"Clashing Military Cultures"

[Broadsword2004]

This is just from what I have read from various sources, and from a person who works on UAVs, so anyways, IMO, I also wouldn't bet on anyone creating a useable air-to-air UAV anytime soon, as those are pretty complicated, and I was told that by the person who works on UAVs. The communications technology and all that is just very complicated, and there are a lot of factors involved (what happens if your communications get jammed, what happens if the enemy takes over control of your UAV, if the UAV has its own brain, that takes a LOT of processing power, how do the UAVs all communicate properly with each other, how do they know how to fight, for the UAVs to communicate with each other takes some large processing power as well, there's the encryption to your communications, etc.....).

Also, remember no UAV is going to replace manned aircraft until a UAV goes into combat with a manned aircraft and proves itself superior. The gun was a joke at first until it proved itself. The cannon had to do the same. So did the battle tank, the aircraft carrier, the helicopter, etc....so while I am no expert, I think air-to-air UAVs will be awhile off. The U.S. I believe is the world leader in the electronics for UAVs however.

As for the F/A-22, remember a lot of its features are probably classified too, and it is probably capable of stuff no one even knows about. If used in combat, it would probably allow capabilities in a conflict no one ever thought about at the moment. It is designed to be able to penetrate enemy air defenses as well as take on any existing (and future) fighter (according to the Air Force).

If the U.S. ever has to take on China over Taiwan, or even go into N.K., or go wherever (who knows) in the future, the Raptor may be a very good asset. The Russians have no problem manufacturing anti-aircraft defenses and selling them cheaply to other countries.

Also, the U.S. I have read is planning to move its base out of Japan to a small island about 50 miles from Taiwan, which it will share with Japan and Taiwan (I think).

Remember, warfare in the 1970s was a lot different than warfare now with regards to the amounts of electronics and computers used. Even in 1990, the amount of computer tech. used was a lot less than the recent Gulf War 2. In 2030, who knows. Always be prepared as best as possible.

And this is a purely personal opinion, but I don't think the Chinese are pouring massive sums of $$$ into their military so they can just have it sit around and do nothing. A LOT can happen in 30 years these days. Look from 1910 to 1940, 1970 to 2000.

 

[Cyclic]

I feel awkward responding to this as I have yet to begin to process of becoming a Naval officer, but I have discussed this with my boss (former Marine -46 driver) who seems to have a very different opinion, one which I've also seen from others here. What happens to our dear pal Flash if those A-10's you spoke of, for whatever reason, aren't available? My understanding is that the Osprey does what it was designed to do, move more quickly than a traditional helo, yet has trouble working with others as part of a larger whole. It seems as if it would outrun the Cobras and then be faced with the problem of not having any guns sticking out its sides. This presents itself as an awkward situation in my, and my boss', estimation. If we're wrong, please, let us know.

You're right, and wrong. For troop transport yes, it's an issue. For CSAR you're wrong, the USAF is the main over land asset and they don't have Apaches or Cobras, their support comes from HC/AC-130's and tactical jets for CAS, and that what the USAF's requirement for V-22's is.

 

[Ryoukai]

Anyone who thinks they know something about stealth and isn't actually read into those programs doesn't know squat about stealth. So, when I read blanket statements about who can and can not see stealth, I know that they're talking out their ass.

Keeping it real,

Brett

I'm just going by what Congress has forced the AF to release and subsequently released for the public. Where did I make blanket statements that can't be backed up by factual documentation? I NEVER make blanket statements. I wasn't trying to attack the idea of stealth as I think it's cool beans, I was just going after the B-2. It's a documented fact that Australia's JORN has been able to pick up two kinds of American stealth aircraft. It's also a documented fact that during a 12 month evaluation period, the B-2 was fully mission capable a mere 26% of the time and was semi-capable 40-something% of the time. So, somebody can see our stealth stuff anywhere from all the time to 60-something% of the time. Does that wording suit your taste better? I have no idea whether the Raptor or JSF have figured out these hang ups, so I didn't say anything about them and I apologize if you thought I was talking about all stealth aircraft and not just the B-2.

Broadsword: Open up your history book, look up, "Paper Tiger".

Cyclic: Touche. Thanks for the response.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

The F/A-22 can't stand up to the awesome might of this experimental next generation helicopter:

It's able to go Mach1+ and carries Nuclear Weapons.

