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.

 

Mission Capable A2G Raptors?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The "A" is typicly included only when someone is trying to get a fighter aircraft project through opposition. The USAF has only had 2 true Attack aircraft since the inception of the current system. (A-1 and A-10) Most of the rest of the aircraft are dressed up fighter planes.




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
FMF,

>>
Well, how come it's F-35 and not F/A-35...??
>>

Don't encourage them...;-)

>>
It's a carrier plane, and definitely an attack plane...
>>

According to one of the big wigs (they change the Program Officer every few years so I don't recall his name) there is at least a reasonable chance that maintenance and training for the JSF will be consolidated to one giant basing complex rather than the 'traditional' West/East Coast (Whidby and Oceana) and Central U.S. (Holloman is current favorite I believe), service-specific, bases.

Given this, as well as the fact that both the Tomcat, the Phantom and Crusader all carried significant amounts of A2G ordnance as far, if not farther, than the Stink Bug, the likeliest reasoning is 'why have two labeling systems for a jet with largely similar components and subsystems?

i.e. It truly does take /millions/ of dollars to generate the manuals and once this is done, they are typically updated on a single database with 'new pages' issued on a three ring binder type basis of yanking the old and inserting the most current.

These days I assume there is some kind of laptop involved but the principle remains the same because everytime you have to replace something which says 'For F-35A only' with 'For F-35A and F/A-35C' you get nailed with text field errors.

>>
And why didn't they think of this before putting the F/A there... Why not go directly to F-22A...??
>>

They did go directly to the F-22A. It was F-22A long after it gained JDAM capability and long before the stink in Congress. Which is in fact why the odor was so rank. Everyone KNEW that the ability to drop bombs did not an attack jet make. Because we had made such a big deal out of PGMs that there had to be /some/ kind of on-plane guidance system (FLIR with laser) or spot-cue (patch map ISAR or datalink exchange with offboard) to generate the targeting.

So it was obvious that the USAF was just fabricating from the outset.

The REAL sadness remains however that the F-22A /is/ a superior bomber.

1. It gets to range quicker. Which means it gets home quicker. Which means it turns quicker. Which means it generates more sorties per day. Which means it can service more aimpoints per day.
2. It's weapons bays, though shallow, have the option of carrying more variety of 'first day specfic' munitions like HSARM, MALD, SDB and GBU-32/35.
3. It is stealthier in all sectors which means it can go -between- the frontal (border) radars and the secondary gapfiller/sector/EWR types without 'flashing' anyone smart enough to look-back.
4. It has the wing area and thrust trust to carry external stores in equally 'large' (AGM-158 JASSM or AGM-154C JSOW) numbers without suffering altitude performance penalties directly related to wingloading and a single engine.
5. It is /probably/ more survivable when hit. It has an interbay keel which protects the engines from each other as much as ground fire and it's systems are dual-redundant by nature. If, _for any reason_, the sole-glowing-hole decides to go dark on the F-35 (As it has on 380 some odd F-16s) your screwed. Because it goes from being a marginal 'fighter' to being a /lousy/ glider. Last I read, they had only lost 6 F-16s (through 1994 when the study stopped) to combat. But of the rest, almost 1/3 were due to engine failure. 95 million dollars per airframe X 1,250 airframes X .33 of inventory = 39 BILLION dollars down the drain. Gee, Thanks.


KPl.


P.S. It should be noted that the USAF has had other 'purely attack' types.

The F-111 was always an interdictor, though the 111D had significantly more (radar) support for 'fighter missions' than is commonly known. The F-111B, though intended to carry long range Phoenix, was not a fighter but a missileer platform (it _could not_ fulfill the escort and air superiority 'fighter' missions.).

And the A-7D was, is and will always be a superior jet to the Warthog in almost every category of smart/under weather and nighttime delivery of A2G munitions. Particularly in the BAI role which is where it really counts.

There are a bevy of other platforms, particularly from the Vietnam period (T-28D, OV-10, A-37B, A-26A, Turbo Porter conversions) which, IMO, probably qualify for the attack designator more than anything else, even though 'observation' (FAC) was (for some) their principle role employment intention.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Thank you... A good explanation...



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Fourth gen fighters actually tend to make fairly decent gliders, but the problem is they usually aren't within thier extremely limited glide range of an airfield when "the sole glowing hole goes dark". The end result is very similar.

