It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Raptor gets it's baptism of fire in Syria?

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
To: Zaphod58 and intrptr

Thanks to you two guys I now know just about what there is to know about the Hornet. It's been fun following your conversation. Contains everything a lurker loves: Tons of information, drama, passion-- well done guys!





posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


I understand what you're both saying. I don't know what the disagreement is about really. In this respect, the F-18 design evolving from the LWF competition into a multi-role fighter (and then further into the larger E/F models), is exactly what intrptr is saying.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Would just like to copy something over from the other thread...

From my understanding this particular target was in some hot airspace. The guys responsible for the strike, Alaska's 3rd TFW is in Al Dhafra at the moment, they recently relieved Holloman's 49th FW. The 3rd TFW's Raptors are equipped with the more advanced AN/APG-77v1 radar which is actually took technology from the JSF's Synthetic Aperture Ground Radar and put it back into the Raptor. This might be very well the optics we are looking through on this video. [Remember the Raptor was purpose built as an AA and the Holloman Raptors are still in this configuration]. This is no mistake that these two squadrons just played a little shell game.

There are a couple drone platforms that has have VERY high resolution ground scanning synthetic aperture radar [IFSAR]. But now which platforms would have an RCS = to or < an F-22 [among other "features"] that would keep it alive above some SA-10s?

Also it is my opinion what we are looking at is IFSAR footage and not FLIR. Please discuss, I could be wrong!



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Except that the F-18 was NOT bought as a straight fighter that had a strike role added on. It was a strike aircraft from the time that the Navy bought it, and had that role from the beginning.
edit on 9/25/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

It could be a C-12J with Angelfire and some of the new optics?



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's almost certainly a stealthy platform, just for survivability issues. A C-12 wouldn't be able to get out of it's own way if someone opened up on it, or Syria sent aircraft to check it out.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It wasn't purchased as a straight fighter, but the strike requirements were shoehorned into the earlier design which was a straight fighter. I guess I don't understand why either of you are arguing haha

The best part is Congress mandated the second VFAX competition to produce a cheaper alternative to the F-14 -- and by the time development shaped out F-18's were costing as much or more than the F-14.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

It's the principle of it. Yes, the YF-17 started as a straight fighter, and had strike requirements shoehorned onto it, but by the time the Navy got their hands on it, it was a multirole strike aircraft. Let's get our history and specifications right.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: gfad

It couldn't have been 5 minutes apart as the still photos were taken during the day time, as evidenced by the strong shadowing of the structure and surrounding trees. The strike occurred sometime after midnight according to the Pentagon and the lack of shadowing in the video of the strike.
It is possible it was multiple airframes (RQ-170's), however IMHO that would have just added un-necessary complexity to the strike plan. Added platforms in the air, added logistics to support those airframes from local bases as the -170 doesn't have global reach. I believe it could have been done with a single high survivable platform (launched from US friendly bases far from the action zones) which I know of only one that fits that bill.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Ignorance, eh? So you have talked to Russian generals? They have told you they have the technology to surpass the U.S. vis-à-vis the F-22?

So share these 'pearls of wisdom' with us. (Of course, the F-22 technology is at least one generation old, there's plenty of newer technology out there if the money was available to develop it)

So far it has been nothing but innuendo from you, so forgive my yawns but unless you can come up with something a little more tangible my views will not change.....



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic Zaph does know more than he admits. Once or twice he let slip just bit about the EW capabilities of the Raptor...nothing that would get him in trouble, just a tease.



edit on 25-9-2014 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I'll agree with you that the Russians have better vodka. :wink:



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I disagree with that assessment.

Evidenced by the fact that Europe had no wars between nations from the end of WWII right up to Putin's incursions into Crimea and the Ukraine. What changed? Massive reduction in U.S. military presence and zero will from D.C..

What you propose, I my view, is a repeat of the ingredients that led to WWII! An isolationist U.S. and multiple powers roughly equal that felt they could pull off their agendas.

In a nuclear era, I have no desire to return to those days. Period.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That's the scenario that worries, admittedly. Theater wide combat, as you say.

Still, much bigger build-ups by our potential adversaries would have to occur before I become overly worried and there are far smarter people than me that watch for that possibility.

We have about 160 odd Raptors left. Russia has about 1/2 a dozen PAKs none of which are combat capable and China is in a similar 'area code'.

Also, I don't fully buy into the "military Industrial Complex" argument. We have a nation and media that cannot abide high casualty rates. The political reality has the political machine wanting high-tech stand-off munitions as any corporation.

