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.

 

Anything Hi Tec is a toy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The Eurofighter/F-22 Raptor is a toy, Becouse they were made during a time when there is no much need for air defense, Apart from that they are too sophisticated and when things are too complexed, things start going wrong with them.

The Mirage/Mig 19,21,25/F-4 Phantom/BAC Lightning/Century Series Fighters were tools becouse they were all made in a time they were needed, The Cold War when there was a threat of communist invasion. They were designed to be built simple, reliable and to be mass produced.

Even an ex RAF officer who my dad knows said the same thing, Planes like the
Mig 21 and F-4 Phantom which were built simple were true sucsesses and still fly today

If i was going to have a Stealth Fighter/ATF built, I still may design it like the F-22 but i would still have F-4 Phantom type technology inside it

Why are some countries getting girly SAAB Gripens and Eurofighters when they could have serious heavy metal legends like F-4 Phantoms/F-14 Tomcats n stuff like that?





[edit on 21-7-2006 by Browno]




posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
The F-4 and F-14 replace other aircraft that I'm sure people were saying should not be replaced. If we kept to that mentality, we'd still be flying SPADs.

All fighters eventually have to be replaced, but perhaps keeping the F-22 was a little overboard, given the current global situation. I personally think the Gripen ad Rafale are the right aircraft at the right time. Good enough to have an edge, but not over doing it.

By the way...I really hate to point this out, but the E.E. Lightning was not cheap or simple, which is why no one wanted to buy them (Kuwait used theirs briefly, and Saudi Arabia didn't get a whole lot of use out of theirs). Mind you, I like the Lightning, but aside from screaming acceleration and all-British flair, there wan't that much to gloat about.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
f4 phantoms were not the great success that they are being spoken of. even though they were designed durring or just before the war they still had problems, like the f4 was originally designed with out a gun and a turn radous the size of texas for a freakin fighter!!! the airforce was high on there "its so advanced it dont need gunz, we got missles" bs crap. eventually they go tired of looseing the planes and put a gun in them, they lost a lot less but still needed a better fighter bomber because of this deficiency.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I was also thinking if there was an EMP situation where all computers were shut down, Jets like the F-22 and the Typhoon wont be able to take off. But if you had somthing with no computers and basic technology like the Hawker Hunter, F-105,
F-4 Phantom, You will still be able to fly them.

Why dont they build ATFs with basic Hawker Hunter type technology inside? They would be cheaper to build and still use stealth/ATF agility outside.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
The Eurofighter/F-22 Raptor is a toy, Becouse they were made during a time when there is no much need for air defense, Apart from that they are too sophisticated and when things are too complexed, things start going wrong with them.

The Mirage/Mig 19,21,25/F-4 Phantom/BAC Lightning/Century Series Fighters were tools becouse they were all made in a time they were needed, The Cold War when there was a threat of communist invasion. They were designed to be built simple, reliable and to be mass produced.


If i was going to have a Stealth Fighter/ATF built, I still may design it like the F-22 but i would still have F-4 Phantom type technology inside it

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Browno]


You are starting to rant a bit! However, I agree with you that we over do it with the Hi-Tech equipment. Everything in it's place and time. Here's a list of some of the things I don't think are needed:

1. F-35 JSF- Why do we need a stealth replacement for the F-16 and the A-10? The A-10's a tank killer, it's not supposed to be "Soft and Sweet"

2. KC-X- Our current tankers do a good job. All we need is an upgraded model.

3. New Long range strike Plane- Hey folks what would be so bad about a new model of the F-111? It's battle proven.

Tim



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Browno, your hypothesis is all wrong, noe of the planes you mentioned were designed to be simple and rugged. The one thing every single plane you have mentioned in your post has in common is that they were all designed to be the ultimate examples of the very cutting edge of aerospace technology at the time they were created.

The irony is that att the very time the MiG 21, Lightning, F-4 Phantom etc etc were the latest thing there WAS a project to build a light, simple, rugged and cheap fighter as an antidote to these aircrafts huge size, complexity and expense, as it was percieved at the time. It was called the Folland Gnat and it only saw use in the RAF as a trainer, whilst Yugoslavia, Finland and India used the single seater version. Hardly a stunning success.

