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.

 

Fans of the F-22 Raptor need to wake-up

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Thats just blidness Seekerof . The raptor has been overestimated by people who dont want to see the whole aspects of reality . There is nothing to special to get jealous except the powerfull computer on the raptor .


O really do u hve any proof its overestimated well if so then why are the russians trying to make blended body stealth AC look at their failures and other countries failures. Russia wants stealth AC but cant develop them and plasma stealth has some serious issues such as maneuvering problems and vulnerability to IRST. Even cold plasma is very hot. Cold plasma is just cold compared to other plasma. Well if you have a plasma stealth plane i cane lock you up with my EOTS.
www.lockheedmartin.com...


[edit on 19-4-2006 by urmomma158]




posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Thats just blidness Seekerof . The raptor has been overestimated by people who dont want to see the whole aspects of reality . There is nothing to special to get jealous except the powerfull computer on the raptor .


O really do u hve any proof its overestimated well if so then why are the russians trying to make blended body stealth AC look at their failures and other countries failures. Russia wants stealth AC but cant develop them and plasma stealth has some serious issues such as maneuvering problems and vulnerability to IRST. Even cold plasma is very hot. Cold plasma is just cold compared to other plasma. Well if you have a plasma stealth plane i cane lock you up with my EOTS.
www.lockheedmartin.com...


[edit on 19-4-2006 by urmomma158]



Well as you now the Russians have a different approach on combining stealth technology with a plane . Using the US approach that could meen limited shapes and maneuvering for the plane . For that reason they dont want to alter or decrease the flighing abilities of plane.
However the todays radars that Russian starting desinging since the US started building the F117 can easily detect any stealth object on the sky.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

For that reason they dont want to alter or decrease the flighing abilities of plane.


Your fighting abilities aka maneuvering capabilities wont do you jack if you have just realized that an AMRAAM has gone active on your A.


However the todays radars that Russian starting desinging since the US started building the F117 can easily detect any stealth object on the sky.


Umm… the F-117 is first generation stealth it has been improved over the years but its still old. The B-2 and the F-22 are different systems. So don’t make such an outlandish claim without any proof. Also, any decent radar will probably be able to detect VLO aircraft at short ranges but that wont do you any good if the VLO aircraft stays outside that detection bubble and launches a ACM at your position. No one is saying stealth aircraft are invisible just that they are harder to rack.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I would say that the Raptor can pretty much do what it wants now, but in 10-15 years... I doubt it.


While the radar absorbing capabilities of the F-22 are essentially fixed now and cannot be improved, computer processing and AESA radars will continue to advance while the F-22 can only stagnate (in terms of RCS values). So depending on progress, the (fire-control) radar evading capabilities can be expected to be diminishing continously until a point where its in the same boat as all other aircraft in the sky.

With improving CPUs, longer wave radars can be used and the clutter removed to provide sufficient resolution for tracking. With AESA, improved emitter strength will give improved returns, and antenna gain can be expected to improve likewise as well.



This is based on common sense, sources are not required. Note, that it also applies to all other 'stealth' aircraft of any country.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Well scintillation is still a problem and weak returns are not just the weaknesses. long wave radars due to their wavelengths are still inaaccurate although soon clutter wont be a problem although long wave radars have huge antennas and are easy targets.


Origianlly posted by Russian Boy Well as you now the Russians have a different approach on combining stealth technology with a plane . Using the US approach that could meen limited shapes and maneuvering for the plane . For that reason they dont want to alter or decrease the flighing abilities of plane.
However the todays radars that Russian starting desinging since the US started building the F117 can easily detect any stealth object on the sky.
the Raptor and JSF are the exception to rule they are both highly maneuverable and still VLO remember that poor maneuvearability is only a problem with older geneartions like the F117. Detect stealth?!?! Ive heard of many anti stealth radars but unfortunately they cant target the enemy just detect them long wave radar and PCL are inaccurate for fire control and bistatic radars have major technical issues in range and deployment. please give me proof and dont tell me of the S400 because its utter nonsense that it can detect stealth.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Umm… the F-117 is first generation stealth it has been improved over the years but its still old. The B-2 and the F-22 are different systems. So don’t make such an outlandish claim without any proof. Also, any decent radar will probably be able to detect VLO aircraft at short ranges but that wont do you any good if the VLO aircraft stays outside that detection bubble and launches a ACM at your position. No one is saying stealth aircraft are invisible just that they are harder to rack.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



So you actually saying the B2 will stay outside the detection bubble because there is a possibility that his stealth cover want work against radars such as ''Tamara'' and defence systems such as ''S-400'' So what makes you think then that the ACM will not be intercepted by defence systems before it even be on half way to its target. I see no point of invisibility on words .