It's the military that sets the criteria for development of new systems, not the corporations.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Uh oh, the T-34 was NOT vulnerable to the Tiger whatsoever. There is multiple documentation on as much as 20 and more direct hits on the T-34 by the 88's of the Tiger. It didn't even slow down the 34s.

The 'numbers' in that instance was due to the destruction of German manufacturing capability. Otherwise, the Germans would have built more Tigers and quality would have trumped quantity as the numbers would have been closer, if not matched...just saying..



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I think people are getting hung up on the idea that something had to be loitering over the target for a long period of time to get those images. I don't think that's true at all. Maybe that was the case, but it certainly could have been done other ways. I believe that aholic pointed out that the video of the strike could have been from some SAR imager that was recently installed on Raptors. The first image could have been satellite, and the 'after' image could have been a 170 or something. Even if the 180 was used, I doubt it loitered for days..what would be the purpose unless they were watching for something to happen at that site, like a high value target to show up? Is it worth the risk to fly something like that in broad daylight over enemy territory when other assets could do the same thing ?
edit on 25-9-2014 by quatro because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: gfad

It couldn't have been 5 minutes apart as the still photos were taken during the day time, as evidenced by the strong shadowing of the structure and surrounding trees. The strike occurred sometime after midnight according to the Pentagon and the lack of shadowing in the video of the strike.


Yes, and looking briefly at the lunar calendar they obviously picked their date carefully, this week was darkest one of the month with new moon at the 23rd. Makes the footage even more convincing.

==> www.moon-phases.net...



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

I disagree with that assessment.

Evidenced by the fact that Europe had no wars between nations from the end of WWII right up to Putin's incursions into Crimea and the Ukraine. What changed? Massive reduction in U.S. military presence and zero will from D.C..

What you propose, I my view, is a repeat of the ingredients that led to WWII! An isolationist U.S. and multiple powers roughly equal that felt they could pull off their agendas.

In a nuclear era, I have no desire to return to those days. Period.




It nothing to do with the state of the US military why Putin tried it on.


It more to do with a weak leadership and a people tired of war.


USA is miles away from pre WW2 levels of military and a isolationist U.S policy.

1941 the USA armed forces were outdated, unequipped and far off the military of the UK, Germany and barely on par with Japan.


Now? Even with a 50% cut its still more powerful than Russia, China,UK, France combined.

USA spends $600.4 billion on its military. Even half thats $300 million. China is $120 billion with Russia, UK and France around $60-70 billion.

USA is billions ahead of anyone in the world.

Hell its black budget is bigger than the UK military budget!



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: quatro

Even with the SAR imaging of the Raptor, those would have required a third aircraft to be in the area. There is a video of the strike, and there is no way one of the strike aircraft could have released weapons, and made it to where the video was shot from before impact.
edit on 9/25/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


Uh oh, the T-34 was NOT vulnerable to the Tiger whatsoever.

The link I brought tends to dispute that.


The 'numbers' in that instance was due to the destruction of German manufacturing capability. Otherwise, the Germans would have built more Tigers and quality would have trumped quantity as the numbers would have been closer, if not matched…just saying..

I hear you. it is more complex than just meeting in battle. The Tigers in Russia, their fuel and ammo, repair parts and maintenance crews had to be transported by rail far from Germany. The long supply lines, the fierce Russian winter, made the Tiger less than effective against superior numbers of T34s whose cold weather adaptability and shorter supply lines gave them a further edge.

Matched up though, the T34 had thinner armor, shorter range and less trained crews (they got more experience the closer they got to Germany). Most German Tiger crews had a year of training (at least six months) with a far more powerful cannon and accurate optical sights. Did you read that link?

The stand off ranges of the Tiger in open country made an encounter with a Tiger a forgone conclusion, the T34 generally never get close enough to a Tiger to to be effective. Unless they were in cities, which leveled the playing field. And towards the end when the German war machine was more weakened overall.

In the Allied break out from Normandy the German Armor had to be bombed repeatedly from the air to overwhelm them. Tigers were destroyed by block buster bombs, overturned and on fire, not defeated by American armor.

In the Battle of the Bulge the German armor ran out of fuel trying to find bridges to cross… again not destroyed by Allied armor.

Ultimately the German war department lost the ability to produce enough war materiel to keep up. Thats why they kept envisioning the "Wunde Waffe" or wonder weapons that would save the country and turn the war around. Bigger and more complex but fewer jets and tanks were the result.

Sound familiar?
edit on 25-9-2014 by intrptr because: bb code




top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join