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.

 

Forget the F-22 upgrade the F-15

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
Besides the computers you have at home somehow differ from the ones used at critical applications. You see you have this PC that has irregular performance and is prone to fail at any given time without warning.


Home computers have irregular performance because of the general purpose operating system and software, it has nothing to do with the hardware. In fact, the very same CPUs used in home computers also form the basis for super-computers that must have 100% uptime.


Military computers have to be tested for 100% reliability, that means they cannot fail.


They are tested after manufacturing to ensure there are no defects, the same as any decent chip manufacturer. Beyond this testing there is no way to ensure that a chip will last except in the enclosure design as well as the chip design itself to reduce the chance of heat buildup. An easy way to do this is to underclock a chip, sacrificing a little bit of peak performance for a boost in longevity.


They are custom made and hardly share parts with common PC's. Usually they are custom processors made to perform critical tasks. Making a processor is very expensive and complicated and is one of the reasons american planes have so much better avionics than the rest, they can ask some of theri companis to desing and fabricate a processor. Texas instruments made the Raptor's.

Raptor Avionics


The F-22 CPU, called the CIP is designed by Hughes. Its performance is pretty pathetic. Even the people who wrote that article are aware of this which is why they compared it to the 40 year old Moon Lander computer instead of a modern desktop from Best Buy.




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
Im sorry you bought into that ridiculous sales job with talk of cray computers and defeating 5 F15s.


Rediculous? Are you saying that the Raptor did not defeat 5 F-15s in exercises? Are you saying that the Raptor does not have the computing capability of 2 Cray super computers?


Not only are tests meaningless unless they are carried out by independent agencies but the fact is they released this "info" to the public because they are trying to sell the idea of the F-22.


So every test the military has done is meaningless? Yeah, sure.


In any case, I don't doubt that this was released as a marketing tool. In fact, I completely agree with that notion.


As for the Cray computers, you do realize they are talking about 20 year old cray computers right? Its another piece of marketing that only fools those who dont understand technology.


I can buy that. That would make sense since this aircraft was designed in the 80's.

In any case, do you think that this in any way prohibits the aircraft from performing a task assigned to it? If the computing power it has allows it to do everything that is asked of it, then it really doesn't matter does it?


How about you do a bit of research. Find and compare the following for the F22's CIP and an Intel P4.

Instructions per second
Gigaflops

If youre not too embarrassed to post what you find we'll talk.


I took a quick look on Google, and couldn't find figures for the Raptor, and I don't really have time to spend half an hour sifting through websites only to prove your point.

My reply will be, so what?

Upgrading the F-15 fleet to maximum ability would cost 90% of what buying a whole new fleet of Raptors would.

The Raptor is a FAR superior aircraft to the F-15. It has a longer range, much higher cruising speed, and much greater agility. It's LO design gives it extreme tactical advantage. It has many more capabiliteas then the Eagles as well. It has distinct situational awareness advantages over any aircraft in the world and any planned future aircraft.

Beyond that, the maintance upkeeping cost on the Raptor is only a fraction of the F-15. Thus, over time the Raptors will atually be CHEAPER, and this while giving the USAF FAR GREATER capability.

And if that wasn't enough, buying all of these Raptors will give the USAF MANY more airframes to work with in any future war, because the F-15's will be waiting in storage.

Bottom line is, the replacing the F-15 with the Raptor isn't even a question except for the uninformed.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by orca71
Im sorry you bought into that ridiculous sales job with talk of cray computers and defeating 5 F15s.


Rediculous? Are you saying that the Raptor did not defeat 5 F-15s in exercises? Are you saying that the Raptor does not have the computing capability of 2 Cray super computers?


Yes. It wasnt an independent test so its meaningless. Have you forgotten the "successful" missile shield test and the "95%" success of the patriot missile? When the military wants to sell something to the public they fix the results or falsify. Theyve done it over and over again.



In any case, I don't doubt that this was released as a marketing tool. In fact, I completely agree with that notion.


Me too.



As for the Cray computers, you do realize they are talking about 20 year old cray computers right? Its another piece of marketing that only fools those who dont understand technology.


I can buy that. That would make sense since this aircraft was designed in the 80's.


Which is why its computer is horribly outdated and pales in comparison to modern CPU's running on computers available at Best Buy, Walmart, whereever. Which do you think costs more? A P4 or the CIP?


In any case, do you think that this in any way prohibits the aircraft from performing a task assigned to it? If the computing power it has allows it to do everything that is asked of it, then it really doesn't matter does it?


Thats a circular argument. They wont ask it to do anything it cannot. Fact is, if it was faster they could get it to do a lot more. Not only that, Im willing to bet a P4 is a lot more reliable as well. IBM has a CPU which blows even a P4 out of the water for signal/image processing.



How about you do a bit of research. Find and compare the following for the F22's CIP and an Intel P4.

Instructions per second
Gigaflops

If youre not too embarrassed to post what you find we'll talk.


I took a quick look on Google, and couldn't find figures for the Raptor, and I don't really have time to spend half an hour sifting through websites only to prove your point.

My reply will be, so what?


"What" is your earlier post talking about the CIP like its a gift from God and how it can do all kinds of amazing hocus pocus avionics tasks compared to any other aircraft.


Upgrading the F-15 fleet to maximum ability would cost 90% of what buying a whole new fleet of Raptors would.

The Raptor is a FAR superior aircraft to the F-15. It has a longer range, much higher cruising speed, and much greater agility. It's LO design gives it extreme tactical advantage. It has many more capabiliteas then the Eagles as well. It has distinct situational awareness advantages over any aircraft in the world and any planned future aircraft.

Beyond that, the maintance upkeeping cost on the Raptor is only a fraction of the F-15. Thus, over time the Raptors will atually be CHEAPER, and this while giving the USAF FAR GREATER capability.

And if that wasn't enough, buying all of these Raptors will give the USAF MANY more airframes to work with in any future war, because the F-15's will be waiting in storage.

Bottom line is, the replacing the F-15 with the Raptor isn't even a question except for the uninformed.


Wow, you should go into advertising. Im sorry to say what you just wrote is complete nonsense. There is no independently verified evidence the Raptor costs less to maintain than an F-15. There is no evidence the Raptor offers significant tactical advantages over an F-15, and there is plenty of evidence the Raptor is a significant strategic liability.

If they toss in the sensors from the F-22, they F-15 will be pretty much as effective in 99% of cases, and if want it to be able to handle far more advanced algorithms and do alot more with the signal/image data than the F-22, all they have to do is make a trip to Compusa. Im willing to bet this can be done for tiny fraction of the cost of an F-22. Throw in TVC engines and frame reinforcements youre probably getting close to the cost of an F-16. Alternatively, buy an F-16 with every F-15 systems upgrade and youre still spending a good bit less than on the F-22. We need thousands of excellent aircraft. Not a handful of over-priced show ponys.