And here you are citing these same aircraft as examples of how to make things rugged and simple! Oops


[edit on 26-9-2006 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Browno : simple ? at the time the RAF adopeted the f-4 , the RR spey engine was , according to a gent i knew who actually worked on the project - one of the most advanced and complex jet engines in the world .

and of course he claimed it was the finest too



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I once seen a great photo of an F-4 and an F-16 both doing a loop at the same time.


They had smoke markers out so you could see the track. Both started the loop at the same time.

The F-4 was a quarter the way around when the F-16 had finished, and the F-16 had done it in half the radius.


That is why new aircraft are built - progress stops for no-one.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
If I remember rightly kilcoo that images was used for an advert for the F-16 which appeared in Flight magazine in the early 80's



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
If I remember rightly kilcoo that images was used for an advert for the F-16 which appeared in Flight magazine in the early 80's


I'd give a million for that memory.


I have to agree, browno, what you are saying is stupid. The F-14 might be a legend, but can it defeat the F-22, no. And that's what counts.

[edit on 26-9-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
I was also thinking if there was an EMP situation where all computers were shut down, Jets like the F-22 and the Typhoon wont be able to take off. But if you had somthing with no computers and basic technology like the Hawker Hunter, F-105,
F-4 Phantom, You will still be able to fly them.

Why dont they build ATFs with basic Hawker Hunter type technology inside? They would be cheaper to build and still use stealth/ATF agility outside.

LOL!!!!!

Pretty much all of the new jets are EMP-hardened from the first teen series fighters on. They have to be able to still fly even though a nuclear strike might be on the table.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
1. F-35 JSF- Why do we need a stealth replacement for the F-16 and the A-10? The A-10's a tank killer, it's not supposed to be "Soft and Sweet"

The A-10 is going to around for the next 20-30 years. They are already recieving upgrades for the A-10C models.

The F-16 does not need direct replacement and I think we can hold off a little bit on thoe purchases. However, the F-35 is needed in the Navy and Marines as the Hornets and Harriers are very tired.


2. KC-X- Our current tankers do a good job. All we need is an upgraded model.

I think the USAF wants something that can carry more gas and fly longer than the KC-135. That bird is almost as old as the B-52. It could stand replacement in the next 10-20 years. We also need more tankers.


3. New Long range strike Plane- Hey folks what would be so bad about a new model of the F-111? It's battle proven.

While the F-111 was a good bomber, it's still considered a maintence hog just like it's cousin the Tomcat. The room for upgradability is limited in the aircraft of its generation also. The F-15E will need a replacement eventually and I'd personally like to see the FB-23 come back although it'd probably never happen.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Browno, your hypothesis is all wrong, noe of the planes you mentioned were designed to be simple and rugged. The one thing every single plane you have mentioned in your post has in common is that they were all designed to be the ultimate examples of the very cutting edge of aerospace technology at the time they were created.
[edit on 26-9-2006 by waynos]


Waynos,

May I propse a better example of simple and rugged: the A-10 Warthog!

It was design around the same time as the F-16 and F-18. However, the good old Wathog doesn't even have a radar in it (unless I missed one of the upgrades). The cookpit was analog at a time when glass cockpit were coming out in the F-16. The avrage strike aircraft was supersonic, but the good old A-10 chuggs along at 420mph, hardly a speed record by any standard.

As you can see the A-10 was very simple and rugged for it's time, but it not only kicked Ass, but it did so with a no-holds barred style all of it's own!

Tim



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier
The F-16 does not need direct replacement and I think we can hold off a little bit on thoe purchases. However, the F-35 is needed in the Navy and Marines as the Hornets and Harriers are very tired.


You do know about the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, don't you? The Super Hornet is a perfect replacement for the earily F/A-18's. The Navy does not need a completely new airplane to replace the Hornet. Why design a new plane, when the lastest upgrade is just now making it way into the fleet?

www.fas.org...

As for the Harrier, why can't it be updated? You seem to be in an awful big hurry to retire some of our Best aircraft. Slow down and look at what you have!


I think the USAF wants something that can carry more gas and fly longer than the KC-135. That bird is almost as old as the B-52. It could stand replacement in the next 10-20 years. We also need more tankers..