 

[Ryoukai]

Airwolf is the most badass thing ever...EVER. Only rivaled by that guy with the eye patch who looked like a combination of colonel Sanders, Nick Fury and an Englishman.

 

[Chris Hill]

Most of this new technology stuff is political, and by that I mean international politics. We build the F/A-22 so that we won't HAVE to use it. Who seriously thinks China will invade Taiwan if we have these things stationed in, say, Korea?

I'm not justifying the cost, but sometimes you have to have amazingly good technology for strategic deterrence. Here's a question: How much money did we "waste" on nukes and ICBM's during the Cold War that we never used?

Also, remember the Raptor was a transitional aircraft to the JSF.

 

[Cyclic]

Here's a question: How much money did we "waste" on nukes and ICBM's during the Cold War that we never used?

According to a Discovery channel documentary a couple trillion dollars.

 

[Whalebite]

I wanted to be sympathetic, so I said, "Well, you're flying some very old aircraft."

Davis, a taut, no-nonsense Marine, looked me in the eye and said, "They may be old, but they're good. That's no excuse."

This is fine, if the gear works, good to go......

Meanwhile, Marine aviators fly combat missions in aging jets and ancient helicopters, doing their best for America — and refusing to beg, lie, cheat or blame their gear

I think this is BS, at a point if the gear doesn't work you should blame it and get rid of it, this is blind idealistic BS that the french teach at their war colleges, there is no point standing behind bad gear at the cost of the mission and Marines lives. I hope all Marines know when to throw the BS card and say this is crap, its not good enough for me as a leader, the mission, and my Marines.

 

[Brett327]

I'm just going by what Congress has forced the AF to release and subsequently released for the public. Where did I make blanket statements that can't be backed up by factual documentation? I NEVER make blanket statements. I wasn't trying to attack the idea of stealth as I think it's cool beans, I was just going after the B-2. It's a documented fact that Australia's JORN has been able to pick up two kinds of American stealth aircraft. It's also a documented fact that during a 12 month evaluation period, the B-2 was fully mission capable a mere 26% of the time and was semi-capable 40-something% of the time. So, somebody can see our stealth stuff anywhere from all the time to 60-something% of the time. Does that wording suit your taste better? I have no idea whether the Raptor or JSF have figured out these hang ups, so I didn't say anything about them and I apologize if you thought I was talking about all stealth aircraft and not just the B-2.

Broadsword: Open up your history book, look up, "Paper Tiger".

Cyclic: Touche. Thanks for the response.

Obviously, I can't go into details, but all these news stories that say, "Hey! We can see the stealth aircraft!" are completely unaware of the big picture - so much so, that their statements are meaningless. I know YOU weren't making blanket statements, but the media loves to, so the the bottom line is that you ought not make any judgement on stealth technology, or its merits, based on anything you read in an open source.

Good times,

Brett

 

[Brett327]

The F/A-22 can't stand up to the awesome might of this experimental next generation helicopter:

It's able to go Mach1+ and carries Nuclear Weapons.

How'd they get around that pesky retreating blade issue?

Brett

 

[ben4prez]

One thing to consider when evaluating the F-22 is it's cost to capabilities with respect to the other platforms in the U.S. inventory. For while the Raptor program began as a $35 million/plane project in the late 1980's, it has recently broken the $200 million/plane barrier due to massive cost overruns and a vast reduction in the number of planes to be procurred.

It should also be noted that throughout the 1990s, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress frequently attempted to kill the program only to be spurned by the Clinton Administration and other powerful Senators (mostly from Georgia...where the Lockheed assemble line happens to be located) slipping in supplemental funding for "research" which in actuality went to perpetuate a politically-connected program. Furthermore, the AF slipped in the "A" on the back of F/A to make it a multi-mission aircraft in order to procure more funding for the project. As with the F-16 program during its initial stages, the addition of these "attack" capabilities have added both weight and cost to the aircraft, reducing its initial capabilites as a pure fighter, which it was initially intended to be.

It would seem to me that if the F-22 was intended to be a "transitional" aircraft (which it wasnt - its after the fact justification by the AF for its existence) for the JSF program, it would be pretty worthless now that by the time the F-22 is finally deployable, the JSF will be as well. Might as well take the technology, use it in the JSF and get the benefits of Economies of Scale in a program slated to build over 1000 aircraft than one with less than 200.