Better yet, get rid of manned aircraft and buy into tens of thousands of intelligent UCAVs. Its closer than you think and they will absolutely demolish any combination of conventional aircraft. I can personally assure you of this. You will start seeing public demonstrations in the next few years.


[edit on 9-2-2006 by orca71]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Orca:

The system is designed by Hughes, the processors by Texas Instruments.

Now Texas Instruments doesn't build traditional processors like Intel or AMD. They make DSP's: digital signal processors. These processors have a different function compared to a CPU. A normal processor receives data , computes it and then output it to the system. So there is a time that the processor performs the function between the IN and the OUT.

DSP's, are made for real time processing that means that they translate data on the fly with no time for computation. One use for DSP in our life occurs in digital video cameras where the info from the CCD is digitalised to and written to the tape. Since the CCD captures image data 30 times/sec... there is no time to process the information. It has to be digitised and send right away to the tape.

So when they say that the Computer system onboard the F-22 has the power of 2 Crays, it means performing these operation in real time, A plane doesn't have time to compute. They need all the info now, so its not like the CPU you can buy at Best Buy, its a whole different technology here. There are ultra custom made processors integrated into a ultra elaborate computer system. You don't measure that up in Gigahertz, you measure the performance in the amount of Gb/s the system can process.
And believe your sad little computer couldn't do a millionth of what the F-22 comp system can.

Also on a computer note, there is the redundancy factor. In a critical high performance system the processor is the least important. Memory latency, interconnection and redundancy of components are far more important. The most powerful computer in the world only has 700Mhz processors, but it has a unique system that integrates the memory and the network to the processor so there is virtually no lag time in accessing and transmitting data. Also a system onboard a limited power source such a plane has to be excellent energy efficiency capabilities for power consumption and heat production. Being in a stealth plane only increasing the variables and difficulties.

And when you say that it is full of 80's technology well, foremost military technology is some years ahead of commercial, second they has all these years of development, I have a hunch they might have invested some developing a computer system for the plane...



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
Yes. It wasnt an independent test so its meaningless. Have you forgotten the "successful" missile shield test and the "95%" success of the patriot missile? When the military wants to sell something to the public they fix the results or falsify. Theyve done it over and over again.


I also remember many MANY tests done with overwhelmingly positive results which proved completely accurate. This line of reasoning is silly at best.

Besides, I have spoken PERSONALLY to too many Air Force guys whom I trust to doubt the dominance of the Raptor.



Which is why its computer is horribly outdated and pales in comparison to modern CPU's running on computers available at Best Buy, Walmart, whereever. Which do you think costs more? A P4 or the CIP?


I'm sure the CIP. It is military grade, and has to be shielded from EMPs and generally be tougher, more survivable, and more rugged then anything at best buy. It also has it's price trippled by having parts of it classified.



Thats a circular argument. They wont ask it to do anything it cannot. Fact is, if it was faster they could get it to do a lot more. Not only that, Im willing to bet a P4 is a lot more reliable as well. IBM has a CPU which blows even a P4 out of the water for signal/image processing.


No, it isn't a circular argument. The Raptor was built from the ground up. It has all of the electronics to do what it will be asked to do, and has room to be upgraded in the future.

Can you giveexamples of what the Raptor can not do that more power would allow it to do?


"What" is your earlier post talking about the CIP like its a gift from God and how it can do all kinds of amazing hocus pocus avionics tasks compared to any other aircraft.


Except it CAN and it DOES.

No other aircraft in the world comes close to having it's computing power. No other aircraft in the world comes close to it's avionics package.


Wow, you should go into advertising. Im sorry to say what you just wrote is complete nonsense. There is no independently verified evidence the Raptor costs less to maintain than an F-15. There is no evidence the Raptor offers significant tactical advantages over an F-15, and there is plenty of evidence the Raptor is a significant strategic liability...




Every person actualy involved with the Air Force says otherwise. I'll take the opinion of actual pilots and generals over yours.



Better yet, get rid of manned aircraft and buy into tens of thousands of intelligent UCAVs. Its closer than you think and they will absolutely demolish any combination of conventional aircraft. I can personally assure you of this. You will start seeing public demonstrations in the next few years.


As if I have never heard of a UCAV before.


UCAVs are a long ways off as far as an A2A platform, though I agree that eventually they will dominate airspace.

Let me ask - what qualifies you to give the opinion that "they will absolutely demolish any combination of conventional aircraft."



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Orca,

>>
We need a low-cost aircraft with exceptional systems. The F-15 and F-16 satisfy this need at the moment because we already have them.
>>

Read this-

www.geocities.com...

And this-

www.afa.org...

And it should give you some perspective as to how the numbers games are played and particularly how, once you remove 'sunk' costs of R&D, the F-22 is not that big an increase over the F-15 which was itself valued at 35 million dollars at a program point (in 1984, as the ATF program went black on a promise to Congress of an affordable stealth fighter) which, in it's predecessor, the F-4 we were paying about 4 million dollars per airframe.

The irony here is inherent to a procurement specialists view of airframe development in which his 'first law' is- "Too early to tell (it's too expensive) vs. Too late to stop (because we know it's not meeting spec or is overcost)."

There should be a 'Sticker Shock' counterpoint to this whereby, "Too Much To Handle = Too Easy To Shrink Til Sink..." NOT as a function of airframe quality but rather as a function of _an excuse_ to lower the total inventory purchase until there is no longer an economic justification for the fighter. Period. Because they get to do what is called a 'PAUC' or Program Aquisition Unit Costing' as a function of R&D _plus_ flyaway (out the factory door) creative book keeping.

I say 'creative' because, irrespective of whether they buy 1 or 1,000, the R&D will have to be paid for and indeed usually already has been. i.e. It's been 'sunk'. THAT is where you hear numbers like 183 or 254 million per airframe from.

The USAF, before Congress disallowed it, bought ONE added F-22 for 117 million dollars in preprogrammed FY-03 money. Nominally this was as a 'reward' to Lockheed Martin for making a bunch of production line efficiency improvements. In reality it was the basis for one last fight to keep the F-22 positioned (albeit at about 38 per year instead of the original 64 planned) to reach what they deemed a _minimum_ number required of 380 airframes.

That number is important, as you can see in the above links because, as you take the numbers up, the average cost (Number Bought / Total PAUC) goes down. Until you hit about 74-79 million around 2008.

