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.

 

F-117 Shot down in 1999

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
...but im some way i do agree actually - there are too little being ordered to replace the Eagles (the original task)...


I agree, we need more but unfortunately for us incompetent politicians control funding. The USAF would be happy to meet it's requirement of 381 (and I'm sure they wouldn't mind more) if they could, which is why they are doing everything they can to extend the program. They will even officially request 20 more after funding for the 183 is up.

As for the cost, when you cut the order by a factor of four price will inevitably go up. Ending the program now when the fly away cost of the aircraft is starting to come down is the worst thing you can do. Not only is the aircraft getting cheaper as more are produced but the R&D cost has already been paid for. Killing it now means you get nothing in return for the money already spent, and it's not like the F-22 is useless. Then there is also the question of replacing the F-15's and other aircraft which are currently being decommissioned.




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Reading someone like Riccioni or Kopp means only getting half the truth (at best) and all of the writers own opinion.


Why single them out? If you wish to make a specific claims let start as i think i will easily correct you before you get to making five valid 'corrections' of his accusations and facts.


It's sad intellectuals can be so clouded by their views as to ignore facts and reality.


Sure and what's even stranger is when people like you choose to point this out!


Originally posted by WestPoint23
I agree, we need more but unfortunately for us incompetent politicians control funding.


Would 'incompetent' politicians really give the pentagon that much money to mismanage and waste for so little return? American politicians are giving the American defense industry not much short of both the American tax payers arms and legs and if said defense industry manages to wastefully consume such sums of money while still leaving the US mostly defenseless against it's true enemies why should we blame the civilians and not the specialist?


The USAF would be happy to meet it's requirement of 381 (and I'm sure they wouldn't mind more) if they could, which is why they are doing everything they can to extend the program. They will even officially request 20 more after funding for the 183 is up.


The USAF 'requirements' were for 700 to 800 and 381 is not enough to replace the F-15's or face down the current threats in direct energy weapons. They are simply too expensive and just not numerous enough and 381 or 170 is the difference between not nearly enough and completely inadequate.


As for the cost, when you cut the order by a factor of four price will inevitably go up.


That's not true and what it really means is that the vast majority of the funds have already been expended and wasted and that they no longer have the funds to build 700-800 planes or even 381. This is not a question of 'construction numbers' and 'efficient production' but one of them trying to hide the large scale theft of public funds.


Ending the program now when the fly away cost of the aircraft is starting to come down is the worst thing you can do.


The 'fly away' cost will keep expanding but even thieves knows you can't steal ALL the money so they will in fact build a hundred or so F-22's just to keep the public from becoming much the wiser.


Not only is the aircraft getting cheaper as more are produced but the R&D cost has already been paid for.


The aircraft is NOT getting cheaper ( show me the evidence) and why did the original program allow for 700 + airframes and all the R&D? Why are you pretending that there is much left to salvage in this whole affair?


Killing it now means you get nothing in return for the money already spent, and it's not like the F-22 is useless.


The F-22 is not 'useless' if one keeps attacking third world countries but is it really worth the cost of the plane to continue building it? Why does the cost keep rising as the US congress allocate more funds to build more planes? Why do they keep getting less and less for ever more money?


Then there is also the question of replacing the F-15's and other aircraft which are currently being decommissioned.


But as the author said the USAF will eventually be stuck with 50 odd for continental training and defense with the 2-5 squadrons left somehow having to cover both the pacific and Europe. The might be 'super cruisers' ( not that it is true but lets pretend) but they are not that fast and even if they were the USAF does not have enough tankers to support that many intercontinental/theater bombers AND fighters.

[size =4]

Originally posted by Harlequin
There are some very good points , and some very direct alegations (reading between the lines).


We should compare 'lists' but i think a good many are quite plain and in sight.



but im some way i do agree actually - there are too little being ordered to replace the Eagles (the original task) and teh cost has gone stupidly out of control - cancel now to save $50 BILLION might well be the right choice.


Well since the FED is nearly 9000 billion dollars in debt saving 50 billion might be a start.


Stellar



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Cancel the F-22 and hand air superiority to Europe on a plate? Aint never gonna happen



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Cancel the F-22 and hand air superiority to Europe on a plate? Aint never gonna happen


Your right waynos that is a mistake that the UK would make.
i jest, but a number of times that is just what the UK has done with their designs etc.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Precisely my friend, so you see I speak from experience



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Why single them out? If you wish to make a specific claims let start as i think i will easily correct you before you get to making five valid 'corrections' of his accusations and facts.


They are the two most vocal when it comes to this field, and I think I can manage five. If for some reason you don't want to take my word for it I can always quote the operators.



