It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-22 Gets Multiyear Funding, F-35 Delayed

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Dispite heavy criticism by the GAO the Senate passed a defense bill today which included restoring funds for a multiyear F-22 bulk buy. By a vote of 96-0, the Senate passed the bill that authorizes fiscal 2007 military spending.

Another interesting result of this bill is a delay of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The bill still has to be voted on in the House, if it passes there too, the JSF program will be delayed by one year for further development and flight testing.

The GE/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine program for the F-35 JSF also won today, the Senate reserved $200 million for it, which is half the program's costs.

Sources:
-Forth Worth/Dallas Star Telegram
-DOW Jones Business Wire
-Air Force Times.com




posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Sure, put off the more useful program and go for the one which we won't really need in the near future. Good job, Congress, good job.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Yes good job indeed, the F-22 is an essential platform, in the modern battlefield if you don't have air superiority you cant win a war, simple as that. With new and more capable fighters emerging the F-22 is necessary to make sure that the JSF can perform its mission.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
in the modern battlefield if you don't have air superiority you cant win a war, simple as that.


Just out of interest, when was the last conflict that the US had to do any more than just turn up to achieve air superiority?



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Gulf War, and you should consider that the potential for a conflict with a country that has a half decent air force will increase if we don't have sufficient number of Raptors. They are a major deterrence against those who otherwise may think they have a shot.

Kind of reminds me of the Cold War, when it was over some people were saying that we spend all that money on the military yet we never got to use it. All the while ignoring why there was no conflict.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
All the while ignoring why there was no conflict.


You mean beyond the vast amounts on nukes each side had?



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Kind of reminds me of the Cold War, when it was over some people were saying that we spend all that money on the military yet we never got to use it. All the while ignoring why there was no conflict.



As a student of history, I am also old enough to have lived through much of the first Cold War. As we prepare to do this lovely little dance again, it's woth noting that the only way we can keep air dominance is to keep investing in it.

In the next decade, we're going to lose a lot of our edge. Our enemies will steal many of our air-tech secrets, and a few unscrupulous Americans will sell out their country for just a little bit of money. Today's aeropsace resarch is computer-driven. Technical advances can happen much faster than they once did. CAD airframe design, by itself, means that a prototype can go from idea to testbed in just a few months or even weeks.

By the time the JSF goes in to production, our enemies will have most of the technical specs for the F-22. they might know how its built, and what they'd need to build their own, but most of that won't mater 'til they fly against them. Most of the world's governments have decided that its easier, for now, to use what hey have and steal from America. If it comes down dow a shoot war, you can get they'll rush their best tech in to production.

At this tyme, delay of the JSF works for us and not against us. By the time it comes in to service, we will be used to flying the F-22 and our tactics will evolve accordingly. Even if JSF doesn't kick in 'til 2015, these delays will still work for us and against our enemies.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Justin Oldham,


>>
As a student of history, I am also old enough to have lived through much of the first Cold War. As we prepare to do this lovely little dance again, it's woth noting that the only way we can keep air dominance is to keep investing in it.
>>

Then put money into netcentrics (MP-RTIP on RQ-4 as an ADAAM source and suitable comms bandwidth relay platforms for all the data), the GBU-40 and FRSW* as a two tier standoff system. And the AIM-160 and AIM-120D (or equivalent ramAAM) off a UCAV.

_There is no need_ for penetrating airpower when you don't have to guard the FAR SIDE of a target from interceptor approach. Since the bomb delivery vehicles themselves are launching from upwards of 100km 'near side lee'd'.

Penetrating stealth airpower does two principle things:
1. Give an enemy a reason to develop optical tracking systems which can spot masses of targets on the cheap while developing CLO methods for existing radar based defenses. Tracks = patterns. Not simply of collated 'lead computation' but /intent/.

2. Put those numbers of targets over a terminal target defense which can loft numbers of LOAL (Optics, UWB, whateever) threats up to a point at which LO is either aspected out or detectable on return to a high power digital receiver.

