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.

 

The Fighter Mafia may win again

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Or the fact that the likely new CSAF nominee has been selected, because Welsh is retiring this year?

No, no, they'd never do something like that!

And oh, look, to appease everyone, he would be the first non-pilot chosen, but has an extreme interest in space, so the non-fighter guys will get screwed again.




posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Text
a reply to: C0bzz


There's a funny relationship between the Aussie gov't and the U.S. with things concerning the military.


There is nothing the F-35 can do that the F-22 can't. Period. The Raptor is an "F/A". It can even carry more munitions externally than the 35...bigger plane.


Re: range. If you take look at F-16.net, F-22 forum and the thread entitled "internal fuel", you will see the reason for the "lesser range". They narrowed the fuselage to meet the super-cruise requirement-defined as higher than M1.5- and caused less fuel capacity. Hence less range.

Dissecting that 'range factor' a bit and a different picture comes forth. Long distance requires tankers, this restricts ALL platforms to the tanker's speed. Range isn't an issue. Nor is super-cruise. Not a factor WVR either, the fight is on...
. Where the super-cruise in a Raptor off-sets 'range' is entering a combat zone at M1.5 and upwards to M1.8. ALL other platforms are now on full burners just to intercept the Raptor/s....guzzling their fuel! Bye-bye range advantage!!

Almost all 4th Gen fighter are capable of M1.1, perhaps even M1.2 without burners. When it gets to 1.5 and above, there's only the Raptor. So much for the 'range issue'.

The projected capabilities of the Advent engine is an increase of thrust by 10% and range by 25%! So a country could purchase the original F-22, and if need be, or desired could upgrade to the Advent engine....or not.

As far as the bunk issued by the Aussie DOD re the Raptor, it looks like 'same old, same old'. Do what uncle sam tell's em...

If I'm an Aussie....or a Canadian, for that matter, I want two engines, not one. Worst case scenario, do you want to go up against a 5th Gen Chinese fighter in a 35... or a 22?

There's about one F-16 per month digging holes in the ground, world-wide....one engine. Pretty much every nation out there uses two, these days, except, of course the F-35....which was originally designed to replace the Harrier which only required one engine!

It ain't even close, IMH, fan only, opinion.

edit on 24-4-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

And you will pay well over double what you would for an F-35, which means far fewer aircraft to do the same number of missions and cover the same amount of area.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Do you really think it would be double if they bought the original 22s? Maybe double for the new variant-which we probably wouldn't sell anyways- but say at 100 Million a pop, for 'pre-owed' but fully warranteed, not a bad deal.

edit on 24-4-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

They're talking about restarting the F-22 line, and building F-22s exactly as they are now. The Rand report estimated that there would be a non-recurring cost of $554M in 2008 dollars to restart the line, and a total cost of $2B in 2008 dollars. It was estimated that they'd be looking at somewhere around $17B for 75 aircraft, with a hiatus of around 2 years or so. The longer the hiatus, the higher the costs would go. A two year hiatus would have had fly away costs around $260M per aircraft in FY08 dollars. Under current costs, and an increase they're talking about, and the AF would have to find almost $30B, and that's for the version that uses existing, known technology of the aircraft that are flying now.

Nowhere in any of the line restart talk does anyone say anything about an upgraded variant of the F-22 of any kind, beyond possibly updating the computers and electronics. Costs would go up even higher with an upgraded version, and your commonality would go down. It would require specialty tooling, for both production and maintaining the aircraft, if they were to put an ADVENT style engine in, it would require a totally new engine program, which would have to start from zero, and take years to develop, etc.
edit on 4/24/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Something like the first go-around then. Leave off a bunch of 'goodies' that require post-production 'upgrades' that hide the over-all costs?

I guess I'm more than a little naïve. Why start a new line and leave out engine up-grades-which other nations will eventually catch up with- other than burying the bottom line price?

Still, it's the initial
proposal. You can bet it will change and the process goes on. There's the issue of an election that will have a bearing on all this as well.