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
A factor many people who support the raptor don't consider is that the role of this $250 million dollar air superiority fighter is not very well thought out. Beside the fact that it was designed to counter a massive soviet military threat that no longer exists, its role was questionable even back in the 80s when it was born. The main weakness of an expensive as hell world beating technological wonder like the raptor is that it would be useless in conflicts that include limited tactical nuclear weapons. Mainly because it would either be killed on the ground in its flimsy hangars or grounded by having its bigass runway knocked out. A much more useful fighter would be one like the jointstrikefighter. It is (supposedly) cheaper to make, more versatile, and not restricted to massive runways. Crap it could even be stashed and operated in the woods - away from the large bulls eye that is an air base. The raptor just doesn't fit into the future streamlined and flexible us military. It is the wrong tool in an outdated ww2 strategy.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by grantrl78]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Cant remember where I read it but didnt the F-22 compete in Red Flag or similar war games? I remember reading that it took out 6 F-15's before the F-15's even knew the F-22 was in the area.

It did the same with F-16's. Wiped them all out and the F-16's had no idea that the Raptor was even in the area until they saw it flying past them....well after they had been destroyed (simulated)

I'm sure someone knows what I am talking about and can link the story. If not, I can do some digging.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Yes, I have also been a bit sceptic about this plane, not only the fact that it isn't combat prooven is one of them... I don't like the fact that people brag about the plane when it's still in a process od development... I really won't comment on that link JIM, after all,t he plane isn't combat prooven yet... And if I would say it's bad, I'd fight against my own opinions...



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

I don't like the fact that people brag about the plane when it's still in a process od development...


Actually the Raptor is not in development any more, its in full production, IOC was reached in December and the 27FS is fully operational and has already flown its first missions with the F-22, the 94th FS is almost fully converted as well. Besides those two there are several other US squadrons flying the F-22 for training and maintenance reasons. If the US goes to war tomorrow and Air Superiority is needed the Raptor will be there.


Lockheed Martin Delivers F 22 Raptor To Second Operational Squadron

The first F-22 Raptor assigned to the 94th Fighter Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, Va., touches down. The 94th FS has a long history of air superiority dating back to World War I, and now will be equipped with the world’s first 5TH Generation air dominance fighter.

The Raptors will join F-22s flying today as part of the 1st Fighter Wing’s 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Va. Lockheed Martin has completed final assembly on 71 of the 107 fighters now on contract, and 63 have been delivered

In addition to the active air force, pilots with the 192nd Virginia Air National Guard in Richmond are also flying F-22 Raptors. The F-22 Raptor is currently flying at three other bases across the United States: • Testing is conducted at Edwards AFB, Calif. • Tactics development is ongoing at Nellis AFB, Nev. • A full squadron of Raptors is based at Tyndall AFB, Fla., for pilot and maintainer training.

Link



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

A factor many people who support the raptor don't consider is that the role of this $250 million dollar air superiority fighter is not very well thought out. Beside the fact that it was designed to counter a massive soviet military threat that no longer exists, its role was questionable even back in the 80s when it was born. The main weakness of an expensive as hell world beating technological wonder like the raptor is that it would be useless in conflicts that include limited tactical nuclear weapons.


Well, for starters the jet is not 250 mil, those over inflated figures include R&D and are not truly representative of the planes cost. Now, the role is not very well thought out? As long as there is a need for air superiority then there is a need for the Raptor, as long as other fighters in the world exist that pose a threat to our current AF then here is a need for the Raptor. It seems to me that its role is pretty well thought out. “Limited” tactical nuclear weapons?
You mean someone is going to launch ICBM’s at Langley Virginia or Tyndall Florida and this is going to result in a “limited” nuclear war?

PS. Launching ICBM’s at Langley or Tyndall would not destroy the Raptors, unless you take out every single AFB or airport in the CONUS you will not keep the Raptor grounded.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Yes, the F-22 is in full development, I'am aware of that... (wrote something I didn't mean, my bad) But it is still not combat prooven... And before that, I will not call it good, nor bad... only good looking...



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Aimed at westy.

If you pay attention to my argument, you will notice that I am not saying that there is no need for an air superiority fighter. Just that the idea of how well it flies and shoots is not the only thing to consider when you try to fully assess its effectiveness.

I also guess that you don't buy that a limited nuclear war is possible at all huh?
I think you over estimate the insanity of world leaders. Only in dr. strangelove would nations risk destroying all life on earth with full scale nuclear war. MAD is nonsense propaganda left over from the cold war.
I think you also haven't been paying attention to us policy lately. Nukes have been considered seriously for use in iran for one example. I think tactical nuclear weapons will play a large part in any future world war. It is certain that the us will also have to own up to the fact that a war on its own soil will happen.

Nukes aside, the raptor is still very vulnerable to being grounded by having its runway and crappy hangars taken out by conventional weapons. I mean why park an ultra expensive piece of hardware in what amounts to an aluminum house? It is crazy.

This is the heart of your argument. "It seems to me that its role is pretty well thought out." Lol! Why is this?
That is not an argument at all. It is an unarmed delta dart waiting to be taken down by by an aim-9 in target practice.