Congradulations! they call it a KC-10!
]KC-10 Extender

Now we just need a few MORE!



While the F-111 was a good bomber, it's still considered a maintence hog just like it's cousin the Tomcat. The room for upgradability is limited in the aircraft of its generation also. The F-15E will need a replacement eventually and I'd personally like to see the FB-23 come back although it'd probably never happen.


Strange! Last I heard, the F-111 was still doing well in Austrailia! No one was saying we have to tie ourselves to the old F and G models. F-111H anyone? You can make impovements with a new model. Just look how different the F/A-18 A is from the new F/A-18E Super Hornet.

Next Argument?


Tim



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Tim, the A-10 is the perfect example of where the philosophy works. The nearest anyone came to making the idea work work with front line fighter aircraft was the Northrop F-5, and that, despite its sales success, was never a major player in world air power, being completely overshadowed, as it was, by contemporary 'proper' fighters.


In addition to the Gnat, other examples of 'lesser' fighters that failed to attract much or any interest include the F-16/79 and the BAe Hawk 200.

[edit on 26-9-2006 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

You do know about the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, don't you? The Super Hornet is a perfect replacement for the earily F/A-18's. The Navy does not need a completely new airplane to replace the Hornet. Why design a new plane, when the lastest upgrade is just now making it way into the fleet?

www.fas.org...

As for the Harrier, why can't it be updated? You seem to be in an awful big hurry to retire some of our Best aircraft. Slow down and look at what you have!

The Harriers in the Marine force are complete crap. Many a pilot and maintainer can attest to this. Their mission ready times are horrible compared to other aircraft. No one wants throw any more money back at the Harrier these days. They've spent enough just trying to make it work without the results they desire. That is the whole reason for the STOVL F-35. More mission capable, more reliable, and more survivable.

The Marines are not getting the Super Hornet as they did not sign into the contract. It's a strictly Navy aircraft. Their Hornets are probably the most stressed aircraft in military service. They are run hard and put away wet. The F-35B will replace them too.

The Super Hornet was meant to replace some of the legacy Hornets and all of the Tomcats. It was not meant to replace every plane on the deck one for one. The Navy isn't buying that many anyway. Some of the legacy Hornets will stay around until the Lightnings start coming into service. The Navy feels like they need a stealthy strike aircraft for first-day strike operations. The F-35 will be it.


Congradulations! they call it a KC-10!
KC-10 Extender

Now we just need a few MORE!

The contract for the KC-10 was dropped a long time ago. It's a good tanker no doubt and the USAF should have bought more. Just a mistake of short-sightedness by the Air Force.



Strange! Last I heard, the F-111 was still doing well in Austrailia! No one was saying we have to tie ourselves to the old F and G models. F-111H anyone? You can make impovements with a new model. Just look how different the F/A-18 A is from the new F/A-18E Super Hornet.

The situation for the Super Hornet is a bit different than the F-111. The F-111 line and tooling are destroyed and don't exist anymore. Building new ones would be near impossible and very expensive. Ours have been out of service for more than 10 years now. Bringing them back for airframe overhauls, avionic updates, engine repairs, and more would be ridiculous.

Also, spares and aircraft for attrition have been dwindling near nothing for the past few years. That is why Austrailia has been looking for a replacement for thiers.

Like I said they are good bombers but bringing them back would be far from the best decision.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier
The Harriers in the Marine force are complete crap. Many a pilot and maintainer can attest to this. Their mission ready times are horrible compared to other aircraft. No one wants throw any more money back at the Harrier these days. They've spent enough just trying to make it work without the results they desire. That is the whole reason for the STOVL F-35. More mission capable, more reliable, and more survivable.


On paper! The F-35 isn't even 1/2 through development yet. How can you claim it's better? Prices will climb through the roof, and who know if it will ever be what was promised.

IF the Harriers are so crappy, why have they kept them for so long? It foolish to think the military would keep something just to have it? I still don't agree. The F-35 is an example of money being spent just to spend it!

Tim





[edit on 26-9-2006 by ghost]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

On paper! The F-35 isn't even 1/2 through development yet. How can you claim it's better? Prices will climb through the roof, and who know if it will ever be what was promised.