OK. I will end off on my 'flight of fancy' for now and sit back and see where this takes us.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Because the point is to get a bunch of new fighters quickly that can fill the gap you're facing. If they build them largely as is, the first one can be flying in 5-7 years. If you start adding upgrades, the upgrade has to be developed, then tested on the testbed aircraft, then installed and tested on an actual aircraft before you can incorporate it. So you're looking at 10 years if everything goes well for the first aircraft.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


OK. Makes sense.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So in your opinion is this just a ploy to strengthen F/X & FA/XX bids?



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

No, because they won't be a factor until after 2020 at the earliest and if they do this the first aircraft will roll off before were even close to having a prototype built. This was someone, or some people putting a bug in the ears of people to strengthen their future after retirement.
edit on 4/24/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


There is nothing the F-35 can do that the F-22 can't. Period. The Raptor is an "F/A". It can even carry more munitions externally than the 35...bigger plane.


This isn't true. F-35 has internal 2000 lb weapons stations, the F-22 does not. The F-22 is not a "F/A", it was for a short time but then they changed it back. F-22 is also missing much of the A2G sensors of the F-35, such as DAS and EOTS. F-22 is falls short of the F-35 in terms of communications, which limits operability with other assets, both in the Air Force and in other services.

On external munitions, the F-22 has four external pylons, the F-35 has six. A2G weapons have mostly not been integrated on the F-22, I'm not even sure if it has the capability for this without upgrades.


Re: range. If you take look at F-16.net, F-22 forum and the thread entitled "internal fuel", you will see the reason for the "lesser range". They narrowed the fuselage to meet the super-cruise requirement-defined as higher than M1.5- and caused less fuel capacity. Hence less range.

If you take a look at F-16.net, F-35 forum, you'll see a threads called: "Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future" and "The trouble with the basement dwellers". F-22 for Australia has been much discussed in both of those threads.


Dissecting that 'range factor' a bit and a different picture comes forth. Long distance requires tankers, this restricts ALL platforms to the tanker's speed. Range isn't an issue.

So what your saying is a fighter with 100 nm range is as good as a fighter with 1000 nm, because tankers?

I don't know what range the RAAF requires or how the range difference between each aircraft would actually matter.


Where the super-cruise in a Raptor off-sets 'range' is entering a combat zone at M1.5 and upwards to M1.8. ALL other platforms are now on full burners just to intercept the Raptor/s....guzzling their fuel! Bye-bye range advantage!!

Assuming that the majority of scenarios the RAAF will be involved in will require >Mach 1.5. This is not the case. Also why are we talking about comparing aircraft range when intercepting Raptors? The F-35 is not going to be intercepting Raptors.


If I'm an Aussie....or a Canadian, for that matter, I want two engines, not one. Worst case scenario, do you want to go up against a 5th Gen Chinese fighter in a 35... or a 22?

Of course if flying against other aircraft you would rather be in a F-22. But Australia requires a multirole aircraft of which the F-22 is not. In Maritime Strike environment, supporting the RAN, would you rather the F-35 or the F-22? In a CAS scenario, supporting the Australian Army, would you rather the F-22 or the F-35? In a interdiction environment, working with allies, would you rather the F-35 or F-22? How many 5th generation Chinese fighters currently or will threaten Australias interests? How many other Chinese military ships, planes, bases threaten Australias interests? How does the ADF intend to operate?

Let's change things up a little. If you're in the RAN on a ship, would you rather have a multirole strike fighter, supporting you, or a Air Dominance fighter? What about twice the numbers of multirole strike fighters? If you're a grunt, would you rather have a F-35 supporting you or an F-22?

People have this weird obsession with thinking the only reason fighters exist is for A2A and haven't heard of the term "combined arms".


There's about one F-16 per month digging holes in the ground, world-wide....one engine.

Majority of those are not due to the engine. Also the Class A mishap rate due to engine failures is actually lower on the F-16 than the F-15.


Pretty much every nation out there uses two, these days, except, of course the F-35....which was originally designed to replace the Harrier which only required one engine!

F-35 was "originally" designed for three services AND for export.


As far as the bunk issued by the Aussie DOD re the Raptor, it looks like 'same old, same old'. Do what uncle sam tell's em...