Don't be fooled by a Congress which chooses to stick it to the manufacturers by backing out of a prearranged agreement (1996 EMD-Production decision, 1998 Service IOC) for 750 airframes. Because if you or I did this and then 'begged off due to price' after WE crashed the prototype and WE stretched out Engineering and Manufacturing development and WE subsequently got MSRP willies. WE would be still be held liable for our contractually agreed expenditures or subject to punitive action for FRAUD, in court.

Lockheed Martin is not in that position. With the A-12 as an example, if you take on The Fed for what amounts to Fraud In The Inducement phase of a contract, even if you win your case, you will be thrown out of the industry 'inner circle' (as indeed GD and Boeing were 'mergered' into other corporations).

If you want to blame Lunch Meat for something, do it for their own greed in accepting 'the followon' (let me slide on this one and I will get you something even better!). Because the JSF was supposed to be the really lucrative deal and if they made a stink over the F-22, they would have watched it be crib killed. Now of course, we are looking at probably 1,500 rather than the original 3,000 (not including FMS) even in the F-35.

And FINALLY Congress is about to get their bacon burnt. Because nobody will buy a 100 million dollar F-35 (you heard me, 'half as good, 85% as much'). And the very foreign seed money they used to get the program rolling will itself play the same "Not enough offset, not enought tech transfer, not enough capability, not CHEAP" politics until they can force a contractual withdrawal.

That being the nature of Euro Lawyering in that they got it all on the dotted line. And Congress didn't think what that meant when it came to having 3-4 production line equivalents (destroying economies of scale) vs. LO engineering tech transfer (the basis of what makes the F-35 'acceptable' if not really good).

>>
Upgrading the engines wont cost nearly as much as buying a new F-15, let alone buying a raptor.
>>

I've already covered some of the difficulties of sticking a hemi V8 big block into an antique Studebaker. I will only say that the F-14B/D Tomcat tried to go the route you're suggesting and because the USN didn't pay to have the intake ramps fully rescheduled to meet the performance demands of the new F110-GE-400 engine, not only did they have to placard out about 40% of the top right corner of the envelope (Mach 1.8 vs. 2.25 service limiter etc.). But all the 'realiability and safety' improvements the service was hoping for in comparison to the dismal TF30 engine, went right out the window as we lost something like 7 Tomcats to high performance work at /low level/ (Max Q) where the engines ate themselves up. Including one on camera as a publicity stunt.

You DO NOT pull a Tim Taylor 'solution' out of your hindquarters in any kind of high performance engineering problem.

A. Because you'll rip the airframe to pieces if it's not a 'tuned' installation.
B. If it's a rickety old beast to begin with, you'll get multiple added failure points not directly related to the propulsion path but to the performance it gives (2002, F-15 loses horizontal stabilizer over the Gulf Of Mexico, all F-15's suspended from supersonic ops for six months while they 'crash program' a fix).
C. If you don't have a supporting tactics set, the improvement may be unusable. Superscruise only gets you a SAM in the teeth from longer ranges if they can see you coming faster, faster as a function of supercruise without LO and high-energy (high Q) airframe performance.

>>
We do not need a "air-superiority" fighter that cannot be properly deployed due to its high cost and small number.
>>

After bad experience with the early F-15As which had avionics equipment whose 'BIT' tests could not reliably isolate faults down to the right LRU, let alone card level. Engines which stalled out at least once per mission. And wings that were so weak that they were effectively replaced on a lot of early blk aircraft, at least once, the F-22 spec was _specifically_ written to be '50% less than' the current (twin, large fighter) MMH/FH spec.

And as far as we can tell, it's been achieved, albeit in many ways this is being driven less by the actual airframe than the collapse of the intermediate shop and depot system wherein all parts are basically Fex-Ex'd back to the manufacturer. If it doesn't work, you will pay a helluva bill in both operational readiness rates and true $$/box for the individual SEM-Es.

It helps a great deal too that the F-22 has a very sophisticated environmental monitoring 'health' system for it's avionics that CAN fault isolate down to a least the rack and usually the card level and that one of the other specs driving system design was that the CIPs have the ability to shift workload and pickup functions that were degrading. Other areas where you see a lot of failure (Radar TWT and Antenna Drives) are simply no longer present on the jet as they are on the legacy platforms.

At least while it's 'still got that new car smell' and _provided_ pilots are strictly restricted from stupid ass stunts like over-G departing the airframe and 'bending it' to the tune of 6 million dollars worth of damage during 'play time' DACM (90% of real combat occurs at less than 3-4Gs with the nose level to the horizon and not another jet in sight), the jet should easily set new standards for M&R (Maintainability and Reliability).

What will be more likely to happen as it has with other 'HDLD' or High Demand, Low Density assets like the E-8 and F-15E is that the Raptor will age badly because it has the socks flown off it. And that is something you can directly thank your excessively greedy Congressman for. Because while the F-22 can do all the JSF's missions except recovery to a boat. The F-35 is not and never will be, an F-22.

That said, the basis of the 183 airframe buy was the notion put forward by Michael E O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute that said we only had about 160 F-15C's 'at the coalface' of Desert Storm. Which is to say over the KTO/ITO areas looking for trade. I disagree with this man in the extreme on a lot of his opinions, not least because there were also about 100 more Saudi F-15's, British Tornados and French Mirage doing the vital-but-dull HAVCAP and Delousing (what was formerly known as 'recovery escort') missions. But the fact remains that if you DO THE JOB. You don't need or want huge numbers of aircraft in theater because /that/ increases your logistics nightmare even as it creates masses of deconfliction problems (particularly for mixed VLO assets).

My point then being that /how well/ you do that job is often largely a function of where you're positioned to create and exploit situational variables of opportunism. An F-22 stuck handholding a bunch of subsonic cow bombers (whether they have AMRAAMs or Gun Turrets) is ALWAYS going to be compromised in what /other/ things it can do.

And such is the nature of VLO that it is your ability to do things /inspite/ of a given threat (say avoiding the need to meet it head on) which defines it's true flexibility. I call this concept 'COE' or _Contempt Of Engagement_. Wherein an F-15E crew has to decide, at some point, whether or not they are there to shoot stuff down or blow things up as function of threats vs. mission accomplishment within a fixed time window of fuel and support jamming/DEAD. But a Raptor needs only decide IF IT WANTS to kill X as a function of getting Y before or after.

Because when you can release a GBU-39 at 60-80nm downrange (what Mach 1.4 and 50,000ft gives you vs. the 25-30nm of subsonic platforms) there is not a single weapons system on the planet which can SEE you to kill you. Before you turn away.