_C_ _O_ _E_ = CONTEMPT OF ENGAGEMENT. Don't put your assets where they can be shot. Manever (with a cheap platform) to target not to engage. If you don't want to have your bloody Air Supremacy force /butchered/ _do not_ send them out as a TARCAP force! We should have learned these things from back in the days when F-4Cs without QRC pods couldn't follow F-105s into certain parts of RPV/VI. And were too slow to go 'round. Now we have LDSD and 150km LOAL missiles that can be 2-way-tethered from assets perhaps 400km behind their launch aircraft. There is no excuse to see the term 'fighter' and not think weapon cabinet.

>>
In the next decade, we're going to lose a lot of our edge. Our enemies will steal many of our air-tech secrets, and a few unscrupulous Americans will sell out their country for just a little bit of money. Today's aeropsace resarch is computer-driven. Technical advances can happen much faster than they once did. CAD airframe design, by itself, means that a prototype can go from idea to testbed in just a few months or even weeks.
>>

I agree. But the levelling card will be the DEWS and the Hunting Turbo-SAM/AAM. Which are simplifications of aero engineering as a mass-into-volume stuffing exercise. They need only do one thing well. And they don't need to do it for very long before you replace them. Either with ground based (big) or limited-life (cheap) followons.

>>
By the time the JSF goes in to production, our enemies will have most of the technical specs for the F-22. they might know how its built, and what they'd need to build their own, but most of that won't mater 'til they fly against them. Most of the world's governments have decided that its easier, for now, to use what hey have and steal from America. If it comes down down to a shooting war, you can get they'll rush their best tech in to production.
>>

Baaah. You yourself state an opinion (which I'm not altogether sure I share) that 'flying against them' is the only way to see a how new tactics and weapons will prevail. This has two problems. First, the military are secretly a bunch of little kids who will do /anything/ to play with their new toys on a can-do basis of one sided butchery. New approaches to warfare thus will be 'tested' and that _employment_ data made as vulnerable as the nearest AvLeak if not (uniformed not civillian) John Walker followon.

More to the point, if I want to slay an enemy I don't want to fight him as an equal. You use a helicopter to kill tanks not because the helicopter is really good (say survivable) on it's own. But because the tank, even with MPAT rounds, has virtually NO WAY OF FIGHTING BACK AS AN EQUAL.

The Helo will see him farther and it's missiles will typically loft farther and especially with AMUST or similar (UAV 'digital battlefield' links) the tank will die like a staked bait goat.

Airpower is about to discover that it two can be out-finagled by pure speed of onset and cheap-trade countermeasures. And there will be even less that these multi-tens of million dollar airframes can do to stop a 186,000mps beamfront. Or a 75,000 dollar target-drone-with-'tude. Than the tank can at least pretend to 'more armor, more APS, more camo, cheaper without a man!' attempt.

>>
At this tyme, delay of the JSF works for us and not against us. By the time it comes in to service, we will be used to flying the F-22 and our tactics will evolve accordingly. Even if JSF doesn't kick in 'til 2015, these delays will still work for us and against our enemies.
>>

This is purely daft. The JSF is an economic gamble which has already failed. Delaying it further will only result in the loss of partner nations and/or more 'hidden costs' (FMF to the rescue) as tax payers HERE provide preproduction price guarantees to give LO and monolithic composite construction techniques as well as digital avionic core-coding /over there/. Where it will promptly be integrated into civillian technology base. Not by flaming Chinese. But Europeans.

'Our Friends'.

Look at the F-16 program and how fast they pushed that through into production on the DOTC. Just a couple years and everybody was moving in the same direction. What you are suggesting is a delay which not only makes UCAVs a viable alternative competitor. But also makes pricing uncertain at best.

Remember, the JSF is now _admitted before Congress_ to be a 104 million dollar airframe _for our services_, let alone tiny little podunk players who will have the same benefit from small IAM as we gain. In terms of less-doing-more.

It is only because the 1,763 airframes of the USAF order is the chief driver on the JSF program costs that they haven't themselves chopped their buy down to 1,200 or less.

Now factor in a 2025 oil crisis, DEWS, hunting weapons and UCAVs and even the obvious blind offer of early production blocks to 'any and all possible customers' (aluminum siding salesmen padding the books by offloading main orders onto secondary clients as a function of grouping statistics) will not result in the 3,000-4,000 airframe purchase originally foreseen.

Only /idiots/ believe in the JSF. For anything. Which is not to say you are but rather an admission that I absolutely /despise/ the JSF.


KPl.