First off, the goals of the ADF are often closely aligned with those of the US Military in our region. Some of those goals are more specific to Australia (i.e. defend northern reaches of Australia). This is well known and you can read about it in the 2016 Defence Whitepaper.

However, I don't see why it is in their interest to dictate which specific equipment would procure. Doing so would essentially mean a weaker Australia, less able to defend itself, therefore more reliant on the US Military for support, and less able to support the US Military.

For example, the majority of the Australian Navy uses European Platforms, with a combination of European, American, and Australian mission systems. Why? Because they are most suitable. Soon the next Australian Submarine supplier will be announced, apparently the Japanese solution is preferred by the US (despite this, the US has stated that it's a sovereign issue) but I'm betting TKMS will win.

No doubt the selection of the F-35 could have been done better, but even if it was the selection or need for the F-22 would never come forth.


The projected capabilities of the Advent engine is an increase of thrust by 10% and range by 25%! So a country could purchase the original F-22, and if need be, or desired could upgrade to the Advent engine....or not.

ADVENT is a technology development program, as far as I know it's not a specific engine. So, there is no telling whether this will ever come to the F-22 or when.


Pretty much every nation out there uses two, these days, except, of course the F-35....

If we're going by what other countries are doing, then it's buy the F-35. But generally I don't like doing things just because other countries are doing them.
edit on 24/4/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/4/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/4/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/4/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz


Sigh, OK. I give in. Your playing semantics here. So the Raptor can't haul 2000 lb ordinance internally. Without upgrades, the Raptor can precisely place JDAMs from an altitude of 50K from at least 50KMs distant. The F-35 cannot.(It hasn't the speed nor altitude capability to do so)

Therefore, following your 'logic' the F-35 can't perform CAS roles? Hardly. Different ordinance, same result. The F/A label is political, obviously.

Your 100 to 1000 range comment is hyperbole, as well. No aircraft currently in service can match M1.5+ of the Raptor, hence extra fuel burnt, again obviously. (Raptor Vs F-35? Really?)

The A-10 doesn't have the electronic capability of the F-35 either....goodness. Is the A-10 therefore incapable of CAS?

The communications issue is easily addressed and hasn't been due the fact they have a means of communication between the Raptor and legacy aircraft, hence a low priority....

You had better research the development of the F-35 before commenting further. There is a video where chief designer of the F-35 stated explicitly that the original "F-35" came about due to the power increase available in the PW F119 engine-which resulted in the F-135-and it was specifically intended for a Harrier replacement. The two other variants were 'after the fact', concepts. Hence one engine, albeit bigger in size.

I'm not trying to diminish the F-35. I am saying with a little imagination and innovation, the F-22 is more than capable of multi-role operations. Toss in it's air superiority capabilities and it would be foolish not to consider it....if it was available....and it's not.

It was just an idea I threw out there. Have a nice day.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And do you realize that all I'm doing is responding to posts in which you are constantly bringing up how poorly you're beloved programs are doing?

I'm the one lambasted as moronic but I'm simply reinforcing the fact that these programs are so horribly mismanaged, that the DOD welfare to these defense companies is running at obscene levels and that these programs are really nothing more than simple revisions to existing designs, yet for some unknown reason, they cannot produce the product on schedule or within budget.

These scenarios only exist in government, do you know what happens when private contractors miss budgets and miss deadlines? They go out of business.

The B-21 is NOT revolutionary, as much as you want it to be. I don't really care what fancy electronics they have, which BTW are already outdated the day they are released.

The F-35 has been one mistake after the next. They cannot even field the plane. Maybe we get to see it go to war in some 4th world air space 2040??

The KC-X tanker really is just a 767 with a large fuel tank. I hope you realize that they never had a problem designing, building and fielding the KC-135 and other tankers and back then we didn't have fancy computer programs and super powerful laptops and calculators.

But now in 2016, they can't add a fuel tank to one of the most successful and reliable commercial airliners in history?

Come on Zaph, you can't be this blind to the repeated failures and fraud going on here.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


Sigh, OK. I give in. Your playing semantics here. So the Raptor can't haul 2000 lb ordinance internally. Without upgrades, the Raptor can precisely place JDAMs from an altitude of 50K from at least 50KMs distant. The F-35 cannot.(It hasn't the speed nor altitude capability to do so)


How is it semantics? One of the requirements for the 'A' variant F-35 was 2,000 lb ordinance internally.