Such is grossly different from current concepts of 'multirole' (fighter sweep on the way to and from the target) or 'swingrole' (today I duel, tomorrow I bomb empty buildings) target. Because those ideals involve submitting to the enemies competency and your own fuel state as to whether you engage or make it home. Or are forced to 'drop everything' (mission kill) to engage and then eject halfway home with neither bombs on target nor enough go-juice to make it back.

>>
We need a low-cost aircraft with exceptional systems. The F-15 and F-16 satisfy this need at the moment because we already have them.
>>

Don't assume that possession is 9/10th of the law unless you're willing to lose big proving your point. And in this case, if you want to drop bombs like a 'utility platform' the F-15 is not even in the running because it doesn't have the radar modes or targeting pod to attack point targets. And it doesn't have the fuel or pylons to do linger while doing so (tanks or bombs, no both). The F-16 has both (at least in the latest APG-68V(9) and AAQ-33 Sniper) but doesn't have the legs. You add 600 gallon wing tanks, internal jammer (necessary to free up the centerline for a 310 tank) and especially the overwing CFT (which are so heavy that even the Greek and Israeli forces don't intend to fly with them during normal 'peacetime' ops) and that 300 square foot wing is going to be loaded down to about 150-170lbs per square foot. i.e. 'To get thar fustest with the mostest' (bombs and gas) is to destroy the Viper as both a fatigue life remaining and tactically effective aircraft.

Point blank: If we had faced Kosovo or even 1991 Iraqi defenses in AfG. Airpower would not have worked. Because you cannot come 700nm north from the _Pakistani_ coast. Or 300nm south from the Kyrghz/Uzbek border. And expect not to either fight your fuel gauge as much as your enemy. Or take decisive Al-Abbas/Hussein (SCUD+) attacks on your basing mode. Heck, you might not even get /theater access/ (politics) to try. As things were, even during 2003 OIF, we were looking at 170-230 minutes vs. 90-110 minutes spent over Iraq in 1991. You sure as heck cannot expect to drag tankers over an unreduced 2010 IADS like we did during Desert Storm.

I'm not saying the F-22 is necessarily better here because the difference between burner and mil is so great that you basically cannot carry enough fuel to be competitive as a 'straight up' warrior. What I am saying is that _COE_ means you don't have to be anything but selective in whom YOU CHOOSE to fight.

>>
About the only thing the F-22 can claim to be much better than is in stealth and super-sonic fuel-economy yet in super-sonic flight, neither stealth nor economy are possible.
>>

Nonsense. Every mission ever flown is 'all about' when the tankers launch vs. the number of pounds available to transfer when they get on station. The 'Fighter Mission' (an hour or more later) then becomes getting to the tanker ON TIME so that you can get your quota'd suck-the-boom totalized and squared before moving up to do whatever your mission is. As the guy behind you comes up to take your place. Every minute you are off your rendezvous clock with that flying gas station is a minute that either it is eating fuel meant for you. Or you are causing a bottleneck of other missions behind you.

BUT. When you ARE the (one and only) asset. And you can vary your timing by virtue of 150-200 knots with relative ease. The nature of the game changes. Because now you can suck down a full 20,000lbs (most tankers are able to offload between 60 and 90, depending on radius and profile). And you're going so fast, so high, so clean, that your biggest concern is getting to that optimum transit point rather than what specifc Mach point/throttle setting you achieve in it. Indeed, the F-22's /best/ (range) performance profile is achieved supersonic all the way from the deck to best cruise altitude.

This implies something which the USAF, Congress and Lunch Meat have collectively decided to LIE, baldfacedly, about in regards to F-22 performance. Namely that if you can go fast, you tend to spend less energy on the runners high than you did sprinting to get there. So that when they say the Raptor has a combat radius of around 400-450nm with 100nm 'supercruise', they are in fact stating something little different from what an F-15 could do.

BUT. If you turn those segments into ONE LONG LEG. What the Raptor can achieve vs. what the F-15 does is _vastly_ altered. This (USAF admission through Lou Drendel's _F-104 Starfighter In Action_) may provide some perspective as to just how much-

The F-104 starfighter has about 8,050lbs of fixed fuel in it's most typical configuration. With that quantity, it might take 5,000lbs and 200nm to get up to Mach 2.2. Yet the jet would then only need about 2,500lbs to go another 500nm. The F-22 has about 20,000lbs (some say 25,000lbs) internal fuel and admittedly two engines. Yet _each_ of those engines produces 125% more thrust in military than the 104's does in full burner. And while the F-22 is not exactly 'needle like', in terms of total friction drag when you finish adding weapons and tanks necessary to turn the Starfighter from a street racer into something lethal, it will have equal or greater drag than the F-22 does. Not least because it will not be able to reach the same heights. An F-22 may very well achieve it's best cruise performance (i.e. thrust MINUS drag) considerably above 50,000ft.

What this comes down to is 500-600nm supersonic transit _to_ the target. And 300nm _each way_ in the target area. At Mach 1.4 or better. NOTHING can touch this kind of capability right now. NOTHING. And it's less about LO than TIME.

Compare this to an Eagle whose high altitude capabilities are _non existent_ in the only 'useful' (A2A and A2A in the same airframe) variant, even in comparison with an /airliner/-

groups.google.com... &rnum=3&hl=en#93dd3975ded9a74b

And further note that while the F-16 has 300sqft of wing area, the JSF will have around 460sqft and the F-15 has a fairly impressive _608_ square feet (not including body lift, under some circumstances the Eagle would fly on the fuselage alone), the F-22 has _840 SQUARE FEET_ of area. In some ways this is bad because it gives you a ton of profile and wave drag at mid-low right portions of the envelope. But in the median 1.5 supercruise at 50K+, it's a god send.

Not least because a Raptor doesn't have to come down into the weather and rough air at 15-20,00ft just to face the nailbiter thrill of 'toboganing' further down hill, plugged into a tanker as it gets heavier and heavier with gas. No, the Raptor can snuggle up behind a KC at 30-35,000ft and suckle all it wants with /lots/ of goose-the-moose and lift in reserve.

>>
In other words, in a super-sonic mission, the F-22 doesn't offer much advantage over an the F-15 in a one-to-one comparison, and on the whole offers a fraction of the capability relative to an F-15 with upgraded systems.
>>

The 'Air Dominance' mission is flown 70% of the time. Maneuvered 30% of the time. And FOUGHT 10% of the time. _That_ is why the F-15 is seen to be 'good enough' as it is simply one of those 'Clean Underwear' assets that you have on just in case of a car crash. If nobody feels they can beat it, nobody will come up to play and it LOOKS LIKE you're invincible. But a single change in the performance parameters of a threat weapons system. Such as a really good, long, weapons pole (Ks-172 or Meteor) can change everything. Because now a MiG-21 Lancer (Israeli Mod Fishbed with EL-2032 radar) can beat the much-over-vaunted F-15. As he can see it. Shoot it. And kill it. Not just 'first'. But _only_.