IF the Harriers are so crappy, why have they kept them for so long? It foolish to think the military would keep something just to have it? I still don't agree. The F-35 is an example of money being spent just to spend it!


Truth be told, I don't know how the F-35 will do. Yes, prices will probably rise and delays are to be expected. However, the Marines need new planes. Where else are you going to get them from? The Harrier design is nearly 40 years old now and it's not getting any better.

Why did they keep them for so long? The Marines need something that can takeoff from an area without or with damaged runways close to the battlefield. The Harrier can do that and the STOVL version of the F-35 will be able to do that.

Trust me, the Marines want the F-35 badly. Even if it doesn't get all of the capabilities planned for it right now, it will still be far ahead of what the Harrier has.

Personally, I think the Air Force doesn't need nearly as many F-35's as it's calling for. The Navy needs something to replace it's tired Hornets though.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Sorry but the thesis presented by the OP IMO is completely ridicules. For example the F-22 was designed to completely dominate the skies, not reach parity, not be a little better, but to dominate, and it does just that. You say it's not needed, I say are you kidding me? You don't know what's going to happen tomorrow let alone the 30+ years the F-22 will be in service. If a REAL shooting war starts you WILL be glad we have the F-22 because it offers us capabilities non of our legacy fighters can EVER offer (yes even factoring in ridicules and hypothetical upgrades).

The mentality of "if it ain't broke why fix it?" is fine as long as others also don't progress, but seeing as how other counties are making (and have been for some time now) advances in technology everyday we cannot afford not to do the same.

One more thing, you call the Eurofighter and F-22 a toy but consider yourself lucky that you will never have to face one in battle...

[edit on 26-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Browno,

>>
The Eurofighter/F-22 Raptor is a toy.
>>

Since they are not designed to the same mission spec (and they certainly don't achieve it, functionally) you already display your ignorance by attempting to lump them in together.

>>
Because they were made during a time when there is not much need for air defense. Apart from that they are too sophisticated and when things are too complexed, things start going wrong with them.
>>

There should always be a 'highest tier' element to any force which requires the most concentrated effort to defeat in terms of broadspectrum R&D. Sun Tzu is often quoted as saying "Never strike the strongest force element..." along with "The Greatest Warrior is one who intimidates his opponent without fighting."

Given the number of years between wars and certainly the number of years between development cycles, this makes even more sense because you are investing in peace at _minimum_ total cost.

>>
The Mirage/Mig 19,21,25/F-4 Phantom/BAC Lightning/Century Series Fighters were tools becouse they were all made in a time they were needed, The Cold War when there was a threat of communist invasion. They were designed to be built simple, reliable and to be mass produced.
>>

The Mirage _III_ (there are at least 5 different variations so you again need to be specific as to model or decade) was just shy of worthless. Like a lot of Eurojets, they were exported to places that needed a 'tool' to exacerbate an existing problem into fullblown confrontation. For use on the NATO Centfront, especially when France was still an official player, the Mirage III is short on radius:payload, long on runway and virtually incapable of sustained air combat against threats of like generation (2 AIM-9B and/or 1 R-530? Bwuahahahaahha!).

The MiG-19 had a troubled childhood and was in any case merely a backup plan to the MiG-21 which was itself largely a failure in it's intended mission. NO GAS TO GO PLACES being among it's chief complaints, though inadequate vision, incredibly poor weapons system integration, no guns and only 2 missiles all still apply.

The MiG-25 has a silver plated engine bay. Or maybe it's platinum I forget. It hauls something like 2 tons of methanol water to cool the engines. It never faced the design threat it was intended to. And the threat it did face, neither it's radar nor missiles could properly engage. It was an excellent recce aircraft and could function adequately as an ARM slinger and standoff bomber. But then again, so can the F-22.

Talk about waste in compareable contexts. The Foxbat for instance is unsurvivable without escorts and suppression in the ONE thing it does well. The F-22 does A2G because it is so _technically_ advanced that it doesn't need to fight A2A, conventionally.

>>
Even an ex RAF officer who my dad knows said the same thing, Planes like the
Mig 21 and F-4 Phantom which were built simple were true successes and still fly today.
>>

First off, ex military personnel are no more expert about the synthesis (sum of warfighting capabilities) of systems that is modern X force exponent than your average Beltway Bandit.

