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.

 

Current fighter 'flaws': sifting through the rhetoric...

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
In an overview, the flaws of the F-22 and F-35 have been publicized, expanded upon and pointed to...almost relentlessly. Over time, the F-22 has slowly received the respect it likely merited from the beginning. The F-35 seems to be going through the same process.

It has been a difficult process for someone like myself who is merely a 'fan' and having no direct inside connections to sort it all out. Especially in relation to other nations formidable aircraft.

An interesting head to head took place in Malaysia where for the first time F-22s flew directly against Flankers. Little has been said about the results.

Yet the usual backdoor comments paint an interesting picture. One of the veteran posters on F-16.net said that the F-15s defeated the Flankers in 77 out of 91 engagements. We all know what the Raptor does to the F-15s....

Another example was the Indian Flankers at Mountain Home AFB just prior to Red Flag 2004 where very senior pilots flying F-15s basically slobber knocked the Indian Flankers in unrestricted 1v1 engagements. (Kindly explained as likely due to the relative inexperience of Indian's best drivers.)

Without any disrespect intended, the point of this thread is what are the flaws of the EF? What are the flaws of the Raffy? What are the flaws of the Flankers? We know more about the Russian 5th Gen and it's flaws than we do about our allies platforms. Yes, both are for sale and marginalizing the flaws are in the interests of both, but still...

This subject hasn't even been brought up on F-16.net.

All aircraft have flaws. Development flaws. Inherent flaws. It is part of the business, one would think. We know them well regarding the 22s and 35s. How about everyone else's?....

Any insights or information to this question?




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I usually tend to suspect the discussions of 22 or 35 flaws to be either framed as criticism of wasteful spending by government on projects of questionable value (which is a very valid argument) or of such a nature that it's almost transparently a type of disinformation campaign to mislead opposition and create false senses of security and arrogance.

Sun Tzu's Art teaches that you should convince the enemy you are weak where you are strong and vice versa. Lull them into a trap, etc.

This is common knowledge so I am naturally extremely skeptical of sources claiming projects like the 35 are failures and that it's an inferior platform, though I appreciate the cost vs benefit analysis that suggests even if it's a complete success we aren't getting our money's worth.

I do strongly agree we could have invested the funding in areas far more beneficial to society, and agree even more strongly that it's best the government doesn't even have their hands on these funds to begin with (allowing lower taxation and borrowing rates), but I digress.

I think the Rafale and Typhoon are great platforms but they are aging and in theory the 35 is far more useful and effective. The reason we don't hear so much negativity about them, I think, is mostly a mix of politics and economics, and the necessity of disinformation or propaganda being less vital to their mission.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I mean look at this insanity, according to wiki on the F-35 program:


US$1.508 trillion (total with inflation),
US$55.1B for RDT&E,
$319.1B for procurement,
$4.8B for MILCON,
$1123.8B for operations & sustainment


1.5 Trillion?
I realize it's goal is to revolutionize military air operations and maintain operational superiority, which it is likely to achieve to a fair extent or better, but at what cost?

The price tag looks horrific, even if we are talking about combined investment over decades...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I honestly do not know all the propaganda put out by us and our potential foes. However Russia does have an interesting take on the matter. Their T-50 will be operational by 2017 with full production in the same year. Last word we got on the F-35 was 2018 which was originally supposed to be 2015. Many say it will be 2020 before certain variants of the F-35 will become operational.
youtu.be...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


Then there's the factor of a 'strong and formidable' adversary becomes the incentive/justification for further development/expenditures....






edit on 20-6-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

You're talking about the total cost of over 2,000 aircraft, for 60 years of operations. If you were to look at the B-52 or even the KC-135 they wouldn't be that far off.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


Everybody but the American public knows that we have the super secret triangles as a superior weapon to anything that flies through the air. Yet the sale of planes like the F-22 and F-35, especially to foreign operators, helps pay for the exotics. The joke isn't necessarily on those buyers as they help complete a well-rounded defensive posture against the bad boys that must also work very hard to equate themselves with these typical fighters while feverishly working to get into the exotics.
I don't claim to be an aviation expert, but I've seen a low, slow and quiet triangle up close. From my stance, that sighting trumps anything any aviation expert or enthusiast can attempt to tell me about where we stand in the development of our weapons.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

The F-35B is already operational, with the A reaching IOC this year. The C is the only one reaching operational status in 2018-2019. The 2020s date is for FOC.