If you keep the Eagle under these circumstances, you are DARING the other guy to match you in a couple key areas of datalinks, radars and missiles. Only the last of which is not alread extant today.

OTOH, a better comparison with what a jet needs to do with what happens when it does so, would be to the F-4 Phantom. This was a jet which had the tanks and the pylons and the missile wells and the engines to 'do it all'. And therein lay the rub. Because frequently everybody would want a chunk of the mission force in Vietnam and usually that meant the Air Superiority mission got nibbled on first. Which is a REALLY dangerous way to play against an enemy with the reach to come out and bother your SOJAM, ISR or Tanking assets. Because a single kill here can make all the SAMs wake up. All the bombs go awry. Or half the jets _crash_ 200nm short of base. Even when they are only 350nm out from Thailand to begin with.

Again, this is where you have to /redefine/ the mission set. Enormously. By not doing Air Superiority. At least not in the conventional (huge inventory, useful 10% of the time) sense.

1. Remove the incentive to target ISR by saturating enemy airspace with cheap robotic sailplanes ala Predator. If Sum Dum Dingaling chooses to play his 50-60 million dollar Su-30 fleet into bagging 10 million dollar surveillance assets, be my guest. After about the second loss, you will have a Raptor on your behind and it's unlikely you will live to RTB, let alone do it twice more.

2. Do ONE mission: THE ONLY IMPORTANT MISSION in the first 7-10 days of the war. Namely, battlespace dominance. Which is to say the removal of all threats, air and ground and comms-inbetween, from the enemies order of battle. Don't waste time on attacking fixed assets (they aren't going anywhere) unless it's with 1-way Cruise Missiles. Just go in behind a spread of ITALD/MALD decoys and kill anything which lights up or takes off. If it does neither, then hunt it down where it sits, using the Predators. The objective being that, one week after you start, a 747 covered in christmas lights and crinkly aluminum foil, could fly over the capital without being shot at by radar guided threats.

3. Week 2, shift to extreme endurance autonomous vehicles (cruise with landing gear) and hit what you like. An A-45 will fly 1,100nm, stay for 2hrs WITH 2 GBU-31 (the exact same 'first day of war' loadout of an F-35) and come home. Without even looking at a tanker. What's more if someone chooses to pop one, they are only playing with 15-20 million dollar assets and there are no pilots to lose. Which means that an Su-30 that has to come within IRST range of a subsonic LO target (say 15-25nm) is STILL offering up his tail to be kicked by a Raptor that has no qualms about shooting missiles THRU the leading wave of his own dogs to get him.

If you align your force structure towards this kind of progressive air battle, even if you have to have feed a HAVCAP (High Asset Value Combat Air Patrol) in the form of another Raptor pair (as an alternative to an ABL or a B-52 sized SOJAM asset) to protect the Strike Tankers. THEN EVERYBODY SHOOTS. Rather than carrying munitions and wasting gas that is essentially for no yield. With LO and SSC standoff, small teams of Raptos can come in to do the hard part of hitting, not empty SOC/IOC type bunkers. But the _batteries in the field_ which make up the S2A effort. And if need be, the airbases which house the /logistics/ (15-25,000lbs of fuel, per Flanker, per flight.) of DCA threat air (10% rule = 'come up and play, if you dare!').

Two jets per target plus 2 tankers. Plus 1 ABL plus 1 SOJAM (neither of which will likely need refueling it should be said) = 6 planes. Indeed, it may well be that those two tankers are 'additive' to secondary missions. So that they can stick around and gas up /another raid/ hitting another target at the same time or rolling in an hour after the first team comes back out to keep continual 'aggitating the opfor' sense of pressure.

Which is where the F-22 has an extreme advantage over the F-15. Because the F-15 is not one pair of jets but the 4-5 separate /missions/ (or if you prefer, shot types) necessary to back it up. Escorts 6X6. SEAD 4X2. EA. 2X1 (network stereo effect). And tanking 5X for all (three forward, two midcourse). All of which are subsonic (slow to get to the target) all of which cannot /take off/ with enough fuel to stay in the target or even just over the fence without tanking. All of which lack the radiated power and standoff munitions (180-250nm, minimum) to offset their own conventional signatures. And so it is _very likely_ that they will be engaged and have to use maximum thrust which only furthers their fuel debit on return to the tanker.

Total? 19 jets FOR EACH TARGET HIT.

Each needing multiple refuelings at different points of the radius because they are all different airframes. Each HAVING TO HAVE the other mission elements to 'do good work', synergistically, survivably, even once they reach combat area.


CONCLUSION:
If you see the Raptor the way Congress and the Air Farce intends you to, you will see it as an AAW (Air To Air Warfare) restricted asset. In being so duped however; you will be 'breaking the rules' on my principle doctrine of COE which, in this case, comes down to _never_ doing a mission that you do not /choose to/. Or which doesn't directly contribute to how /followon/ missions are accomplished without need for your presence at all.

COE is thus not simply a fear based tactic for controlling attrition and in-air logistics. It's also an opportunistic targeting preference that serves to turn every air asset into contributors rather than a Clean Underwear insurance policy.

I would not see F-22s guarding New York, that's like Lloyds underwriting a rowboat. I would not see F-15s playing second-string alternate (shotgun escort) for strike packages or even as HAVCAPs because they cannot beat an Su-30, dominantly, without serious upgrade. And they cannot beat the S-300, period. An F-16 can guard CONUS from any threat which has to cross our shores to do damage. And only our F-16 force has the numbers to achieve this, nationwide. While _neither teen jet_ can do the COE mission which _removes the need_ for air superiority. By hauling bombs and missiles independent of threat or profile:radius (as a test, one F-15E flew from Doha Qatar in the PG to Kabul and back. It took 17hrs to deliver 3 bombs.) so much as 'for preference' of engagement.

That only leaves the question of 'why not the JSF' instead of the Raptor as well and this simply comes down to the JSF having too few of anything to achieve COE (no SSC threat avoidance or slingbomb extension or time-to-radius compression, only 2 internal AAM, no internal ARM, 'open' rear quarter LO, and it's within 40 million of the F-22 in total systems cost for an inventory that will numerically be THREE TIMES, the total cost of an equal-capability Raptor inventory.).