*To get an idea of how simple this could be, look at early photos of Excaliber CLGP. Then compare the to the equivalent MMTD/SDB-REX. If you can stuff a 70mm CRV-7 rocket motor into the back end of a small diameter weapon and loft it from a Mach 1.5 supercruise aircraft, you get roughly 1,400fps + 3,600fps or a MACH FIVE boosted velocity. Modify the wingkit to delay deployment and/or change sweep angles and loft it up through 60-70,000ft to minimize wave drag (easy, from a 50,000ft start) and shorten the distance downrange (say 163nm vs. an 800nm ARRMD out of a ship VLS or ground cannister) that you expect to reach. With a halving of average Mach point due to parabolics + drag effects, your weapon will average 5-7 minutes to reach the center of Korea from the coastline.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
XB70,

>>
Sure, put off the more useful program and go for the one which we won't really need in the near future. Good job, Congress, good job.
>>

The GAO is embarrassed by their own narrow focussed awareness of what the F-22 could do. As such they are dead set against seeing it justified as an all-doing (multirole) platform, whose functional superiority as a long range _strike_ aircraft is proven by relatively simple integration of radar modes and the GBU-39.

FACT: If you want to win a 700-800nm radius interdiction campaign, you have two choices. One is either to perform the Hobbit Run (There and Back Again) /twice as fast/ as you would with a subsonic airframe at 400nm.

The other is to fly the whole distance at at 'herd speed' but to STAY THERE, upon arrival, for such a length of time, with SO MANY, cheap, airframes. That you can still accomplish what we are only now admitting is an airwar paradigm almost entirely redefined by TCT/TST Time Critical-Sensitive Targeting on micro-set moving tactical aimpoints as much as any fixed-structural hard target kills for which a 2,000lb JDAM (and the F-35) are designed.

It is this failure to keep up with the realities of modern military doctrine. Along with the increasing likelihood that even 'professional' (uniformed) threats will use terrorist tactics and weapons against us in both invasion and occupation, that is driving the realities of us-hurting-them airpower use.

OTOH, what will increasingly come to be equally accepted as the them-hurting-us counterpoint is that DEWS and Hunting Weapons will rule the skies in ways which deny subsonic, 'low' altitude (sub-30K) use of airspace altogether.

NOW, throw in two more modifiers:

1. Oil.
We are hated and the world IS running out of it. Faster than we ever would have assumed 'back when' we were the industrial power supplying the goods rathre than the gaping commercial maw consuming them. UCAVs don't need to train more than about 2% of the force to maintain overall 'Red Baron' competencies. And they can go almost twice as far on HALF the fuel. With a 2hr loiter.

2. Ea$e of Use.
Contrary to popular belief, our military has never been funded by anything as noble as 'treasure for blood' superiority. At least not OUR treasure. It has always been about selling it off to keep the wartech escalation loop going and the rich getting richer as some penny ante dictator refuses the hospital to buy F-16s. This is getting harder to do with not only the baseline (platform) cost but the mission utility of airpower getting so great that an F-16 doesn't mean anything without an EW pod, a targeting pod, AMRAAM that work, and IAM that can hit anything you generate a spatial memory coordinate for.
UCAVs remove half of the above 'sophistication' /crap/, trading traditional vulnerability to (non-existent) 'roving air threats' for LO against S2A radar detection and _cheap overall costs_. Functionally being closer to cruise missiles with separable warheads and landing gear than anything related to a 'fighter'.

ARGUMENT:
Monkey Airpower has had it's day.
Man being such a pathetic sky knight that we have had to crutch him up with so many systems as to not only render him unaffordable. But to also enable the complete automation of most of what he does (IAMs were really the last step). The only remaining factor to consider is the simple certainty that the followons are so simple, ANYONE can build them.
Which means the real competitor for the Gen-5 F-35 is not the Gen-4 F-22. But the Gen-6 Neuron.

CONCLUSION:
I can only hope that, with the death of an unpopular (Bush) regime and the 'better a 90 billion dollar bird in the hand than a 276 billion dollar bird lost in the bushes of Iraq' that will be the economic realities of a Democratic presidency paying for a Republic Trillion Dollar War.
The USAF has finally done what it 'always intended to'.
Namely keep the F-22 line hot until they could 'make their business case' by default of JSF skyrocketing costs. Nothing like sticking it to the Gyrines and the Squids while saving your own favorite toy to prove who's head of the roost in Tacair.
The only real danger being that they will not continue to develop DEWS and robotics once they get their 400 airframe buy. Because the new definition of Air Dominance is about to be set to a bar of 186,000mps off an ABL whose own 'true range' is likely to be line of sight on airframe targets operating at altitude.