The T-50 will enter service in 2017, but that doesn't mean it's fully operational.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand that but I see many problems with it.

In 2050 the technology differential will be far more significant than comparisons of the B-52 from it's introduction era to today (and it's fascinating they expect to keep using it many decades into the future as well).

There are all sorts of unknown factors playing into the world of 2050, we don't know the political or economic climate at all, new weapons systems, or refinements of current systems. From new radar, EW, sams, to uav, lasers, etc.

The 52's history is, in my opinion, an anomaly in terms of military aviation. It's completely reliant on air superiority and electronic warfare, and if those aspects were weakened (say, vs a more capable opponent like Russia), it's reasonable to expect heavy losses of 52s in a full scale modern battlefield if used recklessly. You'd have to hold them back until the modern assets cleared out the majority of aircraft threats, then you could safely use them on specific missions.

Also, in terms of benefits to Society, 1.5 trillion could go a long way. From infrastructure and public works to medicine and education, or even bolstering our diplomacy efforts thus avoiding military conflicts in the first place, I can envision what, in my opinion, is a far better range of investments than on a risky military platform.

And as a cynic I cannot help but note the irony of the possibility that a military serves no purpose in our increasingly ludicrous paradigm on the homefront.

If we cannot solve our own internal problems effectively than we risk collapse from within, and that's an all encompassing issue from leadership and administrative aspects to culture and economics, crime prevention, basic transportation and logistics, various other political factors, etc etc etc...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

The B-52 mission has evolved with the changing times, just as every other mission has, and the F-35 will as we go forward. Obviously, if things change enough and the F-35 becomes outdated, and they choose to end it early, costs will go down. But there's no reason to think that it can't fly in some role until then.

The B-52 isn't an anomaly though, as we're learning. The F-15 and F-16 are both pushing 30 years (the F-15 is over 30, with the F-16 around 26 or 27), and will keep flying until almost 2040. The B-1 and B-2 will be flying until at least that long, which puts them into the 40-50 year age frame. As with the B-52, as they age, and any threat changes, so will their mission. The B-52 is currently a missile truck, carrying large numbers of cruise missiles, until the threat is reduced, or unless it's operating in uncontested airspace, such as Afghanistan. It's still highly relevant, but it's not doing day one strikes anymore.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

I've seen some mind blowing unknown aircraft as well, including both a traditional 'saucer' and a 'triangle'. Close enough to know it was what is reported by others and definitely not anything openly admitted by any air force globally.

I'm willing to elaborate on those personal experiences in great detail but don't want to drift this thread too far off the topic.

I do not know their origins or who pilots them, though I have several hypothesis and am open to speculative discourse. I agree with the likelihood that these 'exotics', as you call them, could be in a whole different ballgame entirely in terms of technological superiority, tactical maneuverability advantages, etc.

On another note I still suspect craft like the F-19 Specter could exist and are in operation. At the least it's a fun thought experiment and an interesting investigation to dig into.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Those are all good points.

I suppose the reason is primarily economics as we don't exactly have equal opposition to force a quicker development rate.

Like during WW2 advances in aircraft occurred rapidly as the balance shifted frequently and new ideas were tested in nearly every major engagement.

As the uncontested superpower there simply isn't a dire need for such rapid changes, and we easily outspend and outtech anyone else.

So yes the 15, 16, 18, etc are still good enough for whatever's needed today and well into tomorrow.

I also strongly believe in the concept than even extremely obsolete weaponry remains viable in limited conditions. For example an ancient sword or axe will easily maim or kill anyone of us.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


Sorry, but your examples of places to spend the monies elsewhere strikes me 'feel good' than practical. The 'infrastructure' already produces VASTLY more in fuel/gas taxes than required for maintenance/expansion of our infrastructure. The politicians spend it elsewhere...a political issue rather than an economic one.

Our medical system, in it's current form is flat out insane. The 'medical complex' is bigger and better entrenched than the military version. Again a political issue rather than economic. Likewise, education.