We have too few Raptors to be useful. We will /never/ have enough JSF's to standin take their place. Upgrading the F-15/16 only steals money from either program for assets that are (developmentally) dead in the water right now.

And the damnable Air Farce, having successfully mud wrestled the J-UCAS program management away from the grownups at DARPA, just killed it to preserve their mafia like territorial hold on nothing more or less than 'Budget Dominance'. The only battlefield they really care about fighting over. With J-UCAS as your penetrating asset, you /might/ get away with the F-15 as a VLRAAM missileer asset. Without it, you don't stand a chance.


KPl.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by ch1466]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466I would not see F-15s playing second-string alternate (shotgun escort) for strike packages or even as HAVCAPs because they cannot beat an Su-30, dominantly, without serious upgrade.
KPl.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by ch1466]

I almost missed the most important word in that sentence. Sure, An F-15 can beat an SU-30, but can it do it every time?

:applause:
Well said!



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
Orca:

The system is designed by Hughes, the processors by Texas Instruments.

Now Texas Instruments doesn't build traditional processors like Intel or AMD. They make DSP's: digital signal processors. These processors have a different function compared to a CPU. A normal processor receives data , computes it and then output it to the system. So there is a time that the processor performs the function between the IN and the OUT.


No. The only difference between a normal CPU and a DSP is that a normal CPU has a lot more added functionality to assist in general purpose tasks such as out of order execution, branch prediction, multi-threading, etc.

DSPs typically work with predictable streaming data so they can get away with being fairly simple.

However in terms of peak throughput for streaming data its the same equation regardless of the complexity of the chip so that when it comes to streaming data the metrics are directly comparable (operations per second). An Intel P4 easily outperforms the CIP in streaming tasks which is precisely the type of task the CIP was designed for.


DSP's, are made for real time processing that means that they translate data on the fly with no time for computation.


You might want to have a chat with einstein about that. Last time I checked e=mcsquared still stands. Im sorry to say the rest of your post is equally nonsensical. No offense but before you make a post about computer hardware you really ought to learn some of the basics.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

And the damnable Air Farce, having successfully mud wrestled the J-UCAS program management away from the grownups at DARPA, just killed it to preserve their mafia like territorial hold on nothing more or less than 'Budget Dominance'. The only battlefield they really care about fighting over.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by ch1466]


Well that pretty much sums it up nicely.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar

Originally posted by ch1466I would not see F-15s playing second-string alternate (shotgun escort) for strike packages or even as HAVCAPs because they cannot beat an Su-30, dominantly, without serious upgrade.
KPl.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by ch1466]

I almost missed the most important word in that sentence. Sure, An F-15 can beat an SU-30, but can it do it every time?

:applause:
Well said!


The other key word in that sentence is "serious" in reference to the next word, "upgrade" because "upgrade" can follow many paths, the most important of which is in systems (avionics, missile, etc) not airframe or engines. Any flight performance superiority the Su-30 has can easily be countered with other improvements. The F-15 flies well enough has it is. In an independent cost-benefit analysis upgrading engines (or buying F-22s) will always prove to be poor choices.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by orca71
Yes. It wasnt an independent test so its meaningless. Have you forgotten the "successful" missile shield test and the "95%" success of the patriot missile? When the military wants to sell something to the public they fix the results or falsify. Theyve done it over and over again.


I also remember many MANY tests done with overwhelmingly positive results which proved completely accurate. This line of reasoning is silly at best.


The question is not whether they are capable of performing tests and getting accurate results but rather if the numbers they release to the public ought to be trusted. Given their history with poorly performing big buck projects the answer is clearly "no."


Besides, I have spoken PERSONALLY to too many Air Force guys whom I trust to doubt the dominance of the Raptor.


They believe what they are told to believe. If they didnt we would have a dysfunctional military.




Which is why its computer is horribly outdated and pales in comparison to modern CPU's running on computers available at Best Buy, Walmart, whereever. Which do you think costs more? A P4 or the CIP?


I'm sure the CIP. It is military grade, and has to be shielded from EMPs and generally be tougher, more survivable, and more rugged then anything at best buy. It also has it's price trippled by having parts of it classified.


Youre confusing two different subjects here. What youre talking about is the enclosure and yes, military computers, depending on the requirements can certainly have more robust enclosures and they certainly shoud be more expensive than a standard PC case. There should be better thermal management and insulation from various external factors such as EM, vibrations, etc.

As for the chip itself, it really makes no difference except there is a general sense that the chip ought to be able to sustain a certain level of performance reliably and with minimal waste energy (heat). Another reason why the P4 (or any other modern chip) will be much better than the CIP because modern chips using the latest lithography can run faster and produce less heat.

What makes the CIP more expensive is not that anything has to be "classified" but that it is produced in small numbers. BTW, this increases the chance that any one chip will be defective or failure prone. You have a much better chance of picking a few hundred good chips from a batch of a few million than from a few thousand.




Thats a circular argument. They wont ask it to do anything it cannot. Fact is, if it was faster they could get it to do a lot more. Not only that, Im willing to bet a P4 is a lot more reliable as well. IBM has a CPU which blows even a P4 out of the water for signal/image processing.


No, it isn't a circular argument. The Raptor was built from the ground up. It has all of the electronics to do what it will be asked to do, and has room to be upgraded in the future.

Can you giveexamples of what the Raptor can not do that more power would allow it to do?


The Raptor has unimpressive upgradability. It comes down to adding a 3rd mediocre CIP and plugging in some PowerPC chips. Even with full upgrades it will fall significantly short of what consumer & industrial processors will be able to accomplish. For the upgradability to be meaningful, the data bus bandwidth will have to be significantly more than the meagre 50mbs, which is about 1% of full duplex PCI-E, available on PCs at Dell, Compusa, etc. Even if we asssume the figure of 50mbs refers to megabytes rather than the standard bandwidth measure of megabits, its still less than 10% of the bandwidth of current PCs.



"What" is your earlier post talking about the CIP like its a gift from God and how it can do all kinds of amazing hocus pocus avionics tasks compared to any other aircraft.


Except it CAN and it DOES.

No other aircraft in the world comes close to having it's computing power. No other aircraft in the world comes close to it's avionics package.


There are many aspects to Avionics and the F-22 probably does have some unique sensors but unfortunately its computer isnt very smart so all china and russia have to do to produce a significantly "smarter" airplane is log on to Compusa.com and order a few parts. They could even use normal home-networking products made by LinkSys or Netgear to get more bandwidth than the F-22!