The only sensor the F-22 can use for targeting JDAM's at that distance is either off-board or Synthetic Aperture Radar. The F-35 has DAS, EOTS (including laser for targeting moving objects), SAR (albeit probably not as capable as the AN/APG-77v1) and better datalinks.

It can also internally carry weapons such as Joint Stand Off Weapon (JSOW) (with 130 km range), Joint Strike Missile (JSM) (with 280 km range). And externally weapons such as Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER) (with >1000 km range).

The F-22 doesn't even come close to the F-35 in anything that involves A2G and the F-35 is still cheaper. Likewise, a Block 52 F-16 will trounce a F-15C at anything except air-to-air.


Therefore, following your 'logic' the F-35 can't perform CAS roles? Hardly. Different ordinance, same result. The F/A label is political, obviously.

What does lobbing a JDAM at high speed and altitude have to do with CAS?

My ' 'logic' ' is aligned with that of the Australian DOD. The F-35 is significantly more capable than the F-22 in air-to-ground. I believe this is the case because it has more sensors, better communications, and a greater range of weapons to employ. Hardly a stretch.


Your 100 to 1000 range comment is hyperbole, as well. No aircraft currently in service can match M1.5+ of the Raptor, hence extra fuel burnt, again obviously.

It was hyperbole, my 100 to 1000 range comment was not supposed to be taken seriously. The same reasons why an aircraft with a range of 1000 miles has advantages over an aircraft with 100 miles, are the same as those of an aircraft with a range of 600 miles versus 500 miles (for example).

- It can operate a longer distance without tanker support
- It can operate a longer distance from a tanker
- Refuellings become less frequent


(Raptor Vs F-35? Really?)

My Raptor vs F-35 comment was in response to your comment which said:

"Where the super-cruise in a Raptor off-sets 'range' is entering a combat zone at M1.5 and upwards to M1.8. ALL other platforms are now on full burners just to intercept the Raptor/s....guzzling their fuel! Bye-bye range advantage!! "

Again, the vast majority of the F-35 missions are going to be subsonic, some will be transonic. Few will be beyond Mach 1.2. This was also true of 4th generation fighters. So I will concede the F-22 has much better supersonic performance than the F-35, and has less significant drop in range when going supersonic. Important as an Air Domination fighter. But it doesn't mean that the F-22 range is equivalent to that of the F-35.

On a side note, the F-22 with external fuel tanks will significantly exceed the range of the F-35. I'll concede the range of the two on internal fuel only is similar, probably with a edge to the F-35.


The A-10 doesn't have the electronic capability of the F-35 either....goodness. Is the A-10 therefore incapable of CAS?

The A-10 is designed for flying low-and-slow, with a large 30 mm cannon, and is armored. The A-10C now can carry Sniper XR or LITENING targeting pods.

The F-22 has no optical targeting pod or targeting laser. It isn't designed to fly low-and-slow. It isn't armored. It doesn't carry a diverse range of weapons. It won't come close to the F-35 at CAS.


The communications issue is easily addressed and hasn't been due the fact they have a means of communication between the Raptor and legacy aircraft, hence a low priority....

I don't think the F-22 even has SINCGARs to communicate with troops on the ground?


You had better research the development of the F-35 before commenting further. There is a video where chief designer of the F-35 stated explicitly that the original "F-35" came about due to the power increase available in the PW F119 engine-which resulted in the F-135-and it was specifically intended for a Harrier replacement. The two other variants were 'after the fact', concepts. Hence one engine, albeit bigger in size.

The F-35 is the result of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Before JSF came Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) which also merged with another project called Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) (this happened in 1994). So, one of the predecessor programs to the F-35, was for a supersonic Harrier replacement, which was then merged with another program to provide a strike fighter for three services, which then became another program, which then turned out the F-35.

The U.S. Air Force’s MRF program (1990 - 1993) was for a single engine aircraft. In other words, the F-16 replacement fighter was probably going to be single engine, even before merger with any Harrier replacement. In any event, the F-16 in modern times has been a reliable and safe aircraft, as has the Saab Gripen.

