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 11:51:32 AM

tiiger: 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.


Coming off the aircraft forwards and then turning around uses the same energy ("dynamically") as a missile that is turned around first then fired from the plane (launched backwards). There is little dynamic advantage to launching a missile forwards that doesn't have wings to turn with.

The problem with firinig backwards is making a control system that can keep the missile pointed backwards as it comes of the rails with negative airspeed. The control system has to manage the missile attitude as it's flying backwards, thru zero, then forward flight. No easy thing since the fins will act radically differently as the environment quickly changes.
 
2012-07-31 11:52:13 AM
So they put the Raptors in a specific scenario that the Typhoons could exploit the 22s weakness...and they were still only evenly matched. Had the F-22 not specifically allowed the Typhoon to visably aquire them, the Germans would have had no idea wtf was going on

Also,
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century
 
2012-07-31 11:52:33 AM

oldfarthenry: Clemkadidlefark:
Germany -0-
USA 2

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

/done


Come on fartknocker....

Anyone who's versed in history knows pretty damn positively that it was the Soviet Union that won WW2 in Europe.

It was all over in Europe after Stalingrad, and way WAY over by the time the Soviets launched Operation Bagration.
 
2012-07-31 11:53:19 AM

ha-ha-guy: 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


Actually, the ones at the mall haven't been running in about 4 years, so for all intents and purposes, they might as well belong to the RCN.
 
2012-07-31 11:53:44 AM

ha-ha-guy: As for the bombers, they'll be stealth flying wings (the B-2 replacement project) and won't really need air escorts.


Or the aircraft that eventually grows out of the X-37 program launches from Whiteman, bombs beijing and returns in time for lunch.
 
2012-07-31 11:56:47 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.

It will expose you, but it will not make it any easier for them to lock weapons onto you. Stealth will still give the attacking F-22 an advantage. All that will change is that they will know someone is locking weapons onto them.

AESA makes it difficult or impossible for them to use the F-22's own radar to lock on to. Wikipedia explains why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically_Scanned_Array#Low_ P robability_of_Intercept.

BVR isn't a myth. I don't know why people keep saying that. Every major military in the world is investing in it...not just the US. What do they know that you don't?
 
2012-07-31 11:57:31 AM
Well, sure. Makes sense if you take away all of the F-22's advantages.

This is an aircraft that is meant to cruise around at Mach 0.8-1.2, well above 65,000 feet, lock on to a target +250km away with it's APG77 radar, fire multiple AIM-120 missiles then turn and burn at Mach +2.0.

The ability to data-link to other friendly aircrafts' radars such as the F-15, F-16 and AWACS while the F-22's radar is off and use those radars to lock onto and fire missiles against enemy aircraft.

Let's not mention the electronic warfare suite the of F-22. One aspect of the the F-22's EWS is rumored to be able to act like an EMP to an enemy aircraft's, disabling the 'fly-by-wire' systems and radar systems. Another aspect is ability to scan and classify the frequencies of an enemy aircrafts' search radars (or the radars of launched missiles), then feed bad data back to the radar making the F-22 appear elsewhere in the sky.

Also, the article fails to mention that the F-22's computer is designed to link-up and control/guide the X-45C UCAV (in the process of end-point development). An F-22 could loiter undetected at 70,000 feet and let a flock of UCAVs battle it out with conventional fighters...or tie up convention fighters while the F-22 itself could hunt down and destroy enemy AWACS without giving it's position away.

Finally, the F-22 is a multi-role fighter, meaning that the aircraft has been upgraded in it's software and hardware to be able to attack ground targets as well. The Typhoon does not have this ability.

All in all, the article is disingenuous (with a slew of weasle-words) and sounds more like an ad by EADS.
 
2012-07-31 11:59:12 AM
New Chinese Doctrine: If the Raptor has ten air-to-air missiles, send up 20 MIGs.

/You KNOW they're thinking that right now
 
2012-07-31 12:00:12 PM
Yea but heaven forbid we make sure kids in this country have decent farking healthcare...
 
