Raptor gets it's baptism of fire in Syria?

ETA: or hell it's the 180.

Well what else in the inventory has the hang time this thing did AND has super ninja skills like this thing had to go unnoticed for that long. If there is another platform that has that MO, maybe Zaph knows about it but I don't.

Maybe it was a manned platform and we're barking up the wrong tree, maybe it was a Predator and the AF just didn't care if they lost it or someone spotted it but I'm leaning toward it not being either of those.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Or maybe it's a RQ-170.

we really don't know what the military/NSA/CIA really have as operational aircraft. and they don't sit still with development

a reply to: bigx001

Well, they likely have 1-2 engines. 2 wings, a stabilizer and usually two tail fins.

Most often they make a lot of noise, carry bombs, missiles and have auto-canons.

Most have pilots, some don't but they have really not changed that much since the 70's.

They just cost A LOT more money than they used to, take wayyyyyyyyyyyyy longer to produce and often have minor improvements in performance and anti-detection stats.

Most seem obsolete shortly after they are publicly released anyways.

originally posted by: bigx001
we really don't know what the military/NSA/CIA really have as operational aircraft. and they don't sit still with development

Which is why I don't think it was the -170 as the -170 was supposedly a stop gap measure till the -180's got going. I don't believe the -170 has the loiter time or the survivability in an unknown air defense arena for that amount of time and is older tech than the -180.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: LDragonFire

They had some oxygen system problems and do have quite high maintenance requirements but the F-22 Raptor is the finest jet fighter ever built. It's flight performance, agility, speed and stealth are unmatched.

"Finest" is yet to be seen. It has never had to actually fight… yet. Hell, WWii bombers had stealth. They flew under the radar and stayed off the air. Ploesti comes to mind. Heres some balls to face the enemy…

a reply to: Zaphod58

The "Hornet" was initially designed as a fighter. The redesign was avionics package and wing pylons. You said it yourself…

…was a straight fighter. When it was redesigned and designated the F-18, and sold to the Navy instead it had a strike capability.

It needed to be a bomber, there was a shortage of targets. Now its "both" and does neither very well. Oh yah, and the "F" before the name…

Its not a "B" 18.

a reply to: intrptr

Yes, it has an F. It also has an A. You're right it's not the B-18, because it's not a bomber, it's an attack aircraft.

The F-18 was originally offered to the Air Force as the F-17, which didn't need an attack aircraft. The Navy on the other hand DID. The F-4, A-6, and the A-7 were getting long in the tooth and needed replacing.

When the Air Force selected the F-16 instead, the Navy went to McDonnell Douglas and asked if a strike capability could be added to the F-17, and the F/A-18 was born.

Please though, explain how a straight fighter was supposed to replace an attack aircraft without a strike capability.

fas.org...

a reply to: intrptr

Yet to be seen? Maybe to you. Then you post a video from 1943 which doesn't work. ? It's not hard to see the F-22 is currently the king of air to air. There is little to debate about that. Eurofighter Typhoon and Sukhoi Su-35 are comparable in agility but are at a big disadvantage in BVR. The only thing yet to be seen is a better jet than the F-22. Try to name one.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Please though, explain how a straight fighter was supposed to replace an attack aircraft without a strike capability.

Because the F14 Tomcat was becoming obsolete. A giant gas guzzler that also saw service in the first Gulf War as a sometimes bomber. The Air force had their Eagle and Falcon, the Navy wanted a replacement for the TomCat, Corsair and Intruder.

The juxtaposition became the F18. Vying for both positions and like you said, was first a fighter then a bomber. Thats how i remember it. The ordnance load carried by the Hornet is inferior to the Intruder which stayed on for a while in lieu of any alternative.

Besides Cruise Missiles, the Hornet and Super pretty much fill the Navy's contribution to tons on target. Now I don't have privy to all that you do currently, i was just trying to illuminate that period of the past as I recall it.

a reply to: JimTSpock

a better jet than the F-22. Try to name one.

