It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BillHicksRules
I was thinking of the change from biplanes to monoplanes and the change from props to jets.
Originally posted by tomcat ha
i keep on hearing they should have picked the F23. Why? What are the advantages of the F22 over the F23 and vice versa?
Originally posted by KyleChemist
I worked for a company that did some work with on the F/A-22. The latest rumor going around is that the Air Force wants to scrap the F/A-22 and start from scrtach.
The F/A-22 was designed in the 80's, any thourghly modern fighter would look VERY different from the F/A-22. Check out Boeing's bird of prey.
The real push now is toward unmanned combat aircraft. Unmanned beats manned period. And the US is by far the world leader in Unmanned COMBAT aircraft. No other nation even comes close
Originally posted by BillHicksRules
You and Broadsword's opinion that the Raptor is a leap forward in fighter design is simply that, an opinion.
As is my opinion that it is merely a step.
Lets not fall out over it and lets not hijack this thread arguing over the word leap.
I would rather have such a beautiful woman who works (or has worked) for such a groundbreaking company, as a friend than an adversary.
p.s. I have nothing against the F-22.
p.p.s. I also preferred the F-23 but that was simply the look of the thing.
[edit on 4-3-2005 by BillHicksRules]
Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Just purely wondering here is all, but which groundbreaking company?? Which also leads me to one other question; Intelgurl, are you an aerospace engineer who designs UAVs?? I am just wondering is all, as you seem to have a huge amount of knowledge on all these subjects.
[edit on 5-3-2005 by Broadsword20068]
I think I'd have to disagree there. Any thoroughly modern fighter design would look different maybe, but the time it would take to construct it and test it enough would take so long, that by the time it came into production it too would be outdated. Any modern fighter in production was usually designed about 10 years before, at LEAST. Even the Typhoon was designed 10+ years ago
And I disagree that "unmanned aircraft beats manned by far..." HOW could anyone know this?? It takes a lot of communications and processing power and encryption if you want to fly groups of unmanned aircraft, and there's no way to know if an unmanned aircraft would match up against a manned aircraft. Your field of view for the armchair pilot would be too limited, as they'd be staring at screens most likely, not looking out of a cockpit with a full view. One of the new targeting systems for aircraft is where you just turn your head and look at your target and fire; one could not do that with a UAV.
UAVs will not replace piloted aircraft until an event comes around in which they are used and it is shown that they provide a clear advantage over manned aircraft. Until that day comes, it is all speculation.
Originally posted by Badger
Let's stick an F22 and a Typhoon in an empty 200nm2 box of sky with no external influences. Who wins? Well you'd say the F22 and with some justification.
But let's not go that way, let's assume that the F22 is fighting in airspace that is readily contested, the full works, ground based radar, AWACS, Link 16 or JTIDS or whatever, all of which are fully networked. Is the F22 now so invunerable? I think probably not.
I do have a question I would be grateful for your views on though.
What, if any, advantages would you say the Raptor holds over the latest Euro Canards in WVR combat?
I'm curious on this TVC thing. Someone mentioned earlier that it had been around for a good 15-20 years and yet had never really featured on production aircraft to any great extent. It occurs to me that this is because it isn't actually that useful in combat.
What is the point in bleeding off a huge amount of speed and energy using your TVC to point your nose at an enemy when a non TVC plane with HMCS and high off boresight missiles will probably still get a shot off at you? Surely you just end up slow and vunerable whilst your non TVC opponent is higher speed, higher energy and better placed to avoid your missile shot? Keep in mind that the Typhoon for example, was designed for maximum agility, and despite what some may think, is shown to be EXTREMELY manouverable, even in supersonic flight (one of the design specifications), and is capable of sustained high G manoueveres (not saying other planes aren't).
I'm not claiming one is better than the other, just interested as I haven't heard much that says the F22 is anything particularly ground breaking in this region.
Originally posted by Odium
If the F-22 is so far 'a head of everything else' why are they only getting 179?
Wouldn't it be wiser, to get a large amount of these until a better plane is developed?