*edit* before this turns into a flame war, I guess the real question is what do we consider a decent or a lousy glider? An F-16 aint a sailplane for sure!

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Travellar]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Travellar,

>>
*edit* before this turns into a flame war, I guess the real question is what do we consider a decent or a lousy glider? An F-16 aint a sailplane for sure!
>>

Agreed.

However; the last firm pricing data I looked at on the F-16C.50 was for a multiyear 'line fill' contract for 200 jets in which the asking price was 21 million dollars each. Without targeting pods but with initial weapons/spares.

I think that is still a fair top dollar ceiling assessment for how much I would be willing to pay for any one jet which has such a critical singlepoint failure mode as a single-engine systems trade.

Against which, I would be further willing to stipulate that if you put a glide kit on your 10nm IAM, turning it into a 25nm standoff weapon. And give your jet a FLIR able to 'see' (image and rangefind) building sized targets at 20nm and an InSAR radar able to resolve 1-2m2 target separations from perhaps as much as 60nm. All from 25-30,000ft cruise altitudes.

There is very little in the way of 'traditional' threats (AAA below 85mm and VSHORADS/MANPADS threats below 40,000ft total slant) -on the way to the target- that can touch you.

And those which are so threatening are equal parts expensive and obvious as target signatures needing their own (massive) goalkeeper defense.

At which point you are left with the question of 'how much to stealth and how much to truckify'. IMO, the answer has less to do with the defenses and more to do with the targets themselves.

70-80% of all wars are exactly like those being fought in AfG.

NOT high intensity ops against layered longrange SAMs or vectored intercept. But simply flying over your ground teams until something decides to bite them. Only to swat it's nose with a rolled up PGM newspaper.

If, because you are a manned platform ,you lack the endurance to stick around and do this for 10-14hrs. And if your $$ per flying hour costs are typically 'multirole' huge, (5-7,000 dollars for a single engine, 12-14 for a twin).

Your entire inventory is not equipped to handle that mission.

The most common one in all wars.

OTOH, for those rare occasions where you do face a new-Russia, EU or Chinese threat 'at full depth' or even those of a deep pocketed /client/ state of their's. The number of aimpoints you can generate for like volumes of cash using one way cruise is just incredible.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

2,200 missiles. For 1.6 billion dollars.

If you take 200 F-35 'of any or all flavors' into a theater and fly them at typical utilization rates of 1.5 sorties per day. While losing 1 percent of your mission force (2 aircraft) to the threat. It would take 200 airframes X1.5 sortie:days X2 bombs FOUR DAYS to expend a like number of weapons impacts. While costing you the equivalent of 1/160th the total (256 billion dollars) program price of the JSF.

EVEN IF you had to replace the entire inventory of cruise.

Now take the losses up to 5-7% of your mission force or 10-14 airframes for an entire (Desert Storm like = 30 days) 'all air' campaign. And you have just paid for your entire expenditure of cruise weapons in lost F-35s.

The question then becomes how likely it is that you will need to hit 2,200 aimpoints before the major weapons systems (S-300/400 and Aster as well as MICA and Adder S2A conversions) are all taken out of the picture and you are more or less 'safe' so long as you fly above 15,000ft and Mach .85.

Even in an airliner.

If the number of cruise-struck (critical C2 and IADS) aimpoints is reduced to a lower level, say 200 aimpoints in the first day and 1,100 aimpoints total throughout the war (so that you are only replacing half your inventory of missiles). The F-35 becomes an illogical risk-based investment, even at the initial (2%) loss rate, because the cost to replace those two jets will buy you your ENTIRE first day of war ATO fragged target list.

After which, you can switch to 64,000 dollar GBU-39 Small Diameter Weapons. Off any and all platforms out there, including endurance UAVs.

Instead, what the JSF is really doing, through the export program as much as combat losses, is giving away LO for counterexploitation and further proliferation. And that is simply not acceptable. Because it can come back at you (lone raider penetrates friendly IADS to wreak havoc on friendly fields, packed wingtip to wingtip with jets on the ramp and bombs in open storage.).