2012-07-31 12:01:49 PM

1derful: It would be an evil person indeed who would attack the U.S's airshow superiority fighter.


You'll be receiving my medicals bills as a result of me accidentally inhaling a piece of gum, you laughter terrorist.
 
2012-07-31 12:03:35 PM

Nuc_E: 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?


Dysentery.
 
2012-07-31 12:04:29 PM
"Hey, if we get close a smaller, lighter aircraft can lake our a larger one."

No shiate.

The issue is, of course, getting close in the first place.
 
2012-07-31 12:05:59 PM

Funzo: I have also found that my Keurig makes much better coffee than the F22. Good job, DoD.


I've seen shopping carts that can make a tighter turn. Good job, DoD.
 
2012-07-31 12:06:31 PM

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


Oblig.: Why do you hate America?

/actually, this is a good question
//some fighters used to eject "chaff", basically strips of aluminum foil, to screw up the radar of pursuing planes. Same notion as a smoke screen on a battlefield or in a sea battle.
 
2012-07-31 12:07:56 PM
tiiger: The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

Combat success rate is actually around 50%, training success rate near 85% according to the internets

The F-22 continues to kill and poison the pilots that fly it.
It appears the latest issue is fixed, according to the Pentagon. And there have only been two pilots who have died in the 10 year history of the F-22, a test pilot, and a pilot from Alaska whose death was appently unrelated to the current issue (last four paragraphs of TFA).


If an F-22 crashes, Fire Rescue has been told to not approach the burning plane under any circumstances, the burning fibres in the aircraft create fumes that are both toxic and caustic, so they will eat through any protection you may be wearing. Couldn't find anything about this online. Do you have a source? Cause it sounds like BS to me.


The EF-2000, Rafale, Gripen, F/A-18 Growth Hornet, SU-35, Mig-35, F-15SE Silent Eagle etc, are all better aircraft then the F-22 for their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and ease of maintenance relative to the expensive and maintenance intensive raptor.
profile.ak.fbcdn.net


The F-35 is the F-22 but worse in every possible area. Ok, I'll give you that one.

And the Marines had an F-18 shoot down the F-22 in a dogfight years ago. And not even a super bug, a classic bug. The Brits did it to the F-22 with the Eurofighter, the Indians did it with the SU-33 flanker. The F-22 is not some wonder weapon, it is a very expensive air dominance fighter that doesn't represent a significant leap over other weapons platforms.
There are hundreds of F-22 training missions that go on every day, against each other, against all types of other jets. Sometimes the F-22s are setup to win, sometimes they're not, but the important thing is that they're TRAINING MISSIONS. The pilots set them up to be challenging, so if a mistake is made, the F-22 will be "shot down" and they can learn from it. I would think it would be just bad business practice to have the most challenging scenario ever faced be the first time an F-22 pilot goes to combat. But again, that's just like, my opinion man.
 
2012-07-31 12:12:00 PM

madgonad: Modern fighters are limited by the ability of humans to stay conscious and that is a hard limit on ALL close-up fighting by aircraft. So in short, almost any aircraft that has hit that limit - and it was hit by the previous generation - will perform about the same.

The next generation of air superiority fighter will be unmanned.


they should have skipped this generation completely and run with super hornets and eagles for another 25 years.
 
2012-07-31 12:12:21 PM

mugwump867: 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


She sounds like fun, and it's a rare woman indeed who will enjoy a 12 year old boy's level of humour. She probably laughs at surprise farts, amirite?
 
2012-07-31 12:13:00 PM
Dittybopper, et al hit it on the head. Parading these obscenely expensive, yet amusingly ineffective propaganda tools around is all well and good as long as we're just taking pot shots at nomads in goat skin tents for no particular reason and calling it "spreading freedom". But when the "freedom" hits the fan and we're faced with someone who has their act together, things may not go as planned.
 
2012-07-31 12:13:16 PM
Years and years ago, the USAF had the same belief with the F-15. With advanced air to air missiles, the F-15 and its powerful radar would allow pilots to shoot down enemy fighters before they could even know the US fighter was in the region.