[edit on 22-4-2006 by grantrl78]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I agree with you on the last point, the F-22 is extremely vournerable... And that is one of thier possible flaws... The F-22 is not only an air-superiority fighter, even though it is its primary function... It can also be equipped with bombs...

Talking about nukes, they will never be launched from fighters against other planes, or smaller buildings... it's too risky, one fault and it's all gone... I have very hard to imagine that a Raptor would even need to carry nuclear warheads, USAF has other planes for that... And a nuclear attack will not be fought with fighters, but B2 and missiles if the war would go so faar...



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Fin, I don't mean the f-22 should or shouldn't carry nukes.
Just that it is easily taken out on the ground by them.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
grant,

You will find as you go along that Westy does not bother with what others actually post if that interferes with what he wants to say.

There are many like him around. Those who make up their minds and then find information to support that opinion.

Take a look back at his posting history and you will see what I mean.

Salut

S



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by grantrl78
Fin, I don't mean the f-22 should or shouldn't carry nukes.
Just that it is easily taken out on the ground by them.


I see... *feels stupid*...

I still think they would use missiles instead of nukes...


The "bad guys"...

[edit on 22-4-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by grantrl78
Aimed at westy.
If you pay attention to my argument, you will notice that I am not saying that there is no need for an air superiority fighter. Just that the idea of how well it flies and shoots is not the only thing to consider when you try to fully assess its effectiveness.


I asses the effectiveness of an air superiority fighter by how well it eliminates opposing fighters and or aircraft, and that is dependant upon how well it flies and shoots.


Originally posted by grantrl78
I also guess that you don't buy that a limited nuclear war is possible at all huh?


No, at least not between nuclear powers.


Originally posted by grantrl78
MAD is nonsense propaganda left over from the cold war.


As long as there are multiple countries who posses enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy their enemy then MAD is not nonsense propaganda. Tell me, have there ever been any direct wars between nuclear powers?


Originally posted by grantrl78
I think you also haven't been paying attention to us policy lately. Nukes have been considered seriously for use in iran for one example. I think tactical nuclear weapons will play a large part in any future world war. It is certain that the us will also have to own up to the fact that a war on its own soil will happen.


Well I feel were getting off topic here so I’ll only say this, no potential enemy currently has the physical means by which to conduct a war on the CONUS. And Iran is not a nuclear power, the US is.


Originally posted by grantrl78
Nukes aside, the raptor is still very vulnerable to being grounded by having its runway and crappy hangars taken out by conventional weapons. I mean why park an ultra expensive piece of hardware in what amounts to an aluminum house? It is crazy.


Can you describe these conventional weapons? Remember now, these conventional weapons would have to hit runways in the CONUS and potential runways in US ally nations such as the UK.

One more thing, currently the Raptor is deployed only in the US, as such the material of its hangers are irrelevant, barring nuclear missiles I don't see how a potential US adversary is going to successfully attack US runways in the CONUS.

Also, I find it funny that the only vulnerably you’re posting for the F-22 is its dependency on runways, incidentally every other similar fighter in the world also depends on them.


This is the heart of your argument. "It seems to me that its role is pretty well thought out." Lol! Why is this?


Its role is an air superiority fighter, as such its primary mission is to destroy enemy fighters to allow attack aircraft and ground assets to operate in/under friendly skies. From all I have read, learned, and seen of the Raptor it seems to me that it does its job pretty damn well. Its not perfect nor invincible just the best machine for the role of air superiority fighter.
_______________________________________________________________________________


Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
I agree with you on the last point, the F-22 is extremely vournerable... And that is one of thier possible flaws... The F-22 is not only an air-superiority fighter, even though it is its primary function... It can also be equipped with bombs...


Yes, its primary mission is Air Superiority, it can be used in strike roles however even in this role it will be less vulnerable than current fighter-bombers due to its stealth characteristics.


Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
... only good looking...


At least we agree on something.


[edit on 22-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Talking about nukes, they will never be launched from fighters against other planes, or smaller buildings... it's too risky, one fault and it's all gone... I have very hard to imagine that a Raptor would even need to carry nuclear warheads, USAF has other planes for that... And a nuclear attack will not be fought with fighters, but B2 and missiles if the war would go so faar...


If you're talking about the USAF then maybe you're right but note that many countries still heavily depend on Fighters as nuclear weapons delivery platforms.
Israel,India and Pakistan are a case in Point.

The InAF has N-capable Jaguars, Mirages and Su 30MKIs ofcourse.
The PAF has a few N capable F-16s.
The IAF has F-16s and F-15s(?)



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SwatMedic
It did the same with F-16's. Wiped them all out and the F-16's had no idea that the Raptor was even in the area until they saw it flying past them....well after they had been destroyed (simulated)


then it HAD have to been a night sortie, because if you're not able to see enemy a/c esp. like the raptor with its dark glaze until it flies by you then you're not a fighter pilot.

Or are you speaking figuratively?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join