KPl.


LINK-
GAO Pleads For A New Business Case

www.defencetalk.com...

(so they don't look like idiots before the next 'cancellation cycle' FY push makes them right-by-default.)



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Hm. Let me see if I can get back in the game.

My one reason for being in favor of the JSF is for the sake of modernization. Pentagon politics being what they are, it really is quite possible that JSF might be sacrificed. Even so, it's past time that we had new generations of aircraft in the works, and in use.

American politicians fear the body bag more than they fear any hostile force which they might send their military up against. To that extent, every technical and doctrinal edge they can generate to allow them to indulge their phobia only helps, in a crude way, to maintain U.S. air superiority.

As pointed out by ch1466, there's a lot of nifty stuff coming up, and most of it is not manned. Even so, I think its past time that U.S. pilots stopped flying old school aircraft.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Justin Oldham,

>>
My one reason for being in favor of the JSF is for the sake of modernization. Pentagon politics being what they are, it really is quite possible that JSF might be sacrificed. Even so, it's past time that we had new generations of aircraft in the works, and in use.
>>

We can afford the UCAV and the F-22. The one because it's cheap and TRULY triservice 'common not joint' (AF birds land on Navy decks and vice versa). The other because it's a done deal with only about 20 billion more to get back to a 60 airframe per year line and 20 billion atop that to steal back SAR and EOTS from JSF.

We cannot afford JSF and _any other_ airframe. It's that bad.

>>
American politicians fear the body bag more than they fear any hostile force which they might send their military up against. To that extent, every technical and doctrinal edge they can generate to allow them to indulge their phobia only helps, in a crude way, to maintain U.S. air superiority.
>>

Then they had better take a look at the numbers. Even with all that gas, I doubt seriously if an F136 engined airframe is going to be up in the air more than about 6 hours minding the store over ground patrols. Even if you can sip JP at a camel like rate, you can't ask pilots to run continuous sorties every day that are that long. They will make mistakes and they will get tired of boring skyholes doing nothing.

THAT is what 'modern airpower' is about right now. And if you won't fund more than 60 Predators, you _have to_ take up the slack with dual-hatted tacair strike machines. The only good thing here is that a Guard F-16 with Litening or even an A-10 /can do/ the mission. And are in-inventory with a spares pipe working to achieve it.

OTOH, when we come slinky-dinking out of Iraq by 2008, most of that nasty little "But will they reelect me!?" conscience-of-politics bell ringer will go away and you can take as long as you like to modernize while you try bail our debt out AGAIN.

>>
As pointed out by ch1466, there's a lot of nifty stuff coming up, and most of it is not manned. Even so, I think its past time that U.S. pilots stopped flying old school aircraft.
>>

NO! Choose _now_. Because even if J-UCAS' coalbed is still hot (people aren't gone, jigs aren't busted up, economics remain the same) it's gonna be a good 3-4 years before we get a decent production plan set.

Comparitively it's gonna be 2012/2015 before the F-35 is seen for what it is. And that's going to be Too Damn Late for any 'options for change' plan to work.

1,500 drone aircraft.
12 Carriers.
12-14 Wings of AEF

The first of which can land anywhere a common airframe structural margin and JPALS says they need to. And which will cost perhaps 70 billion dollars, including R&D.

Vs.

1,763 F-35A
240 F-35B
170 F-35C

NONE of which can share a basing mode _in the numbers needed_ to sustain airpower (10 F-35C in a CVN airwing. 8 F-35B on a Marine assault deck, Whoopee.)

All of which are going to run about 276 BILLION dollars with another 347 BILLION in Total Life Cycle Costs.

The sad fact is that the later Blk.II and now III Super Bug (APG-79/HART, AIM-120D, GBU-39) do 'good enough' in the truck mission for the Navy. And where they can't go, send some of the 2,500 Tomahawks we just paid Raytheon for.

There is no NEED for an F-16/15C/15E replacement.