There is no question that the F-16 has to be replaced, it was never half what it was advertised to be as a systems-enabled strike fighter and it's combat radius is simply a generation behind where we need to be able to reach these days. The only question is why the USAF, knowing that the job it fulfills for them is that of a precision A2G aircraft striking from largely (A2A) untouchable bases, chooses to promulgate the lie that this MASSIVE investment in manned-LO 'cheap or no' is necessary at all.

I appreciate what the F-22 can do as a GSTF supporter, in those areas which the USN cannot reach from a sea-based VLS and as an escort to bombers which replicate the weapons cabinet depth of DMPI's.

I do not and WILL NOT. /Ever/.

Accept the JSF as more than Georgia-Tex pork which the services are going along with solely to ensure that they can continue to put tacair pilots into cockpits of aircraft that should and could be treated more as theater-strategic assets without them.


KPl.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Man, I'm impressed. You attack the F-22 every chance you get, saying how crappy it is, and how it's short legged, and all this other bunk, and then turn around and say it's a great bomber, and can get there faster, and turn faster, etc. I still remember when you said an F-86 can shoot one down.
Nice flip flop there.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Nah, he was attacking the JSF. untill that last sentance or two.

One thing to keep in mind, re-arming a ship is a heck of a lot more expensive and time consuming, with much greater exposure to non-conventional threat than rearming an aircraft. Still, for the initial "kick in the door" phase of going to war with somebody, or just blowing things up as a political statement, cruise missiles blow the doors off aircraft in terms of cost, risk, and suprise.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Go back and check almost every F-22 thread ever written. He has ripped, cutdown, and attacked everything about the F-22. Supercruise makes it too short legged, loitering over an enemy airfield makes it too vulnerable. Every weapon system made has been attacked by him, especially the F-22 and F-35.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Not to mention every aerial campaign ever fought, every command decision ever taken, oh yes, and telling a MiG 29 pilot with 500 hours on type plus many many more on F-16's on this very board how much more about combat flying and the MiG 29 he knows than him.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Zaphod,

>>
Supercruise makes it too short legged
>>

No. The F-22's ability to do _linear leg_ segments would largely overrule the 'official' (150nm in and out) stated supercruise capability. Effectively, if you send the jet out in a climbup, burn-off, profile using the 'best initial profile' (supersonic from the deck) to leave the initial high Q segment. You could go between 500 and 800nm downrange, in about 50 minutes, before hitting a tanker and then going fence in.

This is a _good thing_. Because it compresses time as much as space into more rapidly regenerated sortie numbers overall.

I _have_ stated that I despise the way the USAF refused to publish good data on the type after mandating that it leave the Edwards complex (110nm Black Mountain SS Corridor) and go to the PMTR where the distance is more like 400nm. Especially in light of one F-22 test pilot who has been specifically quoted as saying that the aircraft 'lunges at the leash' and has to be continually throttled back to maintain a given testcard point for Mach @ altitude.

Thrust minus Drag /rules/ when you have the gas and wingloading to exploit it. Something that idiots like Riccioni refuse to look at, even as they 'disavow all knowledge' of the COE tactics by which stealth _does not_ engage targets irrelevant to it's own mission goals.

But all of the above is in fact the reverse of saying I don't believe in the supercruise ability of the aircraft. Because I do. It is it's principle advantage over all other _strike_ optimized platforms in that you can use fewer tankers to get the job done faster.

>>
Loitering over an enemy airfield makes it too vulnerable.
>>

This is true. The notion of Global Strike has been perverted to mean 'escorting other types' rather than hitting targets independently of the rate of advance and linear (rollback corridor) modes of conventionally signatured and/or subsonic airframes.

When you cannot stay high, fast, clean. 'In and Out'; you become predictable based on those you must defend in similar straits.

Fortunately, the death of the Cockroach and the largely 'inconspicuous' sortie rate presence of the B-2 eliminates some of the mixed-package threat to the Raptors principal role. While the remaining tacair types (excepting the F-35 of course) can at least shoot back on their own at the predominantly S2A biased threat. What it does not do is provide self-targeting for the shots it DOES take. And that largely compromises it's DEAD as much as high value (fixed) capabilities.