Originally posted by StellarX
The USAF 'requirements' were for 700 to 800 and 381 is not enough to replace the F-15's or face down the current threats in direct energy weapons.


Requirements change depending on the situation, we're not going to see a one to one replacement but at the same time our main threat does not posses the air arm it once used to have.


Originally posted by StellarX
...so they will in fact build a hundred or so F-22's just to keep the public from becoming much the wiser.


I'm not sure of the exact number but already 103 or so have been through final assembly, all that's left is delivery.


Originally posted by StellarX
The F-22 is not 'useless' if one keeps attacking third world countries but is it really worth the cost of the plane to continue building it?


The F-22 was not designed for third world countries, nor has it been used in such a role ever since reaching IOC. And yes, it is worth the cost given that it has shown to be highly effective in it's mission.


Originally posted by StellarX
But as the author said the USAF will eventually be stuck with 50 odd for continental training and defense with the 2-5 squadrons left somehow having to cover both the pacific and Europe.


Even so that still leaves six squadrons with extras for attrition and reserve, you don't need a large amount of permanent basing in Europe and the Pacific (even though they will be based in the Pacific and perhaps Europe) to achieve a strategic deterrence or a high level of combat capability. The US as you know has quite a capability to deploy expeditionary forces to forward operating locations. Plus, the F-22 will be supplement by the much larger F-35 force in this respect.


Originally posted by StellarX
The might be 'super cruisers' ( not that it is true but lets pretend)...


Oh it's very true, I'm not the one pretending.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Killing it now means you get nothing in return for the money already spent, and it's not like the F-22 is useless.


The F-22 is not 'useless' if one keeps attacking third world countries but is it really worth the cost of the plane to continue building it? Why does the cost keep rising as the US congress allocate more funds to build more planes? Why do they keep getting less and less for ever more money?

Stellar



Well, the USAF wanted to build a whole bunch of B-2's but they ended up building on 21 because of the cost. We haven't lost a single Spirit, and I think the same may happen with the Raptor.


TheRanchMan



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Killing it now means you get nothing in return for the money already spent, and it's not like the F-22 is useless.


The F-22 is not 'useless' if one keeps attacking third world countries but is it really worth the cost of the plane to continue building it? Why does the cost keep rising as the US congress allocate more funds to build more planes? Why do they keep getting less and less for ever more money?

Stellar



Well, the USAF wanted to build a whole bunch of B-2's but they ended up building on 21 because of the cost. We haven't lost a single Spirit, and I think the same may happen with the Raptor.


TheRanchMan



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   




Well, the USAF wanted to build a whole bunch of B-2's but they ended up building on 21 because of the cost. We haven't lost a single Spirit, and I think the same may happen with the Raptor.


TheRanchMan


Doubtfull....

Eventually dectection systems will catch up with the F22 and the B2 and then they will just be planes which cant be seen at effective ranges on old radars.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha




Well, the USAF wanted to build a whole bunch of B-2's but they ended up building on 21 because of the cost. We haven't lost a single Spirit, and I think the same may happen with the Raptor.


TheRanchMan


Doubtfull....

Eventually dectection systems will catch up with the F22 and the B2 and then they will just be planes which cant be seen at effective ranges on old radars.


It's a possibility. But, just as radar evolves, so will stealth technology. Neither will hold still.

Stealth also does not mean invisible and at times it can be seen. I remember reading the book Triumph Without Victory www.amazon.com... about the first gulf war. The book was written in 1993 and even then it said that AWACS would pick up an F-117 every now and then.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Yes stealth will evolve but unless some major design upgrades are done with the F22 and the B2 i doubt they will manage to keep ahead.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Only time will tell...

The Avro Vulcan, an aircraft that had its maiden flight in 1952 (but was sadly retired years ago), has a very low RCS to this very day. That's without RAM or other true stealth features. Pretty impressive!



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
the tail was the `fly` in the ointment - the deeply buried engines and the general shape really helped

[edit on 30/6/07 by Harlequin]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
They are the two most vocal when it comes to this field, and I think I can manage five. If for some reason you don't want to take my word for it I can always quote the operators.


Feel free Wp...


Requirements change depending on the situation, we're not going to see a one to one replacement but at the same time our main threat does not posses the air arm it once used to have.