The Marines have /never been/ real players in the strike warfare game. And if they are honestly willing to settle for 240 JSFs just to stop being a Navy RAG, then they are not serious about generating ranged sorties anyway.

At the same time, the F-22 with 8 bombs and _400 airframes_ can do the job it's been modified to since about 1993. Because it's quicker to the BRL than ANY OTHER AIRFRAME. From 800nm out.

That means we need an aircraft to replace the F-18C and the A-10 and the B-52. As pure interdiction fill force and loitering OBAS. Which is something that the UCAV can do better than any other jet out there. Because it's not a fighter. And it doesn't need to be to be 'more advanced' than the jets which wrongly assume that title as a mark of excellence.

CONCLUSION:
If we don't beat DEWS off the mark with a sacrificial force that can go through the trashfire to keep the horizon short, losing perhaps 20-30 aircraft /per day/ until we roll back the Laser and Hunting Drone threat, WE WILL LOSE the next airwar.

Stop thinking Red Baron you fighter jock wannabes. Because he wasn't shot down by Roy Brown. He was killed by a bunch of AnZac grunts. That's /always/ the way it's been. _Majority Kills To S2A Threats_. The difference being that we are now looking at a scenario whereby the little guy can at last send up an irrevocable 'Follow The Bright Light, God Will See You Now' card beyond the distance at which mere altitude or range will save a sky knight.

THEL is a 30MW laser with a reach of up to 40km/20nm people. If you think the bad guys aren't burning the midnight oil over their CAD screens trying to copy that ability, you're nuts. Nothing else has worked. This will.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I agree with your thesis, but I've got just enough political blood in my veins to know that it won't work that way. I've had the 'pleasure' of working in D.C., and I've seen that trashfire in action. I understand your arguements against JSF, but I'm still happy to see it still moving forward all the same.

Even if you are right, and they do throw it out--which really is possible--I'm still interested in the capabliity that will be transferred to other platforms. I've talked to my fair share of Senators and Representatives. I'm convinced that many know less than I do. Those blockheads can't see past the dollars and the pork that goes to their States.

The arguement you make for UCAV will be forced on them. When the rubber meets the road, they'll have no choice but to do as you say. Americans are historically infamous for showing up the party...late. Doesn't have to be that way. It's just what the disconnected leadership in D.C. does.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I have a question though, the U.S. (as far as I know) prevented countries like the Chinese from knowing the detailed technology of aircraft like the F-16 for years, until Israel gave them an F-16. How would they steal the F/A-22's technology?



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Espionage occurrs on many levels. The Chinese can send dedicated agents to infiltrate specific projects. Or, they can eavesdrop on confidential company communications. Computer hacking is common. So is finding just the right person to photocopy a few things...for the right price. No project is ever truely 'secure.' On top of all this, there's always the risk of somebody...anybody...on one or more of the design teams who is sympathetic to China.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Yeah, it's pretty easy to get the information, but knowing HOW to make it, and being ABLE to make it is a completely seperate issue. It's like reverse engineering alien tech. First we have to know how to make the tools, to make the tools, to make the tech. I'm not saying that no one else can successfully copy an F-22, just that it is going to be harder than just getting the plans for them. It's like the F-117 that was shot down. Just because the Russians got their hands on the skin of the plane, it doesn't automatically mean they'll be able to reverse engineer it.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Implosion,

>>
Just out of interest, when was the last conflict that the US had to do any more than just turn up to achieve air superiority?
>>

It should be noted that the the USSR had a perfect setup for selling 'conditional BVR' to client states which were too stupid to know the used-car difference. Namely, two or three classes of missile, each with different seeker and motor combinations. Plus a limited-for-export radar complex.

In the end, this made even nominally capable fighters like the MiG-29 a dual R-73 CAVU shooter which just isn't good enough without WARPAC level numbers and a fanatical pilot corps to take the attrition and keep on coming.

Vs. SARH, it all comes down to ROE and who sorts and then hits pole faster, further. Vs. U.S. Super-Teen fighters, at best, a limited MiG force is likely going to see the flight lead take one right in the teeth and then Junior with probably under 500 hours on type is going to be left chewing his nails off at the elbow, looking with the IRST or Radar through the GWH source point while the F-14/15/18 driver is ASE'd to the max and/or cranking to keep closure down.

As -his- wingman swings round in a hook or pinch for the cleanup.

