magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
Agreed that is toolish, but you'll probably appreciate a lack of fighters and SAMs when flying the helos around.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Another "praise the Raptor" article
- Thread starter Lonestar155
- Start date
Agreed that is toolish, but you'll probably appreciate a lack of fighters and SAMs when flying the helos around.
For those of you who know who John Boyd and Pierre Sprey are... an interesting brief on the F-22A:
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Stevenson%20F-22%20Brief.pdf
One of the points in the brief is that few things are actually stealth.
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Stevenson%20F-22%20Brief.pdf
One of the points in the brief is that few things are actually stealth.
That's exactly what I was saying. A good replacement for the F-15's is needed and the F-22 is the balls to the wall replacement that was conceived, but do we really need to be blowing our wad on something that we have no real use for?
And Yes, I'm perfectly aware that Charlie model Eagles are purely A/A machines which is why I said Strike Eagle (the dark gray version if that helps).
That's a good argument for the short term, but we have to think over a longer term than that. While I'm no fan of what the F-22 has become, we can't assume that we won't be challenged by an enemy with a credible air threat in the next 30 years.
Brett
Interesting read!! Pretty much confirms what I was thinking. Reputable sources help too.
I agree Sir. The long term threat is always going to be unpredictable. Hence the argument from both sides of the fence.
That has got to be one of the most simplistic, biased and inaccurate briefs I have ever seen.
Agreed. That was pretty retarded.
Random8145
Registered User
I am no expert at all on this stuff, but isn't the F-22 also needed for situations for example if some third world country has some target in it that needs to be taken out, but said little country also has some sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles and radar that they have purchased from the Russians for example, wouldn't we want the F-22 in this instance?
It could fly in, take out the targets, then get out fast before anyone even knew what happened.
Whereas with F-15s and so forth, I mean they do not have the capabilities of the F-22 at all. It would probably be far more dangerous for the F-15s or F-16s or whatever aircraft they used.
It also would be a psychological thing for said country if they shot down the aircraft of the mighty United States and send a message to other countries, "The U.S. cannot stop us."
The Abrams tank and the Apache were laughed at as well in their initial development stages, could anyone imagine if we'd gone into the Gulf War with the M-60 tanks and so forth?
Like said we own the skies. We want clear dominance of the skies, where we can dominate easily and quickly and overwhelm the enemy.
My (again non-expert!) view of the F-22 is keep it operational, and keep enough around so that the military knows how to use them and maintain them, but not so many as required to fight a world war or anything, however should any big problems arise, we can ramp up production of them if required.
It could fly in, take out the targets, then get out fast before anyone even knew what happened.
Whereas with F-15s and so forth, I mean they do not have the capabilities of the F-22 at all. It would probably be far more dangerous for the F-15s or F-16s or whatever aircraft they used.
It also would be a psychological thing for said country if they shot down the aircraft of the mighty United States and send a message to other countries, "The U.S. cannot stop us."
The Abrams tank and the Apache were laughed at as well in their initial development stages, could anyone imagine if we'd gone into the Gulf War with the M-60 tanks and so forth?
Like said we own the skies. We want clear dominance of the skies, where we can dominate easily and quickly and overwhelm the enemy.
My (again non-expert!) view of the F-22 is keep it operational, and keep enough around so that the military knows how to use them and maintain them, but not so many as required to fight a world war or anything, however should any big problems arise, we can ramp up production of them if required.
I'd be willing to bet that we wouldn't send in even an F-22 without some SEAD going down, no matter how stealthy that piece is. So either way you're committing some conventional platforms to the fight.
I did have the opportunity to chat with an F-22 pilot about the capabilities of the aircraft and I was very impressed. There is WAY more to the package than just a small RCS.
I did have the opportunity to chat with an F-22 pilot about the capabilities of the aircraft and I was very impressed. There is WAY more to the package than just a small RCS.
Bingo. From a strike warfare perspective, not much changes between a Hornet/Mud Hen/Raptor/Spirit. Everyone gets SEAD when a robust IADS is in place. Nobody is going downtown "alone & unafraid." OCA is another matter entirely. Any nation with a robust IADS is going to have an air threat as well, and you're not going to send a section of Raptors on some kind of self-escort strike into bad guy country without some OCA (and AEW).
Brett
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
So basically, us fat kids (VAW, VAQ, etc) still get to play?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/obama-threatens-veto-defense-f-funding/
I gotta say, this is a good move by President Obama...He realizes that we build jets to defend our country, not to provide jobs for constituents. At least on this occasion.
I gotta say, this is a good move by President Obama...He realizes that we build jets to defend our country, not to provide jobs for constituents. At least on this occasion.
Again, you are demonstrating that you don't know the capes of the Eagle, Strike Eagle, OR the Raptor by making statements like this.
Saying that the Raptor is "something that we have no real use for" is phenomenally ignorant.
You can make that statement valid by adding "...in Iraq and Afghanistan" at the end, but as far as the statement's application to overall United States military capabilities, it is about as off base as can be.
The Raptor can mop the floor with absolutely any fighter in operational service worldwide. It is more than worth what we pay for it.
The Eagle is no longer the benchmark for a new fighter, anyway. Anything developed today will have to equal or better the Raptor and Lightning...and such an aircraft would NOT be cheaper than purchasing what has all ready been designed, developed, constructed, tested, and had tactics developed for it (ergo, the Raptor). It's like saying that the 2009 Chevy Tahoe is too expensive to replace your 1991 Chevy Tahoe...so you want Chevy to make a 1999 Tahoe, because it would be cheaper.
I met the late John Boyd in late 70s when he was still working in OSD PA&E and AIMVAL/ACEVAL was topic of the day in the arguments for and against "heavy" fighters. I also met Pierre Sprey and the other Defense Reformers who still hold court every Wed night at Ft Meyers. I also later met Jim Stevenson during his TOPGUN Journal editor days before he fell quite willing under the spell of the reformers and joined their ranks well over a decade later, but tried to chronicle their arguments in his book Pentagon Paradox that decries the development of the F/A-18 (or F-18 as he calls it because he says the slash is not approved by OSD). I reviewed his brief in 2006 when it caused a minor stir amongst the F-22 fans and was heralded by the haters.
Note: it is better viewed after first looking at part 1 of the total brief presented by Pierre Sprey that lays out a history of development of US fighters since WWII and the reasoning behind their choice of characteristics. Both briefs were sponsored by the Center for Defense Information (CDI) (use link to download them both).
That's exactly what I was saying. I didn't say we will never need it, just that it is currently not that effective for what the military is doing overseas. I agree with you that the plane is incredible and does things that other plane could do in the near future, but just wish it didn't cost 350 million or cost the previously reported $44,000/hr of flying time to operate. All I'm getting at is that it seems like a smart move to cut production and invest in the more conventional A/C.