The main opponents are gaining or retaining strength at much higher levels than the USAF seems to be and the F-22 program is apparently going to result in massive decrease in available power projection ability. Does the US armed forces need new sea wolf submarines ( with so many dozens of LA types remaining) more than it does the the F-22 and how is such logic justified? How long can the F-15's ( which are now older than the so assume badly maintain Su-27's/Mig-29's) and F-16's be kept in air and if they are sufficient why not just continue manufacturing them? The F-16 is useless for anything related to deep penetration strikes and given that fact what and how are such small numbers of F-22's going to be able to clear the skies or protect the type of sortie rates that winning a war against China, Russia or India will require?


I'm not sure of the exact number but already 103 or so have been through final assembly, all that's left is delivery.


I would be very surprised once you supplied me with a source for that claim.


The F-22 was not designed for third world countries, nor has it been used in such a role ever since reaching IOC.


Obviously not and neither was the F-15, F-16 or the Phantom before them yet that's all they have been doing so far.


And yes, it is worth the cost given that it has shown to be highly effective in it's mission.


I must have missed the F-22's combat debut against the Russian or Chinese air forces?


Even so that still leaves six squadrons with extras for attrition and reserve, you don't need a large amount of permanent basing in Europe and the Pacific (even though they will be based in the Pacific and perhaps Europe) to achieve a strategic deterrence or a high level of combat capability.


It would be very surprised if in the end more than six squadrons becomes active. One squadron in either theater will have no capacity to deter the Chinese or Russian air forces even if all F-15's serves till they fall apart. Without the F-15's and other 'regular' aircraft how will the USAF fly more than 1 -1/2 SEAD/DEAD sorties per day?


The US as you know has quite a capability to deploy expeditionary forces to forward operating locations. Plus, the F-22 will be supplement by the much larger F-35 force in this respect.


With a great deal of luck i suppose 1000-1500 or so F-35's might eventually be built but that will barely replace the current fleet of F-16's so i wonder how excited one should get about all that. The fact that the USAF is STILL going after stealth means that it still intends to fight third world nations and refuses to construct airplanes in the numbers that will be required to fight modern air defenses.


Oh it's very true, I'm not the one pretending.


Compared to either the Su-27 or Mig-31 ( i mention them because they have been built in large numbers) it becomes clear that there is nothing special about what is called 'super' in the F-22.


Originally posted by TheRanchMan
Well, the USAF wanted to build a whole bunch of B-2's but they ended up building on 21 because of the cost. We haven't lost a single Spirit, and I think the same may happen with the Raptor.

TheRanchMan


And Tiger tanks could normally destroy half a dozen Sherman tanks and even more T-34's before being destroyed themselves yet Germany still lost the war. You can not build weapon systems with the idea in mind that they can not or should not be lost as that is just admitting that you are fighting wars without public support and thus probably for all the wrong reasons.

Originally the USAF were going to build more than a hundred B-2's but given the general theft that took place only a quarter were in fact build. While no B-2's were supposedly lost so far they have also done absolutely nothing that as many B-52's could not do in half the time taking probably no more casualties.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Midav
Only time will tell...

The Avro Vulcan, an aircraft that had its maiden flight in 1952 (but was sadly retired years ago), has a very low RCS to this very day. That's without RAM or other true stealth features. Pretty impressive!


Not according to RAF radar plotters who described an approaching Vulcan showing up on screen "like a barn door coming over the horizon". Or the RAF Red Flag planners who used a Vulcan to hide three Jaguars flying underneath it. USAF intercepted the Vulcan and while congratulating themselves got bombed by the Jaguars and started complaining loudly about the RAF cheating!



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by Midav
Only time will tell...

The Avro Vulcan, an aircraft that had its maiden flight in 1952 (but was sadly retired years ago), has a very low RCS to this very day. That's without RAM or other true stealth features. Pretty impressive!


Not according to RAF radar plotters who described an approaching Vulcan showing up on screen "like a barn door coming over the horizon". Or the RAF Red Flag planners who used a Vulcan to hide three Jaguars flying underneath it. USAF intercepted the Vulcan and while congratulating themselves got bombed by the Jaguars and started complaining loudly about the RAF cheating!


I have no doubt that at some angles it would have. Even the YB-49 showed up on radar, but at certain angles it was hard to detect. Much like the Vulcan. Now, aircraft that would show up "like a barn door coming over the horizon" one simply just needs to look at either the B-52 or TU-95.

Even the F-117 showed up on AWACS radar during Desert Storm (and other times i am assuming)

As to the Red Flag story, never heard of it. Funny if true


Edit: Typos

[edit on 30-6-2007 by Midav]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
If you don't mind Stellar I'd like to take longer to respond to some of Riccioni's allegations against the F-22.


Originally posted by StellarX
...the F-22 program is apparently going to result in massive decrease in available power projection ability.