It didn't work then either; in the same kind of simulated combat exercises mentioned in TFA, pilots flying F-5's got within visual range of the F-15 before being targeted, and the F-15's were shot down as often as the smaller, less sophisticated plane.

Basically, the USAF (and to some extent the USN) has pursued this belief, that technological advances can allow US pilots to shoot down the opposition without fear of being shot down themselves. Now it's stealth technology they are using to justify this belief, but again, simulated combat tests are showing the technology isn't a cure-all. Sure, if our F-22's have prior warning of approaching enemy planes and early radar locks, the Typhoon pilots are going to be in trouble. There are ways to avoid that; for example, flying close to the ground and "looking up" rather than flying at 35,000 feet.
 
2012-07-31 12:13:35 PM

ha-ha-guy: Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.


In a real war, the Typhoons are carrying MBDA Meteors and splash the E-3 long before they're in SAM range.

Actually, in a real war, we're part of NATO, so the Typhoons can escort the F-22s and watch their backs :P
 
2012-07-31 12:15:54 PM
Nuc_E: 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?


The guy flanking you because you were so damn sure of yourself.
 
2012-07-31 12:18:33 PM

Mishno: 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.


At least those old missiles had a warm sound.
 
2012-07-31 12:19:30 PM

Gdalescrboz: So they put the Raptors in a specific scenario that the Typhoons could exploit the 22s weakness...and they were still only evenly matched. Had the F-22 not specifically allowed the Typhoon to visably aquire them, the Germans would have had no idea wtf was going on

Also,
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century


I'm on your side, but this is plain wrong. Many of those kills were BVR/AIM-9 and I think the Israelis even have a couple of gun kills.

Bschott007: Finally, the F-22 is a multi-role fighter, meaning that the aircraft has been upgraded in it's software and hardware to be able to attack ground targets as well. The Typhoon does not have this ability.


Again, as above I'm on your side but this statement is completely false. The Typhoon has been air-to-ground capable since Trache 1/Block 5. Trache 2 aircraft are compatible with a very wide range of PGMs and dumb weapons.

Fact is the Raptor's ground attack capability is very limited. It has external hardpoints, but they're rarely used. Mud moving capability was added merely to appease Washington. It is a pure air superiority fighter (as was the F-15 for much of its career).

The Typhoon is a much more capable multirole attack platform along the lines of the F-16.
 
2012-07-31 12:20:41 PM

improvius: So the F22 is evenly matched *IF* you can get close enough to furball? Yeah, good luck with that. The whole point is that this plane will kill you before you even know it's in your hemisphere.


I think lots of F-4 drivers thought the same thing before Vietnam.


/OK, lots of advancements since then
 
2012-07-31 12:22:56 PM
Meant to say not BVR/AiM-9
 
2012-07-31 12:23:53 PM

Bendal: Years and years ago, the USAF had the same belief with the F-15. With advanced air to air missiles, the F-15 and its powerful radar would allow pilots to shoot down enemy fighters before they could even know the US fighter was in the region.

It didn't work then either; in the same kind of simulated combat exercises mentioned in TFA, pilots flying F-5's got within visual range of the F-15 before being targeted, and the F-15's were shot down as often as the smaller, less sophisticated plane.



pretty sure the f-15 was designed for close in combat as well as long range because they thought the mig-25 was going to be a very numerable fighter. the phantom was designed for long range combat and therefore wasn't even given a gun. but even the phantom could have been effective at bvr combat, if it were not for the vietnam engagement rules that required visual confirmation before attack (and which basically nerfed what the plane was designed to do).
 
2012-07-31 12:23:59 PM

Bendal: Years and years ago, the USAF had the same belief with the F-15. With advanced air to air missiles, the F-15 and its powerful radar would allow pilots to shoot down enemy fighters before they could even know the US fighter was in the region.

It didn't work then either; in the same kind of simulated combat exercises mentioned in TFA, pilots flying F-5's got within visual range of the F-15 before being targeted, and the F-15's were shot down as often as the smaller, less sophisticated plane.