It should also be remembered that LO means 'no see'um _too good_'. Not total invisibility. And certainly not total invisibility in all bands. C thru X are probably pretty well covered (4-10GHz anyway). High J and Ka/Ku are not really important other than potentially in seekers. But all the lowband stuff from high UHF up through 2GHz should be able to track the aircraft just fine.
At which point it becomes a matter of handing off the 'fuzzy track' to the various Billboard and Grillpan/Gravestone systems of high end radars and letting their _very_ powerful systems look along a specific sector line for the signature remnants sufficient to guide S-300 using TVM and loft S-400 with LOAL lockons.

If you are slingbombing with a glide weapon like the GBU-39, the likelihood of being in the enemy WEZ long enough for him to get a hard track on you is minimal. But given as all airfields are high value and FO links make it simple to handoff from EWR to silent-on-approach threats with effective ranges on the order of 40-60nm; it simply does not make sense to pound a roped stick into the dirt and say 'from here I shall not be moved' as a function of a TARCAP/Sweep profile that requires close approach to a well defended target.

Yet 'holding the door open' is _exactly_ what the F-22 will need to do if it is handcuffed to the subsonic heavy-IAM force. Because they bomb from 10nm what it does from 20+. And they can be attrited at the full kinematic depth of field what it can only be see at terminal-close distances. Meaning that not only do you have to come close to kill the SAM /anyway/. But your loadouts are going to be biased in such a way that any residual (QRA flushed out of lane, now coming back) A2A threat is going to meet a Raptor force with all of perhaps 4 AIM-120 instead of the 12 they need.

No one will admit this of course because it is effectively admitting that VLO is only good for the initial penetration and ingress. For target area effects, you are still better off with Cruise and Standoff munitions that 'any one can shoot' can shoot.

>>
Every weapon system made has been attacked by him, especially the F-22 and F-35.
>>

That would be a mistake. I despise the F-35 as the grand triumph of profiteerism over principles, indeed /common sense/, as a function of giving away LO to countries that cannot afford to develop it independently without thinking about how instantly this devalues our own hard won lead.

Done to make a bottomline on military prime profit margins happen, it is beyond foolish and into criminal behavior.

The F-22 is more of a disappointment for what it -could do- than anything because with less than a quarter of the investment being thrown at the JSF, we could incorporate all of it's advanced avionics developments into the Raptor and a supplemental UCAV.

i.e. The F-22 is not achieving, as an avionics intensive platform, what it needs to to accomplish the new definition of 'not air superiority, not air dominance but _battlespace_ dominance'.

Nor is this ever likely to be amended as, with only 183 jets online, the F-22 force will be very hard pressed to accomplish the fundamental AAW mission set. And also because, statistics prove that any jet not in production rarely gets more than token upgrades to 'expand it's horizons'.

That doesn't mean that the baseline potential to do better is not there. Only that the physical potential unexploited with electronics finesse makes a hash of our technology doctrine which has always been leveraged by 'a _mix_ of systems capabilities that are impossible to copy all at once, at cost'.

And that's just pathetic because it is yet another instance of JSF partisan greed and military self serving appeasement ruining our armed forces solely for the short term gains to be derived.

Gains which are themselves phantoms in light of the rapidly falling U.S. total inventory purchase (we literally set base-retail price by the size of the USAF fleet), DEWS (flashbulb kills with no countermeasures possible out to 25km or 100km with a mirror relay) and Euro-UCAV 'Gen 6' bypass (cheaper, more production-shared amongst the NATO members especially) of the ever more expen$ive manned option.

All of which 'problems' have been on the horizon since long before the JSF CDA prototypes took wing.

Here too, the F-22 is not to blame because it is both superior to and likely /cheaper than/ the F-35. In all the ways that count.


KPl.


P.S. Just to keep things within the contextual bounds of the original thread title, it should be noted that the latest 'Air Combat' rag more or less confirms all that I have said about the F-22 lacking decent onboard targeting. It seems that while the jets can and indeed do now drop GBU-32 (or a mathematical simulant) on targets, they are typically doing so as a function of prebriefed target sets and where this is not possible have to 'practice rapid data entry' to update coordinates passed from offboard. While the 20:7 A2G/A2A mission qualification ratio being done in FOT&E is indicative of a 'good try' after the IOT&E results basically damned the program with absent capability. Not even the addition of an F-117 pilot (boy I bet he's just snowed under) is sufficient to give the patina of legitimacy to their strike profiles. Profiles (for the tactics manual) which should have been worked up by the EMD fleet almost 3 years ago once they started getting Blk.3 tapeloads to stabilize. Now they just look silly because half their quoted mission relevance either /never was there/ (deep penetration by B-2 prior to tacair arrival in the theater). Or is now going away (F-117 retirement) as function of synergy of 'fewer, better, faster!' platforms. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the notion of the F-22 'defending' these aircraft from unplanned S2A attack especially on it's own (The black jet doesn't have area search and the B-2 crew will be reluctant to illuminate with it's APQ-181, leaving only Predator [slow, vulnerable and unresponsive] and E-8 [late to theater and hard to assure connectivity with] class systems as targeting sources).