I'll take quantity over quality any day. History teaches us this. Early on, German Tiger tanks and Messerschmitts (including the jet in the end) were far superior to anything the Western or the Russians had. Attrition by numbers simply wore down the ability of the Germans to replace their expensive aircraft and vehicles in sufficient number to keep up with losses. Same events happened in Africa with Rommel, Kursk, Normandy, and Battle of the Bulge.

That is a lesson lost on todays military in the US.

A handful of super duper fighters still only carry a finite load of missiles and cannon ammunition. If they find themselves involved in a turning gun battle with multiple adversaries who also have cannons in their nose, then the playing field will be leveled and outcome is in question. We'll see.

a reply to: intrptr

That's a separate issue. WW2 again? The F-22 is the best fighter currently in service. Sure if you want 10 Typhoons vs 1 F-22 it might lose. The number of F-22s is another issue. The F-16 has something like a zero to 69 kill ratio in air to air combat which shows how important quality can be.

a reply to: JimTSpock

The F-16 has something like a zero to 69 kill ratio in air to air combat which shows how important quality can be.

Against second rate pilots in older Migs, maybe.

Besides, that fleet is aging, too. The Soviet answer to German superiority was to overwhelm with numbers. Read it and weep.

It applies to any theatre and era. The Greek "300", for instance.

You may keep saying "ours is the best" but that is the folly of fools. its why we get into conflicts and why we think we will never lose.

I might remind you, the US hasn't "won" in a long time. Go ahead and cite the countries we have subjugated. Not invaded or pounded, but subjugated.

a reply to: intrptr

I'd agree with most of your points there but I've said the F-22 is the best and you are really going off on a tangent and talking about all kinds of things there. There is a balance between quantity and quality, too far either way is bad. Like 100 guys with swords vs a tank or two not a good idea.

If you're interested in history I'm sure you'll find the European conquest of South America interesting. And it is debatable just how superior German armour of WW2 really was. Overly complex, expensive, heavy, slow, unreliable, poor in snow and mud come to mind. The T-34 on the other hand was superior in many ways, especially when it was fitted with the 85mm gun later in the war. I believe some of the Germans called it the snow king and they were shocked when it first appeared on the Eastern front. It had both quality and quantity. Not to mention the heavier KV-1 and IS-2 tanks.

a reply to: intrptr

Wrong again. The Hornet was not bought to replace the Tomcat. The F-14 had years of life left when the F-18 was bought. The final stroke that killed the F-14 was the loss of the Phoenix missile, not the Hornet.

The F/A-18 entered service in 1983. The F-14 retired in 2006. The Hornet had nothing to do with the Tomcat.

But you contradicted yourself. A straight fighter can't replace an attack craft. You have to have an attack capability to replace an attack aircraft.

Boy this thread has covered some ground......time alone will tell just how super duper the raptor really is......
There only needs to be an advance in detection systems of some kind to cancel a lot of its advantage.....

originally posted by: [post=18455939]nwtrucker .

So when you say "likely", I say "show me". I say highly unlikely. It approaches the area code of outright bull....

What will we do if their famous line 'We'll send the entire west to your god moloch in 15 minutes ', is not a hollow claim and actually launch it? Would there be any time to react? I think not

a reply to: intrptr

Your right in that we have a 'peace time' defense force. I doubt there are many who would argue against having the full 700-800 Raptors that was originally planned.

Between Bush Presidencies, we shrunk over 50% in size militarily. That shrinking continues. Massive social spending increases have contributed to that.

The biggest difference between the WWII examples and now is nuclear deterrence. It tends to trump the quantity-quality equation, don't you think?

Besides, the F-35 and it's planned volume is supposed to be a partial answer to that.

It's a balancing act with a lot of gray areas.

a reply to: Nochzwei

To quote Alfred E Neuman, "What, me worry?"

There's enough 'possibles' out there to stew about. I don't bother with them. It's not worth the effort..

a reply to: nwtrucker

I really wanted to start a thread on this but alas I am still too young to be doing so. We had a nice little conversation about this over at the B-2s at Fairford thread however...