Wow, you should go into advertising. Im sorry to say what you just wrote is complete nonsense. There is no independently verified evidence the Raptor costs less to maintain than an F-15. There is no evidence the Raptor offers significant tactical advantages over an F-15, and there is plenty of evidence the Raptor is a significant strategic liability...




Every person actualy involved with the Air Force says otherwise. I'll take the opinion of actual pilots and generals over yours.


The reason they "all" say the same thing is because thats the way it is with the military. In a way its not so different from the roman catholic church eh?

How about instead of taking my word or their word, you do your own research and figure it out yourself? Look I dont want to make this personal but if youre believing stuff like the marketing drivel about 2 Cray computers worth of computing power then you really need to do your own research.



Better yet, get rid of manned aircraft and buy into tens of thousands of intelligent UCAVs. Its closer than you think and they will absolutely demolish any combination of conventional aircraft. I can personally assure you of this. You will start seeing public demonstrations in the next few years.


As if I have never heard of a UCAV before.


UCAVs are a long ways off as far as an A2A platform, though I agree that eventually they will dominate airspace.


Well atleast you understand that the future is UCAVs. They are not a long ways off as an A2A platform at all. We currently have computing capability in UCAVs that will embarrass a squadron of F-22s, and probably a few 3rd world dictators as well.



Let me ask - what qualifies you to give the opinion that "they will absolutely demolish any combination of conventional aircraft."


A little birdie told me.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by orca71]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
The question is not whether they are capable of performing tests and getting accurate results but rather if the numbers they release to the public ought to be trusted. Given their history with poorly performing big buck projects the answer is clearly "no."


Poorly performing big buck projects? Like the ATB? The greatest strategic bomber ever? Or maybe the Y/F-15? Oh yeah, that's the greatest fighter ever. The F-117 sure did suck too.


COnsidering how overwhelmingly dominate our millitry is, it is pretty funny to hear you spout off about how bad our stuff is.



They believe what they are told to believe. If they didnt we would have a dysfunctional military.



That's the biggest load of bull # I have ever heard. These are people I know - PERSONALLY. They also have TOLD ME when things were not going as well as reported. Frankly, they have 10 trillion times more credit then you do. They actually work on and fly this stuff. You are some internet guy claiming every person in the military is brainwashed.





Youre confusing two different subjects here. What youre talking about is the enclosure and yes, military computers, depending on the requirements can certainly have more robust enclosures and they certainly shoud be more expensive than a standard PC case. There should be better thermal management and insulation from various external factors such as EM, vibrations, etc.

As for the chip itself, it really makes no difference except there is a general sense that the chip ought to be able to sustain a certain level of performance reliably and with minimal waste energy (heat). Another reason why the P4 (or any other modern chip) will be much better than the CIP because modern chips using the latest lithography can run faster and produce less heat.

What makes the CIP more expensive is not that anything has to be "classified" but that it is produced in small numbers. BTW, this increases the chance that any one chip will be defective or failure prone. You have a much better chance of picking a few hundred good chips from a batch of a few million than from a few thousand.


I don;t doubt any of what you said, though I promise you the fact that they are classified more then doubles their price.




The Raptor has unimpressive upgradability. It comes down to adding a 3rd mediocre CIP and plugging in some PowerPC chips. Even with full upgrades it will fall significantly short of what consumer & industrial processors will be able to accomplish. For the upgradability to be meaningful, the data bus bandwidth will have to be significantly more than the meagre 50mbs, which is about 1% of full duplex PCI-E, available on PCs at Dell, Compusa, etc. Even if we asssume the figure of 50mbs refers to megabytes rather than the standard bandwidth measure of megabits, its still less than 10% of the bandwidth of current PCs.



You didn't answere the question. Exactly what function will be unable to be performed in the future? What would more prossessing power allow it to do now that it otherwise can not. I want specific tasks, like being able to track extra targets etc.


There are many aspects to Avionics and the F-22 probably does have some unique sensors but unfortunately its computer isnt very smart so all china and russia have to do to produce a significantly "smarter" airplane is log on to Compusa.com and order a few parts. They could even use normal home-networking products made by LinkSys or Netgear to get more bandwidth than the F-22!


If it's this easy, then why haven't they done it? If you can think of it, so can everyone else. Yet, NO ONE IN THE WORLD has done this. Why? Is every country in the world too stupid to understand what mighty Orca thinks is so obvious?

Maybe it isn't so simple, eh?



The reason they "all" say the same thing is because thats the way it is with the military. In a way its not so different from the roman catholic church eh?






How about instead of taking my word or their word, you do your own research and figure it out yourself? Look I dont want to make this personal but if youre believing stuff like the marketing drivel about 2 Cray computers worth of computing power then you really need to do your own research.


I have done my own research. Enough so to know that you are completely off base with much of your argument.



Well atleast you understand that the future is UCAVs. They are not a long ways off as an A2A platform at all. We currently have computing capability in UCAVs that will embarrass a squadron of F-22s, and probably a few 3rd world dictators as well.


Look, a good friend of mine is in Seattle right now working for Boeing on UCAVs. In fact, his particular field is in it's weaponsystems. This is a guy who champions EVERYTHING UAV over manned. He dissagrees with you. According to him, an actual guy working on the damn things, the A2A aspect is, and I qoute "about a decade away, probably more."



A little birdie told me.




We're just going to have to agree to dissagree here buddy.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I really suspect if Russia and China all factually are developing some next generation fighter, US just upgrade some fighter very older since several decade ago, how can US keep the dominance of air?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
We couldn't. The US would be playing 'catch-up' at that point.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by orca71
The question is not whether they are capable of performing tests and getting accurate results but rather if the numbers they release to the public ought to be trusted. Given their history with poorly performing big buck projects the answer is clearly "no."


Poorly performing big buck projects? Like the ATB? The greatest strategic bomber ever? Or maybe the Y/F-15? Oh yeah, that's the greatest fighter ever. The F-117 sure did suck too.


Actually the F-117 is over-rated but thats besides the point. I was referring to how when a project is going seriously wrong the military falsifies information to keep the tax dollars flowing. Theyve done this over and over again and the F-22 is no different.



COnsidering how overwhelmingly dominate our millitry is, it is pretty funny to hear you spout off about how bad our stuff is.


Thats just plain ridiculous. We've literally spent more on the military than the rest of the world combined so its pretty embarrassing we are already stretched thin in the middle east. Its a good thing the iraqis and the taliban are utterly incompetent and very poorly equipped.






They believe what they are told to believe. If they didnt we would have a dysfunctional military.