Yet it will result in a better ability to conduct missions much more effectively and in a dominant matter.


Originally posted by StellarX
Does the US armed forces need new sea wolf submarines ( with so many dozens of LA types remaining) more than it does the the F-22 and how is such logic justified?


Both are needed, which is why there are programs underway to address both situations.


Originally posted by StellarX
...how are such small numbers of F-22's going to be able to clear the skies or protect the type of sortie rates that winning a war against China, Russia or India will require?


Did I just not say that we need more F-22's? Still, having a few Raptor's and a large force of other systems is sufficient for most likely combat scenarios. It's not like the Russians or Chinese can win an air war against us either.


Originally posted by StellarX
I would be very surprised once you supplied me with a source for that claim.


Sure,...


A total of 131 Raptors are currently on contract, and 101 Raptors have completed final assembly at the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, Ga. Deliveries to the Air Force total 95 F-22s so far. Raptors are delivered at a rate of approximately one every six weeks.


(For some reason I had difficulty posting the link, I have U2U'd it to you, feel free to post it.)

I'm told there will be a bit of fan fare when the 100th F-22 is officially delivered to the US Air Force later this year.


Originally posted by StellarX
Obviously not and neither was the F-15, F-16 or the Phantom before them yet that's all they have been doing so far.


That may not be such a bad thing. It's not like the enemy felt the need to directly take us up on our design capabilities anyway.


Originally posted by StellarX
I must have missed the F-22's combat debut against the Russian or Chinese air forces?


Come one now, lets not be facetious, moot point, but still...


Originally posted by StellarX
One squadron in either theater will have no capacity to deter the Chinese or Russian air forces...


We seem to be (and have been) doing just fine at that even without any Raptor's or Lightning's.


Originally posted by StellarX
Compared to either the Su-27 or Mig-31 ( i mention them because they have been built in large numbers) it becomes clear that there is nothing special about what is called 'super' in the F-22.


Care to enlighten me about the Flanker? As for the Mig-31, being designed for pure speed is not a problem, look at the Blackbird, it did the same, only earlier. What the F-22 does on the other hand is much more revolutionary.


Originally posted by StellarX
And Tiger tanks could normally destroy half a dozen Sherman tanks and even more T-34's before being destroyed themselves yet Germany still lost the war.


Actually from what I heard it was more like ten Sherman's, still when you're outnumbered 1,000 to 50,000 it's bit different than say 100 to 500, no? Give me a Tiger and those odds any day over a Sherman.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   


I have no doubt that at some angles it would have. Even the YB-49 showed up on radar,


There is nothing surprising about the YB-49 showing up on radar, it was not stealthy and neither was the Vulcan. Don't be misled by a vaguely 'stealth like' shape, its returns were immense, not least of which were the ones reflected by the huge exposed fans of its Olympus engines down those intakes which were almost big enough for a man to stand up in.

Read the excellent book 'Vulcan 607' (it really is fantastic) to see what lengths the RAF had to go to to give the Black Buck raids a chance of success, 'low observability' never came into it, the Vulcan presented a massive target and the RAF were very very concerned about it.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I realize that neither aircraft is a stealth aircraft and of course they would show up on radar. I am saying at certain angles, due to their designs, they were harder to detect. Stealth was not on anyone's mind when either aircraft was being built. The flying wing (less so for the Vulcan) is an ideal design for stealth aircraft. The B-2, the cancelled A-12 Avenger II and to a lesser extent, the YB-49.


The United States' first stealth development was totally accidental and quickly forgotten. Shortly after the war, Northrop Aircraft developed an experimental bomber called the YB-49 Flying Wing. As the name implies, the aircraft had no body or tail; it was simply a large flying wing.

by Richard Sheffield
www.flightsimbooks.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If you don't mind Stellar I'd like to take longer to respond to some of Riccioni's allegations against the F-22.


Originally posted by StellarX
...the F-22 program is apparently going to result in massive decrease in available power projection ability.




Did I just not say that we need more F-22's? Still, having a few Raptor's and a large force of other systems is sufficient for most likely combat scenarios. It's not like the Russians or Chinese can win an air war against us either.

How did you figure that, judging by the Korean War, and by how U.S. has always lied about Russian MiG-29 weakness, I'm more than convinced that the U.S. would TOTAL loss and air war against Russia, now China I think U.S. could win that. BTW after reading what Stellar posted even the direct U.S. Military sources, and you still say things like U.S. will win, this clearly PROOVES Americans can not analyse that they've been lid to, BTW did you U2U Stella with the direct source that proves 95 F-22's have been built


[edit on 1-7-2007 by YASKY]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join