Vs. ARH, lead is going to call the shots and keep everyone in-volume sorted while wingie does the HDTWS to put as many rounds in the air as possible. Whether the badguys even know they are being razzed will depend on how sophisticated their RWR and GCI is but since AMRAAM is small but quick, it will still likely hit endgame around 6-8nm which is going to be on the outside edge of most SRM envelopes.

In this case, it's likely that BOTH the lead threats will die. 2v4 on the staggered AMRAAM shots. If you shelf back, I will go to division wall or chainsaw and your still dead because I still have more compass points, BVR shots and TIME to execute the first and followups from.

For the bad guys there is another problem in that, with good guess work and residual (after the SEAD rollback) IOC control, they can usually get up and into the raid track with /some/ margin to position themselves before the AWACS gets word out. This can generate confusion with regards to radar EID tags.

But _the instant_ you light up to support that radar weapon, he's down to his 'last shot' regardless. Because that's all he's gonna live to time out.

At least with the AA-7/10 and S530 generation.

Now, 8 SRMs in a two section flight may or may not do a little better (if they stay passive to the last moment and then do fire and forget in a bunch) but they still will likely take at least one kill coming in and another going away. Which means nobody comes home. Very discouraging to a living pilot.

If you upgrade to 8 AA-12 however (assuming you have a Zhuk derivative to support the volume Twiz and uplinks) and things get different. Because there is effectively no restriction on BVR fighting and now it's the 'Coalition' who have the most jets which can potentially take a shot and which must therefore ALL defeat their own inbound.

Range overlaps, at least before the C-7 were pretty equal. And so the potential exists to either run chainsaw ops (accelerate, shoot, withdraw) with the trailing wingman coming in behind the outerenvelope turn-signal corridor his lead has opened up (by forcing the Western sections to 'honor the shot' with nose-off extension). Or to simply salvo loft a maximum torpedo spread of weapons from mid-outer pole and then run.

In this, having your Radar thumbprinted in seconds is not quite as bad an idea (and it will become less so as the Russians also go Shooter-Illuminator) because _even if it gets you killed_ it's still for the benefit of four shots (per plane) in the air. Not one (Apex/Alam 25-30km effective). Nor even two (Archer 10-15km). And because those shots are LOALing at equivalent distances, it is far more likely that everyone will live at least long enough to get their shots in the air.

Which is something not even the best SRMs can guarantee against AIM-7MH or AMRAAMs.

i.e. In the past, it didn't pay to put an airplane in the air because 1-2 jets (even a 3-ship with a trailing sniper grade 'exploiter') would not survive their first mission and had to _launch_ with that reality in their minds. To the extent that even reaching a weapons launch point meant very little. Comparitively, an ARM pit, decoys and a networked cueing radar could all make a SAM site viable for multiple shots, provided targets came into range, 1 at a time.

Now, with ARMs able to home on inertial coordinates and standoff platforms able to interpolate ELS and SAR to generate those targets, the SAMs can't shoot and scoot fast enough to avoid taking the hit unless they shoot the inbound itself down.

While jets which SPRINT ALL THE WAY can engage targets over a wider operating area with enough envelope compression to get at least a 1-for-4 -chance- at a kill. Before they too are knocked out of action, in a HAS or by damaged fuel/runway/GCI liability.

Where the advantage is, the systems will be preference-purchased. Not least because they are 'sexy' and idiot-shows like the Cope India setup convince one legged a$$ kickers that they can dance the fast dance.

This is why the F-22 is so important. Because it's own combination of speed and LO limits the spray'n'pray effect of BVR weapons which GCI may or may not be able to put threat intercept into position to shoot at. But which said fighter cannot itself see (E/F/G vs. I/J band emitters).

Given the F-22 can ALSO carry A2G munitions with little or no effect on supercruise or signature, it then becomes a matter of achieving 'battlespace dominance' via whatever IADS target chooses to pop it's head up rather than whatever threat is going to axe you if you don't do unto it first.

The worst threat a fighter pilot can face is a mixed one. SAM at 7 and 11 o'clock. Fighters converging at 3.

The Raptor kicks one leg out from under the dogpile effect and lets it's driver skirt the edges of the envelope on the other. As a one legged threat, you can't assuredly kick A if you're sitting on your own.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join