Basically, the USAF (and to some extent the USN) has pursued this belief, that technological advances can allow US pilots to shoot down the opposition without fear of being shot down themselves. Now it's stealth technology they are using to justify this belief, but again, simulated combat tests are showing the technology isn't a cure-all. Sure, if our F-22's have prior warning of approaching enemy planes and early radar locks, the Typhoon pilots are going to be in trouble. There are ways to avoid that; for example, flying close to the ground and "looking up" rather than flying at 35,000 feet.


Considering that in the real world, the F-15 has a 104-0 record in Air-to-Air combat I take issue with the validity of your post.
 
2012-07-31 12:24:29 PM
numerable-maneuverable.
 
2012-07-31 12:27:21 PM
Gleeman:improvius: So the F22 is evenly matched *IF* you can get close enough to furball? Yeah, good luck with that. The whole point is that this plane will kill you before you even know it's in your hemisphere.

I think lots of F-4 drivers thought the same thing before Vietnam.
/OK, lots of advancements since then


Not the least of which is stealth. It isn't just the missiles that have gotten better.
 
2012-07-31 12:28:13 PM

Gdalescrboz: Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century


About that. F-15 part starts around 7:00, relevant BVR miss is around 8:00. Continues in Part 5 of 5.

Not saying the Eagle isn't a great fighter, but most of it's kills have been in visual range. The ROE usually requires visual ID in most situations.

BVR missiles are still very unreliable: (From Wiki)

USAF F-15Cs vs. IRAF MiG-25s

Two IRAF MiG-25s fired missiles at a group of F-15Cs escorting a bombing run in Iraq (which were evaded by the F-15s). The F-15Cs give chase, but were forced to give up when the MiGs outran them. A total of 10 missiles were fired at the MiGs.[2]
 
2012-07-31 12:31:22 PM
So, uh, how many AIM-120s have been live-fired against fast, maneuvering targets flown by someone other than a scared Iraqi whose "training" was being allowed to fly twice a year?

I'm guessing the answer is "not many".
 
2012-07-31 12:31:34 PM
tiiger: The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

Combat success rate is actually around 50%, training success rate near 85% according to the internets

The F-22 continues to kill and poison the pilots that fly it.
It appears the latest issue is fixed, according to the Pentagon. And there have only been two pilots who have died in the 10 year history of the F-22, a test pilot, and a pilot from Alaska whose death was appently unrelated to the current issue (last four paragraphs of TFA).


If an F-22 crashes, Fire Rescue has been told to not approach the burning plane under any circumstances, the burning fibres in the aircraft create fumes that are both toxic and caustic, so they will eat through any protection you may be wearing. Couldn't find anything about this online. Do you have a source? Cause it sounds like BS to me.


The EF-2000, Rafale, Gripen, F/A-18 Growth Hornet, SU-35, Mig-35, F-15SE Silent Eagle etc, are all better aircraft then the F-22 for their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and ease of maintenance relative to the expensive and maintenance intensive raptor.
profile.ak.fbcdn.net


The F-35 is the F-22 but worse in every possible area. Ok, I'll give you that one.

And the Marines had an F-18 shoot down the F-22 in a dogfight years ago. And not even a super bug, a classic bug. The Brits did it to the F-22 with the Eurofighter, the Indians did it with the SU-33 flanker. The F-22 is not some wonder weapon, it is a very expensive air dominance fighter that doesn't represent a significant leap over other weapons platforms.
There are hundreds of F-22 training missions that go on every day, against each other, against all types of other jets. Sometimes the F-22s are setup to win, sometimes they're not, but the important thing is that they're TRAINING MISSIONS. The pilots set them up to be challenging, so if a mistake is made, the F-22 will be "shot down" and they can learn from it. I would think it would be just bad business practice to have the most challenging scenario ever faced be the first time an F-22 pilot goes to combat. But again, that's just like, my opinion man.
 
2012-07-31 12:32:59 PM

Thunderpipes: In other words, in a real fight, all German planes would be destroyed before they ever even saw the Raptors.