Sometimes a lot dumber in fact.

This is because their ego is wrapped up in a life wasted supporting a military elitist subculture for it's own purposes rather than anything particularly useful to the national defense. If they opened their eyes, they would have a helluva lot to be sorry for. As such they see things from a VERY narrow (one might almost say blinkered) 'Rah-rah-my-service-over-all-of-ya!' viewpoint whose perspective warpage was rendered untrustworthy from early in the brainwashing process of their initial training.

Now the aircraft and their various upgrades either exist as cheap supplemental systems whose low yearly flight times and highly restricted operational envelopes allow 2-3 generations to overlap and cascade down in the capability spiral to more and more meaninglesss missions. (Turkey and Greece come to mind).

OR they are a literal time-capsule 'artifact' of in third world air forces where there are, on average, 20-60 airframes TOTAL which could be considered sufficiently capable (spare parts etc. etc.) to be usefu for /any/ role.

When these face off against 400-700 fully maintained jets like that which the USAF brought to OAF, they get seriously spanked. Amazing isn't it? Barbarian city states don't butcher each other until we give them the 'leverage' inherent to handmedowns cheap enough to let them be tempted.

And then, having effectively sponsored their little aberrant behavior spree, we come in and punish them for the PR benefit of the Western Military Industrial Base.

This is NOT selling guns so that we can buy better ones for ourselves. This is pure profiteering. As we cheer them on like Romans at the Colliseum.

Vae Victis Vickers.

>>
If i was going to have a Stealth Fighter/ATF built, I still may design it like the F-22 but i would still have F-4 Phantom type technology inside it
>>

And that would be what, Tubes or Discrete Transistors? The F-4 had both at various points in time. There IS something to be said for what I call the 'better bullet theory'. In that an F-4E with a LITENING pod, an Elta-2060 pod and AASM or GBU-39 can probably do as good or better a job than an F-15E with LANTIRN and GBU-24.

But that doesn't mean that there is not room for improvement because the current driver (I should say **detractor**) on combat airframe design, in both numbers of sorties flown per 100,000 dollars.

And /length of presence/ in prosecuting any given single mission evolution.

Both are highly biased by the worthless mutant-under-glass values of a pilot aristocracy hell bent on seeing their own order continue onwards as if they were mounted knights facing off against Maxim machine guns in WWI.

If you SELECTIVELY apply the 'very best' of technology to ONE platform. And then design the 'fill'er up' rest to meet specific standards of minimum cost at capability; you can typically generate the operational conditions by which doing a basic mission (finding a target and dropping ordnance on it) occurs without ANY OTHER OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

Simply because the typical threat is beaten senseless within hours if not minutes by your high-tier wonder weapon. And what is left over are little more than a Feyadin type irregular force which cannot even SEE the threat which is dropping a GBU-39 which will, 2-5 minutes from now, end their sorry existence.

In this you show another aspect of your ignorance because 'even among the glee club' there is a definite consensus that while the crate is not important and the quality of the biologic stick shaker comes down to 'it depends'; /the electronics/ INSIDE that airframe are CRITICAL in determining the difference between an F-15A of 1979 (which could be beaten by a well flown F-5E) and the F-15C of 2006 (which can beat back even Su-30s and Rafales while 'standing even' with Flubbers). Thanks to critical netcentric technologies such as AWACS, MIDS, AIM-120D, F100-PW-220E, MPCD, ALQ-135B and a host of other airframe upgrades.

At a cost of roughly 10-12,000 dollars per flight hour.

>>
Why are some countries getting girly SAAB Gripens and Eurofighters when they could have serious heavy metal legends like F-4 Phantoms/F-14 Tomcats n stuff like that?
>>

Because the Gripen costs 2,500 dollars per flight hour. Because the Gripen comes ready-made for advanced NCW in terms of both datalinks and missiles and EW.

Furthermore, everytime you 'void the warranty' of a given platform by buying into upgrade X, you not only make yourself utterly subservient to the economic health and political accord of the company and state that did the improvement program; you ALSO get the joyous cost of paying to retrofit said package into your jet on a custom-basis.

Efficiency is about centrist management of costs. Nothing more or less.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join