I agree the F-22 can do some multirole missions, but it is largely a Air Dominance Fighter, and that's what it's extremely good at. Maybe with upgrades "Strike Raptor" it would have been an excellent multirole fighter.
edit on 25/4/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

And you realize that every time you open your mouth, you prove how ignorant you are?

The KC-46 took a commercial aircraft, and added the equivalent of another aircraft worth of wiring, extra fuel tanks, military grade defensive systems, equipment to help other aircraft find it, a revolutionary boom system that hasn't been used anywhere in the world. It's far more than "just a 767 with a large fuel tank", but you'd never know that because you don't bother to believe anything that doesn't look like a 24th century aircraft.

The F-35 brings together sensors and computer systems that are the equivalent of three or four 4th generation fighters in one. They can't field the plane, because it hasn't reached IOC, except for the B model. It wouldn't matter what it was, but if it's not at IOC, it's not fieldable, even if it was one of your 24th century space fighters that you so badly want. Again, you ignore everything ever said by the actual people using it and working on it, because you hate it.

You don't even begin to understand anything about the B-21, because all you do is judge the aircraft on how it looks. You think that revolutionary can only occur if you radically change how something looks, and give it a hypersonic engine and make it go Mach 5.

You are not reinforcing that these programs are mismanaged, you are still living in the era of the sliderule and vacuum tube, and expecting things to go perfectly. As for your claims that they "never had a problem designing, building, and fielding the KC-135 and other tankers", you really should actually study history before you make outrageous claims like that.

The KC-135 had problems with the fuel system and ice developing in the fuel causing flameouts, hydraulic systems overheating, engine stator problems, autopilot problems, and flutter problems in the rudder. One of the early aircraft lost two engines while descending to a lower altitude, got them restarted, and lost three just as they touched down because of the problems they had. The huge difference between the two, besides the level of complexity, is that the KC-135 was developed in a time when if you had an accident, it took several days for it to reach some of the newspapers, unlike today, where if your aircraft even has a hiccup it's all over social media 5 seconds later.

When you're building aircraft that do what these aircraft do, you're going to have developmental problems. There has never been a single case of an aircraft designed, built, flown, and fielded that didn't. The more complex the aircraft, the more, and more complex problems you're going to have. You can't build an aircraft that's as advanced as these aircraft are without seeing the problems that they're seeing. It's that simple, and every time you open your mouth about how stupid these people are, or how stupid these aircraft are, you're showing that you don't know nearly as much as you think.
edit on 4/25/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You my friend have my respect for engaging that one. It takes real perseverance for sure. I think the rest of us are too tired of hearing his fact less, nonsensical acidic posts to reply anymore. Lol.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
It is highly, highly unlikely we would export the F-22, even now.

Just my "two cents".



edit on 25-4-2016 by NRoar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caughtlurking
a reply to: Zaphod58
Honestly wish they'd let the hornet evolve 1 more time. The super hornet is awfully underrated because of all the sentimental feelings left behind by the F-14. It's reliable, does everything well, and has shown it can fit the "every role" role.


The biggest thing about the Hornet and Super Hornet is that they can pass everything except a tanker. If the Navy would have kept some other on board tanker assets (S-3 VIKINGS!) I don't think that the Hornets would have that bad of a Rep.

In reference to what Zaphod said earlier, the first Hornet that I ever saw landed on the Forrestal, re-fueled and then crashed on the cat shot (1985). The pilot ejected safely and was rescued by the plane guard helo. (It ticked me off that if it would have happened 20 minutes earlier, I'd have got the rescue.) I don't think that there was any news coverage on that.
edit on 25-4-2016 by JIMC5499 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Text
a reply to: C0bzz


There's a funny relationship between the Aussie gov't and the U.S. with things concerning the military.


There is nothing the F-35 can do that the F-22 can't. Period.


Land on an aircraft carrier



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Text
a reply to: C0bzz

There is nothing the F-35 can do that the F-22 can't. Period.


Helmet Mounted Sight. Infrared Search and Track. VTOL.
edit on 25-4-2016 by Northernhollow because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2016 by Northernhollow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join