No, in other words that means the Raptor will loose to the Eurofighter Tycoon in any situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor

Having a small radar signature is not equal to no radar signature.
 
2012-07-31 12:39:36 PM
Realistically, though, the next major war is going to fought not by F-22s but by a hundred trillion drones.
 
2012-07-31 12:43:50 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.


The whole point of the article is that that would be a bad idea for the F-22.
 
2012-07-31 12:44:54 PM

JustGetItRight: Gdalescrboz: So they put the Raptors in a specific scenario that the Typhoons could exploit the 22s weakness...and they were still only evenly matched. Had the F-22 not specifically allowed the Typhoon to visably aquire them, the Germans would have had no idea wtf was going on

Also,
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century

I'm on your side, but this is plain wrong. Many of those kills were BVR/AIM-9 and I think the Israelis even have a couple of gun kills.

Bschott007: Finally, the F-22 is a multi-role fighter, meaning that the aircraft has been upgraded in it's software and hardware to be able to attack ground targets as well. The Typhoon does not have this ability.

Again, as above I'm on your side but this statement is completely false. The Typhoon has been air-to-ground capable since Trache 1/Block 5. Trache 2 aircraft are compatible with a very wide range of PGMs and dumb weapons.

Fact is the Raptor's ground attack capability is very limited. It has external hardpoints, but they're rarely used. Mud moving capability was added merely to appease Washington. It is a pure air superiority fighter (as was the F-15 for much of its career).

The Typhoon is a much more capable multirole attack platform along the lines of the F-16.


I did some checking and you are correct. The Typhoon does now have very limited AtG abilities, however in Libya the Typhoon failed to perform in an effective Air to Ground role. The Rafael and the Tornado bore the brunt of the ATG workload.

"In separate briefings, U.K. officials have been quoted as saying that the Typhoon flew 600 combat missions but surprisingly details of its offensive role in terms of enemy targets engaged have not been forthcoming. "

Mainly because the Rafael and the Tornado were the workhorses for AtG missions. The Typhoon was not used in the AtG role, which I pause to question. If the Typhoon Tranche 1/Block 5 airframes have AtG abilities, wouldn't Libya have been a great theatre to showcase this? Since the Tranche 2 airframes are still waiting for the Phase 1 Enhancements (some time in 2013), they are just an updated airframe with the limited Tranche 1/Block 5 AtG abilities.


"A Dassault executive who did not wish to be identified said that the Eurofighter Typhoon which is clearly not meant for a multi-mission role played at best a supporting role in the Libyan operations."

So, basically, until the Phase 1 Enhancements are delivered in 2013 (that's the delivery year...no mention on how long it would take to add/convert all current Tranche 2 airframes) the Typhoon is a great dogfighter, but not much else.
 
2012-07-31 12:47:13 PM
 
2012-07-31 12:50:34 PM

adgi13: tiiger: The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

Combat success rate is actually around 50%, training success rate near 85% according to the internets


From your own link:

"the US AIM-120A/B/C AMRAAM, has achieved a success rate inreal combat of around 50 per cent, but this has been against Third World targets without modern countermeasures, modern warning systems, or indeed pilot evasive skills." (emphasis mine)

The 85% training kill rate is against QF-4 target drones flying in straight lines.

In other words, even given the best possible environment and a massive handicap, the AMRAAM can't achieve anything close to 100% success. To tout its capabilities is like being proud of your kid for getting a B on an exam when you gave him the answer key!

Modern fighters flown by competent pilots, even Chinese ones, will be aware of the missile as soon as its motor fires, BVR or not (infrared carries a long way). This will be followed by ECM, chaff, and aggressive defensive maneuvering. When both sides are armed with BVR AAMs, the scenario has been described as something more akin to a game of chicken, than to clubbing baby seals.
 
2012-07-31 12:51:38 PM

Dynascape: oldfarthenry: Clemkadidlefark:
Germany -0-
USA 2

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

/done

Come on fartknocker....

Anyone who's versed in history knows pretty damn positively that it was the Soviet Union that won WW2 in Europe.