Is this the fault of the airframe? No. It is an institutional failure of 'fighters first!' preoccupation with mission roles failing to acknowledge that what made the F-16 a success was that it dropped bombs too. A people failure. Of delayed EMD and block software qualifiaction on a limited functionality test force leading to 'pass or fail' IOT&E which could not possibly give an 'operationally suitable' rating to a platform only half developed. Overall, I rate it as something akin to /opening/ the barn door. And taking a saddle off the rack. With only a newborn colt in the stall. It is again, an act particularly high on the stupid scale because _the essence_ of not merely stealth but strike in general (F-15E 'now we shoot the plane, now we bomb the target) is COE, non confrontationalism, killing threats only valid as interruptions to your tasking. Where 'your tasking' is only as a mission enabler for someone else, you had better make sure you capable in all threat scenarios, whether the enemy comes up in any one or not.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I was going to quote you ch1466, but it would've been WAY too long.

Anyway, it seems the USAF is somewhat picking up on its own mistake with the release of the FB-22 concept papers. Now they want a F-22 tricked out to be a BOMB TRUCK with "not a pound for air to air." Cranked arrow delta with a large internal bay to carry the bombs, keep the supercruise and stealth.

In theory, a mixed F-22 / FB-22 strike force sounds absolutely lovely. Unfortunately, the FB-22 needs way too much $$$ to ever see the light of day as it would clearly require extensive redesign... far more than the Hornet to Super Hornet jump.

Just out of curiosity, what's your technical background on this stuff? You sound far too knowledgable to be just another poster who sources Serbian newspapers for his information.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
The USAF has only had 2 true Attack aircraft since the inception of the current system. (A-1 and A-10)


You forgot the A-7D's the Air Force used in Viet Nam. That would make the total 3. However I agree with your basic point: The US Air Force rarely uses pure attack aircraft. The true Attack Mission is mostly Close Air Support and Battlefeild Air interdiction. Today, these roles are mostly preformed by Army and Marine Corps Helicopters such as the AH-64 Apache and the AH-1 Super Cobra.

Tim



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Well its been while for this thread but I was on the Raptor site today and they have some info about the testing of the SDB (Small Diameter Bomb).
It all looks promising as I saw footage of a test of these earlier on the web and with the abilty to carry eight plus retain A2A (air to air) defence with the side bay. My question is could they still put in 2 missiles in the center bays and only 4 SDB's?


Four SDBs and its BRU-61 carriage can be loaded in each weapon bay of the Raptor, Mr. Randolph said. This enables the F-22 to carry a total of eight SDB weapons in addition to two AMRAAMs.

"The F-22 is the premier Air Force fighter so it is beneficial to give it the air-to-ground capability," Mr. Randolph said. "This capability allows the aircraft to establish air superiority and also perform strike missions. The whole purpose of this testing is to integrate the SDB with the F-22 for operational use."


link: media-newswire.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Just thinking out loud here but I wonder if it would be possible to "bulge " out the weapon bay doors to increase internal volume for more A2G ordnance? On the assumption that this didn't compromise it's LO signature or upset the aerodynamic drag profile to much. This could be applied as a down stream retrofit. And then of course there were the low drag stealthy weapon pods they began developing. Coupled with Block 40 enhacements it could be quite a fine "A" aircraft.

Oh GOD what am I thinking? somebody slap me across the face! That WOULD make it a better A2G'er than the F-35 so it would be unthinkable."SIGH"

LEE.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I guess down the road we could see fitting the plane with bulge doors but I'm pretty sure anything along those lines gives a slighty higher chance of the plane being detected. Its werid though that the raptor seems to be filling into this role when in discusions I have had on here with ch1466 etc seems to point twoards issues when you start to multi role and aircraft. From what I gathered its impossible to create a perfect F/A plane at this time. When you try to it starts to compremize the overall performance of the plane. So I guess my concern turns to if they are making the F-22 A2G capable are they putting it in need less danger due to plane like the 35 that are suppose to fufill that role?



