how advanced our technology.
 
2012-07-31 11:46:55 AM
"War is a Racket" Smedley Butler. All you need to know.
 
2012-07-31 11:47:07 AM
At the end of WWII, 1940 model Japanese Zeros could easily defeat Corsairs and Hellcats that were stupid enough to get into a slow turning fight with them.

The Raptor wasn't built to get into a slow, turning fight. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf war, Yugoslavia all proved the same thing.

Avionics are good, superior weapons are good, maneuverability is nice, but speed kills.

In every one of those conflicts, US aircraft achieved their massive success by exploiting boom and zoom tactics*. Scream in, take your shot, keep your energy up.

Don't get caught up in a furball if you can help it.

I'm not a bit shocked a Typhoon can kill a Raptor in a knife fight. What would shock me is if a Raptor driver decided to fore go his advantages in a real shooting situation.

*A notable exception was late war in Europe where German jets had a decided speed advantage. We shot them down by engaging them in slow turning fights - mostly as they took off or landed.
 
2012-07-31 11:49:27 AM

macadamnut: traylor: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

I'm not sure about your point, but here's something for you.
Link

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


My wife laughs every time we drive past the Bong State Recreation Area. As an avid aviation history buff it takes me a few seconds to realize why it sounds funny. She practically busts a gut when I tell her his first name was Dick.

//Bong...Dick Bong
 
2012-07-31 11:49:57 AM

Dynascape: Ive read scenarios where the Air Force has considered using B1B's with over-the-horizon Air-to-air missiles, being led to their target by spotter planes or AWACS.


In fact they skipped 16 letters and went straight to the B1-R, or "Boner" for that one. I think it they just couldn't resist, way funnier than Bonec. Although they could have called it the D model and then say the enemy was Boned.
 
2012-07-31 11:50:33 AM

Clemkadidlefark:
Germany -0-
USA 2

Revisionist history class ignoring the `world' in 'world wars' - 10

/done

 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report