That's the biggest load of bull # I have ever heard. These are people I know - PERSONALLY. They also have TOLD ME when things were not going as well as reported. Frankly, they have 10 trillion times more credit then you do. They actually work on and fly this stuff. You are some internet guy claiming every person in the military is brainwashed.



Ever consider that you may just be a brainwashed guy on the internet repeating everything he hears from other brainwashed people? Nothing personal guy but that seems to be quite a common affliction.







Youre confusing two different subjects here. What youre talking about is the enclosure and yes, military computers, depending on the requirements can certainly have more robust enclosures and they certainly shoud be more expensive than a standard PC case. There should be better thermal management and insulation from various external factors such as EM, vibrations, etc.

As for the chip itself, it really makes no difference except there is a general sense that the chip ought to be able to sustain a certain level of performance reliably and with minimal waste energy (heat). Another reason why the P4 (or any other modern chip) will be much better than the CIP because modern chips using the latest lithography can run faster and produce less heat.

What makes the CIP more expensive is not that anything has to be "classified" but that it is produced in small numbers. BTW, this increases the chance that any one chip will be defective or failure prone. You have a much better chance of picking a few hundred good chips from a batch of a few million than from a few thousand.


I don;t doubt any of what you said, though I promise you the fact that they are classified more then doubles their price.


Theres nothing intrinsic to being "classified" that would automatically require a higher purchase price. There may be specific hardware features that maybe classified which causes the chip to be produced for purely military use which reduces its production volume, thereby raising its cost/unit and naturally the purchase price as well.




The Raptor has unimpressive upgradability. It comes down to adding a 3rd mediocre CIP and plugging in some PowerPC chips. Even with full upgrades it will fall significantly short of what consumer & industrial processors will be able to accomplish. For the upgradability to be meaningful, the data bus bandwidth will have to be significantly more than the meagre 50mbs, which is about 1% of full duplex PCI-E, available on PCs at Dell, Compusa, etc. Even if we asssume the figure of 50mbs refers to megabytes rather than the standard bandwidth measure of megabits, its still less than 10% of the bandwidth of current PCs.



You didn't answere the question. Exactly what function will be unable to be performed in the future? What would more prossessing power allow it to do now that it otherwise can not. I want specific tasks, like being able to track extra targets etc.


You can track more targets you can track more accurately with less time delay between data acquisition and response, you can make better use of existing data, and you can support far more data inputs at once, including enabling data inputs that a weak processor like the CIP would choke on, even with the help of its outdated PowerPC and i960 plug in chips.




There are many aspects to Avionics and the F-22 probably does have some unique sensors but unfortunately its computer isnt very smart so all china and russia have to do to produce a significantly "smarter" airplane is log on to Compusa.com and order a few parts. They could even use normal home-networking products made by LinkSys or Netgear to get more bandwidth than the F-22!


If it's this easy, then why haven't they done it? If you can think of it, so can everyone else. Yet, NO ONE IN THE WORLD has done this. Why? Is every country in the world too stupid to understand what mighty Orca thinks is so obvious?


How do you know they havent done it? In fact, even we have done it already. The F-35 has faster coiputers than the F-22.




Maybe it isn't so simple, eh?


Its only difficult if you use 20 year old technology. A single IBM Cell chip has more data processing speed and bandwidth than a CIP with full powerpc and i960 add-ons while producing much less heat and running more reliably.




The reason they "all" say the same thing is because thats the way it is with the military. In a way its not so different from the roman catholic church eh?






How about instead of taking my word or their word, you do your own research and figure it out yourself? Look I dont want to make this personal but if youre believing stuff like the marketing drivel about 2 Cray computers worth of computing power then you really need to do your own research.


I have done my own research. Enough so to know that you are completely off base with much of your argument.


Says the guy who thinks the F-22 has the power of 2 Cray computers.




Well atleast you understand that the future is UCAVs. They are not a long ways off as an A2A platform at all. We currently have computing capability in UCAVs that will embarrass a squadron of F-22s, and probably a few 3rd world dictators as well.


Look, a good friend of mine is in Seattle right now working for Boeing on UCAVs. In fact, his particular field is in it's weaponsystems. This is a guy who champions EVERYTHING UAV over manned. He dissagrees with you. According to him, an actual guy working on the damn things, the A2A aspect is, and I qoute "about a decade away, probably more."


Its not my fault if those guys dont know what theyre doing. Alternatively they may not be telling you what theyve got. Or even more likely, its not in their interest to jeapordize their existing lucrative manufacturing contracts by coming up with something much cheaper and better so they set a distant target for completion of such a design. Thats pretty much how government contractors work anyway.

I can tell you A2A is absolutely no problem. The problem is the military doesnt want to buy into it yet.





A little birdie told me.




We're just going to have to agree to dissagree here buddy.



What you believe is up to you. Its a free coutnry. Its unfortunate that youre so willing to buy into the nonsense they feed you over and over again despite how often theyve openly lied to the public about how theyre spending our tax dollars.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
We couldn't. The US would be playing 'catch-up' at that point.


This is one of the craziest lines of thought Ive come across and its quite prevelant it seems.

Even if they managed to come up with a manned aircraft that flys better than the F-15s and F-16s they still need to produce them in a large number for them to be of any strategic value. We spend more on the military than all of them so as long as we're not wasting most of the tax money being spent by the military were never going to be playing catchup. Then again, thats a big "if". Afterall, we've already blown countless billions into poorly conceived and managed programs like the F-22, F-35. V-22, Missile Shield, etc..



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I just dont see the need to replace the F-15 Eagle, After all i have heard about it, I believe it is the best fighter in the world today, Ok the F-22 Raptor is a beast jet but it is too expensive and slightly slower than the
F-15. The F-15 has greater altitude capability, range and payload and it is still a great fighter in the NATO world.

If you want to compare fighters, get on these sites.
www.airtoaircombat.com...
www.milavia.net...

Anyway, Have a look what this Pilot is up to
www.militaryaircraft.de...



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
If other major powers are working on next generation fighters, or even just maxxing out the capabilities of fourth gen fighters, The F-15 will be at best an even match for them, and at worst hopelessly outclassed. The purpose of the F-22 is to keep upping the ante, and ensure that the most other nations can do is jockey for second place. That, and hopelessly outclass anything else flying.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The F-15 is a great fighter, but In my opinion it isn't so maneuverable...



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
The F-15 is a great fighter, but In my opinion it isn't so maneuverable...


Im not sure who told you this but they are lying. The F-22 and Russian fighters are probably more maneuverable but the disparity in numbers is so large that its really meaningless. The first and most important factor in any battle is numbers. With the F-15 we can have a massive advantage against just about any likely enemy. Overwhelming force is the operative phrase.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join