The general opinion, at least on this forum, is until mankind has a general increase in it's sanity, the military is required and deterrence is the greatest weapon we have. In other words, pragmatism trumps idealism.

While your views have validity on the subject, please try to keep the thread a little more on topic.

edit on 20-6-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
I don't claim to be an aviation expert, but I've seen a low, slow and quiet triangle up close. From my stance, that sighting trumps anything any aviation expert or enthusiast can attempt to tell me about where we stand in the development of our weapons.


Again, do we really know for sure that this low slow triangle is suitable for various high-intensity adversarial combat operations?

What if it is a replacement for helicopters in a special-forces logistics or pararescue mission? What if it is an electrostatically propelled very light airship? It might be just a few carbon fiber sheets thick, and a Taliban teenager with an RPG could blow it up?

What if high power enemy radar could disrupt the plasma sheath/warpdrive technology and cause a catastrophic loss of control?

Assuming, as I believe, that the triangles are human-generated technology built on laws of physics in the real world and not arbitrarily powerful magic from the gods...

The SR-71 was a stupendously advanced aircraft for its time, but even back then they wouldn't send it repeatedly over the USSR over well defended areas.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

So yes the 15, 16, 18, etc are still good enough for whatever's needed today and well into tomorrow.

I also strongly believe in the concept than even extremely obsolete weaponry remains viable in limited conditions. For example an ancient sword or axe will easily maim or kill anyone of us.


The business end is in the sensors & guidance systems of the attached weapons & the communication pods, and these get upgraded much faster than the airframe.

I think the analogy is more like a melee weapon with super advanced maraging steel alloy, IR imaging sensors and self-guiding combat gyroscopes being still attached to an obsolete axe handle.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

While I agree with most of those points to an extent I disagree that the general view of the forum is that military is necessary (to the degree that we need 1.5 trillion for a single weapon platform).

I'm think it's pragmatic to view that as insane and that only an idealistic fool could honestly justify such a thing at the end of the day.

I feel politics, bureaucratic red tape, economic considerations, etc, are the only true flaws in the F35 program. As I said earlier I think most technical complaints are either easily fixed or are outright disinformation to confuse and mislead the opposition. So it is still on topic though I was making sweeping generalizations.

And though I agree politicians misspend funds (like 1.5 trillion on a weapon system), and that the medical complex is a corrupt joke, they don't have to be. All of these things could be much better.

We could achieve far more with far less.

In technical terms I think the 35 is an excellent aircraft and will likely dominate the competition for at least 20 years. Beyond that I have my doubts. This also assumes society can survive intact this long without full collapse.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Aliensun
I don't claim to be an aviation expert, but I've seen a low, slow and quiet triangle up close. From my stance, that sighting trumps anything any aviation expert or enthusiast can attempt to tell me about where we stand in the development of our weapons.


Again, do we really know for sure that this low slow triangle is suitable for various high-intensity adversarial combat operations?

What if


Those are all good questions.

We have no clue about the specs of the ufos.
It could range anywhere between the extremes and different models could have vastly different capabilities.

Good post.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


Good points. The only modification I'd make is the 1.5 trillion is really for three platforms, not one. Frankly, considering the age of those platforms you mentioned earlier, that cost was built up by deferring earlier development to later years. The result being we need to virtually replace them all in short order.

edit on 20-6-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)


P.S. From that viewpoint, I wince at the cost, but failing to address the aging fleet earlier drove that price up dramatically.

So painful, not 'insane' per say....unless you refer to the overall situation rather than the F-35 program, itself.
edit on 20-6-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

The B-52 is getting better and better stand off weapons and can easily "orbit" outside of the range of defenses and launch waves of ALCMs and other ordnance at suspected SAM sites, Radar emplacements, troop movements, etc. The F-35 will be flying within these defenses and provide targeting and electronic warfare while also being able to strike targets in a stealthy manner as well. Arsenal ships are the wave of the future and the B-52 is the freight train of arsenal ships. It's going to be extremely hard not to lose all defense against air superiority by the US/NATO in the very near future. With the B-21 around the corner it will be an even harder fight.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Hmmm, so there are no flaws in our allies or potential opposition aircrafts?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join