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Canada,

Having worked for the Navy and the Hornet program, I can assure you that Intelgirl is correct! The "A" designation is a Naval aircraft prefix that is not necessarily used by the USAF. The history of this comes from the carrier launch sequence for the boys in the tower of flight ops. The "F's" traditionally went out before the "A's" in any exercise from the boat. Whereas today, you launch rescue helos, then maybe an airborne systems aircraft (AWACS type) E-2, a sonar detection platform or sub hunter, a refueler, some fighters, then attack aircraft, (unless it's a multi-role aircraft that is capable of switching in mid-flight, such as the Hornet). This last sequence is pretty much obsolete now since they can pretty much do it all.
Really it is just what the Navy has always done today, but rest assured that the Raptor will do whatever role it needs to..regardless of whether or not it has an "A" designation anywhere in its name, first, last, or not at all!

Peace, Mondo




[edit on 20-3-2007 by Mondogiwa]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Thanks for the info Mondo as it helps flush ot why the A came into play for the Navy and why there is some unguide ideas about how it should be used. My min concern that I'm say in my above post is that with research etc I have come to the idea that a plane that is asked to do one role with do it extremely well while a plane that is asked to do many will not exell in anyone of those..... I realize planes like the C-130 though have done great jobs in many roles but I guess I'm more so talking about fighter aircraft and their seeming inablity to multi role.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Canada,

I see your point and I apologize for getting lost in the myriad of explanantions about the "A" designation.
If I understand your idea here, you are wondering why the military does not introduce an aircraft that can perform each role as adequately as an aircraft that is designed for a specific role???

If that is correct, my first answer is that the F/A 18 was the first aircraft specificall y designed to do all roles!! Well, can it bomb as good as a specialized bomber?? Well, can it dogfight as good as a specialized fighter?? Great questions, but really, as long as it comes out on top...isn't that it's primary objective??
Also, the F 35 program is the first to offer specific variants of the same aircraft right off the line..a new concept, rather than tweaking it to be a carrier aircraft and so on.

The F 22 is a thoroughbred though, as was the F 15 from its conceptual stage. It's just that the F 15 was so good, that it was incorporated into other roles, which it is fantastic at as well. If money and economics were not a problem, then yeah we would have specialized aircraft for each role. However, in today's fighting world, the demands put on the aircraft and mission coordinators are ever-changing. Thus, the idea of having a workhorse rather than a thoroughbred is the best of all worlds.

The cold war style days of interceptors is gone, we have to be ready to switch roles and do whatever needs to be done, AND have aircraft that can do it all! What do you think of that summation sir??

Peace, Mondo



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I think you hit the nail on the head. In other posts I've mentioned the need for planes to be able assit the troops on the sea of the ground in any task the men and women have to do. At the moment the US is stuck in a war where it can't turn the tide. In the past this is when inovation has been called on to change the dynamic of of the battles are fought.

What I suggest (and you seem to agree) is planes that can perform a variety of roles but I think that wont win the war o terror because that war isn't based on the power of the opponent. In fact its not even a "war" in some sences. What about this? A UAV that sits over a key iraq city even though it may not be able to stop an attack its self it can in any aftermath for sure allow the generals to get the info of what led to the attack and how their enemy is opperating and take out those people because you know where they are because the UAV told you.

Some people my reconize part of this post as having a small similarity to one of ch1466's but it lacks the over the top part of snipers and the comments about "treating iraqis like the pigs they are". His words not mine. I think the UAV almost acts as that police helocopter that you can run from but it just stays over top of you. With the UAV it also can have been senors etc and it has no human pilot to worry about and also can fly high while still getting info it needs.

A little off my original topic but I felt that it was something that occured to me that I should type while I had it in my head.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
My question is could they still put in 2 missiles in the center bays and only 4 SDB's?


You mean one center weapons bay loaded with four SDB's (plus one AMRAAM) and one with three AMRAAMs? If so then yes the F-22 can be loaded to carry four AMRAAMs, four SDB's and of course two AIM-9's.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by WestPoint23]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join