The fact of the matter is, the F-22 was built as a Cold War combatant, and as technologically advanced as it is, is somewhat of an anachronism in the current strategic enviroment. Ironically, those aircraft that are the most technologically scrappy and venerable in the AF inventory (AC-130, A-10 and B-52) have been the ones making headlines in the War against Terror. As much as we pilots may hate to admit it, I would argue that the principle role of air power is to support troops on the ground. As such, a $20 million gunship hovering over the battlefield with a titanium bathtub for a cockpit and 30mm cannon on the nose is more tactically and cost-effective than a gold-plated technological dream that can only fly when there is no risk of it being shot down.

Presumably one of its most costly systems was the supersonic cruise capability it possesses. Unfortunately, aside from getting to and from a battlespace, most dogfighting does not take place within the supersonic region. Also, the F-22 has a very short range and would likely have to rely upon the capabilites of Air Force tankers to carry out its mission were it to take part in operations against China from Korea. I wouldn't underestimate the Chinese's determination in taking out in-flight refueling capabilites should be get in a shooting war with them. This would obviously neutralise the Raptors combat abilities.

I will end with this. Piggy-backing on a previous statement, the high cost of the B-2 and F-22 undoubtedly make them "high value targets" for both the USAF and the enemy. AF generals will be squemish about sending their babies into an uncertain tactical environment where they might be destroyed. I just reference the political fall out after the F-117 was shot down over Bosnia to prove what a PR nightmare it is and would be to lose an aircraft as expensive as the Raptor or B-2.

As those of you in the fleet know, those little congressional pamplets the defense companies come out with about the capabilites and revolutionary nature of their systems tend to gloss over the foibles inherent in any weapon.

 

[Geese]

Geese: Have you done any in depth research on the B-2? Is the stealth aspect of it what makes you think it's so great? Here's an interesting memo, Australia can see our B-2s and there's no amount of fancy paint or voodoo we can put in 'em to change that.

Lot's of people can see stealth aircraft, the biggest effect that the stealth has is to reduce the effective radar coverage of the enemy and create huge "gaps" that they can fly through. We've known for a long time that there were technologies out there that could possibly see them, it's no secret. The idea though is that with the huge gaps, they can fly through and around unharmed, if fighters are scrambled to try and shoot them down, they'll never be able to find them because directing fighters to intercept would be spotty and a long shot at best based on coverage gaps and only momentary detection.

The B2 was an evolutionary step above the F117 due to computers that allowed them to design curved shapes that still reflected radar away from the source, and they are continually looking for improvements, such as a new radar absorbant material that can be placed around the edges of panels and negates them having to manually re-apply radar absorbant material every time they service parts of it.

There's more than just visual stealth as well, have you ever noticed how hard it is to figure out which way a B2 or F117 is heading? It's very difficult and easy to mistake their heading because you don't have any visual indicators like vertical stabilizers and empenages. The F22 takes this even further with visual stealth, the strange "paint scheme" is actually intended to provide a measure of stealth and it compliments the smooth blending shapes of the F22.

That's not what this is all about though, the electronic capabilities of the aircraft are just as important, having the best possible sensors for detecting enemy radar signals, compatibility with the best current, and FUTURE weapons systems.

For the guy asking about super-cruise capability, well that is a HUGE advantage. This means that our guys can get to a fight, and out of a fight, much faster than the enemy. If you had any idea of what "afterburner" does to the fuel on board you'd understand. With our current aircraft excluding the F22, you can only go supersonic for a few minutes before you run out of fuel. You just don't go supersonic when you feel like it or that it would be a good idea. In other words, if we have fighters carrying out their mission at super-cruise speed, the bad guys will never even catch up because they'll probably run out of fuel first, even if they are faster.

The F22 may not be something that we need in as great quantities as other fighters, and it may not be something that is used in every conflict (like one against a poorly trained ill-equipped air force), but it is something that we need to keep an edge in the world.

 

[skidkid]

We are approaching the really painful level. Any real discusions of the pros and cons of stealth isnt going to happen in an open forum anyway unless high school and college physics has advanced a lot in the last ten years

 

[Fly Navy]

We are approaching the really painful level. Any real discusions of the pros and cons of stealth isnt going to happen in an open forum anyway unless high school and college physics has advanced a lot in the last ten years

And if it does get to that level, we can just go ahead and lock this thread.

 

[Whalebite]

Highschool and college is the same physics they use to design the aircraft aka voodoo magic