It was all over in Europe after Stalingrad, and way WAY over by the time the Soviets launched Operation Bagration.


The Russians may have paid in blood, but they would have had a much harder time without USA Lend-Lease. Let's say that Hitler had been smart enough to NOT declare war on the US, and we had put all our efforts into defeating the Japanese. Roosevelt could NEVER have kept Lend-Lease up, certainly not to the Soviets. The Russians would have been without the following (numbers are approximate):

350,000 light and heavy trucks
51,000 jeeps
8,000 tractors
10,000 tanks of all types
3,000 scout cars
2,000 half tracks
2,000 Bren carriers
11,000 fighter aircraft
3,000 bombers
6,000 anti-aircraft guns
400 Anti-Tank guns
317,000 tons of explosive materiel (the USSR only produced 600,000 tons during the war)
Millions of tons of steel, food, aluminum, and fuel.

Your fancy Red Army would have been a lot worse off without that stuff, and even more so if say, the Brits, fighting alone (also without Lend-Lease) had been forced to sign an armistice in say 1942 that would have freed up more troops for the eastern front. To say the Russians won WWII is just as stupid and ignorant as saying that the US did it all on it's own.

Here's another scenario Red Army fanatics don't like. What if the Japanese had declared war on the USSR along with the Germans, and those Siberian reinforcements that saved Moscow in the winter of 1941 had been fighting a Japanese Army in the far east?
 
Ehh
2012-07-31 12:53:40 PM
madgonad: 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.


It ain't about winning fights. It's about spending money on shiny toys.
 
2012-07-31 12:56:27 PM

My Bologna Has A Maiden Name: Dittybopper, et al hit it on the head. Parading these obscenely expensive, yet amusingly ineffective propaganda tools around is all well and good as long as we're just taking pot shots at nomads in goat skin tents for no particular reason and calling it "spreading freedom".


Actually, stuff like this "isn't particularly useful against an insurgency".
 
2012-07-31 12:59:19 PM
www.mikelynaugh.com



Your cannons are no match for our hand to hand combat.....
 
2012-07-31 01:01:12 PM

oldfarthenry: [download.gamezone.com image 600x250]
Ja! About as stealthy as a beer fart in church!


That's fine, we can end the Meteorblitzkrieg with some A-10s and the U.S.S. George W Bush from space.

Y'all thank me for it later.
 
2012-07-31 01:02:49 PM
The F-22 is designed to do something that only 2 other aircraft ever fielded can do - survive in a high threat environment. The other 2 aircraft that have actually been deployed with this capability were the F-117 and B2. Pulling a high G turn to try to out maneuver a SAM is second seat to the SAM not being able to lock on to you.

Plus we have a very proficient AWACS platform we didn't have in 'Nam. Add the Lacrosse, FIA, and NGEO space based radar sat constellation to provide BVR targeting that we didn't have 20 years ago and the BVR game has changed significantly.

There's a reason the Russians and Chinese are spending so much money to try to build their own when they already have an arguably better dog fighter in the J-10 and MiG-35.
 
2012-07-31 01:05:37 PM

devildog123: Your fancy Red Army would have been a lot worse off without that stuff, and even more so if say, the Brits, fighting alone (also without Lend-Lease) had been forced to sign an armistice in say 1942 that would have freed up more troops for the eastern front. To say the Russians won WWII is just as stupid and ignorant as saying that the US did it all on it's own.


Also, this:

Location Of German Divisions In June Of Each Year
Country 1941 1942 1943 1944
USSR 34 171 179 157
France, Belgium & Holland 38 27 42 56
Norway & Finland 13 16 16 16
Balkans 7 8 17 20
Italy 0 0 0 22
Denmark 1 1 2 3
North Africa 2 3 0 0

And this:

Luftwaffe Aircraft Used Only Against Allied Bombers
Month Year Percentage
June 1940 0%
June 1941 7%
June 1942 17%
June 1943 21%
June 1944 29%
January1945 50%

Everyone contributed.

IRT the topic, I'm all for supplementing the Raptor with the Silent Eagle for numbers.
 
2012-07-31 01:08:34 PM
I know its already been said, but from the article:

Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight.

The F-22 is not supposed to ever be in a dog fight. They kill your entire group long before you even have a clue that they're in the air, and they do it from very far away.

Its like complaining about a bolt action rifle being bad at winning fist fights. That just isnt the point of the device.
 
2012-07-31 01:12:56 PM

MustTryHarder: Realistically, though, the next major war is going to fought not by F-22s but by against a hundred trillion drones.


FTFY
 
2012-07-31 01:12:59 PM

MadMattressMack: Plus we have a very proficient AWACS platform we didn't have in 'Nam.


Things have surely improved, but I think the E-2 Hawkeye (1961, still in use today), EC-121, PIRAZ picket ships and Teaball/EC-121K Rivet Tops comm intercepts had things covered pretty well.
 
2012-07-31 01:22:43 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: adgi13: tiiger: The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

Combat success rate is actually around 50%, training success rate near 85% according to the internets

From your own link:

"the US AIM-120A/B/C AMRAAM, has achieved a success rate inreal combat of around 50 per cent, but this has been against Third World targets without modern countermeasures, modern warning systems, or indeed pilot evasive skills." (emphasis mine)

The 85% training kill rate is against QF-4 target drones flying in straight lines.

In other words, even given the best possible environment and a massive handicap, the AMRAAM can't achieve anything close to 100% success. To tout its capabilities is like being proud of your kid for getting a B on an exam when you gave him the answer key!

Modern fighters flown by competent pilots, even Chinese ones, will be aware of the missile as soon as its motor fires, BVR or not (infrared carries a long way). This will be followed by ECM, chaff, and aggressive defensive maneuvering. When both sides are armed with BVR AAMs, the scenario has been described as something more akin to a game of chicken, than to clubbing baby seals.


I never assumed nor claimed the AMRAAM could achieve a 100% sucess, I was merely disputing your claim of 17%. And if I am in a stealth airframe, flying agains a non-stealth airframe, even one being piloted by the most competant of aviators, I will be able to fire a BVR weapon against the target that I can see, before he (or she, for my female aviation enthusiests) can fire one against the target that he cannot see. If he subsequently begins "aggressive defensive maneuvering", which I'm assuming would mean turning tail and running, then I have achieved a strategic advantage in that he is now running away from me, with me pointed at him. Unless he is Clint Eastwood and flying a Firefox, I am now in a position of advantage, and he still has to turn around and try to find me before he can then shoot me with his BVR AAMs.
 
2012-07-31 01:24:01 PM

Gleeman: Gdalescrboz: Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century

About that. F-15 part starts around 7:00, relevant BVR miss is around 8:00. Continues in Part 5 of 5.

Not saying the Eagle isn't a great fighter, but most of it's kills have been in visual range. The ROE usually requires visual ID in most situations.

BVR missiles are still very unreliable: (From Wiki)

USAF F-15Cs vs. IRAF MiG-25s
(which were evaded by the F-15s). The F-15Cs give chase, but were forced to give up when the MiGs outran them. A total of 10 missiles were fired at the MiGs.[2]


That example doesn't show that BVR missiles are unreliable. It shows what I said earlier regarding the importance of speed. The weapons didn't fail, the Foxbats just outran the shots. They lived because they refused to be drawn into a turning engagement and the Eagles couldn't catch them (the -25 is wicked fast).

In a shooting war, that's how a Raptor will fight. High altitude coming downhill at a very high rate of speed. Take the shot, fly through, come around and do it again. Just like the Flying Tigers of WWII except that engagements won't be spanning miles, they'll span hundreds of miles.

The opponent won't get a shot in because he's too busy evading the Raptor's shot. He won't be able to chase because the Raptor's running out at supersonic speed but using normal thrust. If he flees, the Raptor's going to simply run him out of fuel and then kill him.

One final note - the Meteor (when it actually enters service and if it lives up to its specs) isn't a super weapon. In fact, it's published range is very similar to the AIM-120C5 already in service and far less than the published range of the AIM-120D.
 
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