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 Raptor to Debut at Red Flag

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Daedalus, actually the final contract has not been signed yet. The deal is only at the second stage and there are several more rounds of negotiations to go through before it is complete.

Also, just to be ever so picky, its not '43rd Squadron' when you are talking about RAF units, its just plain ' 43 Sqn' I know its a tiny point in the grand scheme of things but you've no idea just how 'wrong' it looks to a brit the way you wrote it.


[edit on 6-10-2006 by waynos]




posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
we can argue all we want about the capabilitys of each aircraft, i can write more about CAPTOR to AMSAR but i'm not going to because to me the f-22 is unproven along with the typhoon, i'm a realist and not believe hype, so all i'm saying is it will be interesting to see these 2 aircrafts in a training excerise with each other


i also want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons why the royal navy shouldn't be involved in the f-35 project.

for me apart from the stealth aspect a navalised eurofighter will be just as effective (if not better) than what a f-35 will be, it will also be cheaper (we can buy 2 typhoons to 1 f-35)


now heres the options:-

-------
OPTION 1
------

buy 150 F-35's to operate on our new carriers (the mod's planA option)

-----
OPTION 2 (my plan)
-----

for the same amount of money the f-35's are going to cost britain, buy 230 navlised eurofighters, along with an extra cvf carrier (wouldn't that make the royal navy stronger)?

----
OPTION 3 (my plan)

buy the same amount of navlised eurofighters or rafeles operating on the 2 new cvf carriers (same as option1), but with the spare £billions left over, buy an extra 4 type45 destoryers (totaling to 12) again wouldn't that make the royal navy stronger (with money left still in the pocket)?

(summary) for the last 30 years the royal navy as lost its fear factor, whilst the royal navy is still very respected, we have lost that whole fear factor we've ALWAYS had....but with all the new projects the mod have in development i have no doubt (either way) the royal navy will once again be 'feared' within the next 10 years


which ever way you look at it though regrading the f-35, america had to give what the britain wanted (codes for upgrades), because the way britain have stuck by the US after 9/11.

therefore america had these options,

1) do we lose a great ally and not give britain the codes they want, let britain go their own way and POSSIBLY making them a stronger nation, afterall GB have the 2nd highest defence budget behind america and britain is apart of the EU also giving the UK options that way.

2) or do we let britain be part of the f-35 project, give them one of our greatest fighters and still have them as our allys, (but the britain is still right in front of us where we can see them)


summary win/win situation for the US

possibly a win/win situation for britain (as we are on par with america in most aspects), but may well be slowing us down in other areas.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Sepiroth]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
My sources at Nellis are telling me the Raptor will debut at Red Flag 2007 this coming January.
It will definitely be going against the Aggressor squadrons of F-15's and 16's - what is unclear is whether it will be flying while any foriegn guests are in the air.


I doubt the politicians and top brass will want to fly the F22 in any situation where the outcome is anything other than a big WIN! For a plane with so much political and financial weight hanging off it, it would be rather embarrassing for it to lose. The press would have a field day, the USAF would be lampooned and the politicians would be criticised and lose face...

It will be a stitch-up. Call me a cynic!

Regards



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
I doubt the politicians and top brass will want to fly the F22 in any situation where the outcome is anything other than a big WIN! For a plane with so much political and financial weight hanging off it, it would be rather embarrassing for it to lose.

You'll probably see the Raptor in international exercises within the next 5 years. The reason they took so long to put it in Red Flag was that it was hard for the opposing side to train with the Raptor in the air. In training mission, the Raptors would shoot down all of the targets undetected and then the mission would be over.

Other pilots have commented on this and they say it kind of makes it unfair and find that there is no point in going in the air if you're just going to get shot down. I expect that when the Raptor reaches Red Flag and other exercises, the RCS will be increased.

Now I'm not saying that the Raptor is invincible but it would be very hard for it not to win of a majority of its engagements against any fighter operational today.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sepiroth
-----
OPTION 2 (my plan)
-----

for the same amount of money the f-35's are going to cost britain, buy 230 navlised eurofighters, along with an extra cvf carrier (wouldn't that make the royal navy stronger)?

----
OPTION 3 (my plan)

buy the same amount of navlised eurofighters or rafeles operating on the 2 new cvf carriers (same as option1), but with the spare £billions left over, buy an extra 4 type45 destoryers (totaling to 12) again wouldn't that make the royal navy stronger (with money left still in the pocket)?

Do you know how much it would cost to navalize the Typhoon? The costs would be very, very high. Probably higher than the price of an F-35 that was designed from the outset to be a carrier fighter. The frame, landing gear, electronics, and other features would have to be re-tested and re-engineered to meet the rigors of carrier landings. What modern fighters have gone from AF to carrier duties? I can't think of any.

The Royal Navy would never buy Rafales. I'd figure that the MoD is still mad at French dropped out of the Eurofighter project in the first place. Also, you are not going to save billions of pounds by dropping the F-35 program. It would just put the RN in more trouble as they'd have to scramble to find another carrier fighter that meets their needs for the next 20-30 years.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Sepiroth...
You are unibased and overcondifident with Eurofighter. I know its amazing fighting machine, without question. My comments is based on 110% fact, various F-15 variants from 3 different countires, USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia scored totaled 106 kills to ZERO losses. Can you read this correct? Japan only use these jets for self-defence and South Korea is doing same. Signapore already ordered these F-15 Slam Eagle, based on same batch as South Korea had specifically ordered. Don't get me wrong, I already very aware of that Typhoon can outfly many jets except for Raptors, its already guaranteed. Hey, didn't I read this right about rumor on AirPower magazine, RAF pilot who flew Raptor and Typhoon, he said that no way he would ever fly against the Raptor.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sepiroth
we can argue all we want about the capabilitys of each aircraft, i can write more about CAPTOR to AMSAR but i'm not going to because to me the f-22 is unproven along with the typhoon, i'm a realist and not believe hype, so all i'm saying is it will be interesting to see these 2 aircrafts in a training excerise with each other


i also want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons why the royal navy shouldn't be involved in the f-35 project.

for me apart from the stealth aspect a navalised eurofighter will be just as effective (if not better) than what a f-35 will be, it will also be cheaper (we can buy 2 typhoons to 1 f-35)


now heres the options:-

-------
OPTION 1
------

buy 150 F-35's to operate on our new carriers (the mod's planA option)

-----
OPTION 2 (my plan)
-----

for the same amount of money the f-35's are going to cost britain, buy 230 navlised eurofighters, along with an extra cvf carrier (wouldn't that make the royal navy stronger)?

----
OPTION 3 (my plan)

buy the same amount of navlised eurofighters or rafeles operating on the 2 new cvf carriers (same as option1), but with the spare £billions left over, buy an extra 4 type45 destoryers (totaling to 12) again wouldn't that make the royal navy stronger (with money left still in the pocket)?

(summary) for the last 30 years the royal navy as lost its fear factor, whilst the royal navy is still very respected, we have lost that whole fear factor we've ALWAYS had....but with all the new projects the mod have in development i have no doubt (either way) the royal navy will once again be 'feared' within the next 10 years


which ever way you look at it though regrading the f-35, america had to give what the britain wanted (codes for upgrades), because the way britain have stuck by the US after 9/11.

therefore america had these options,

1) do we lose a great ally and not give britain the codes they want, let britain go their own way and POSSIBLY making them a stronger nation, afterall GB have the 2nd highest defence budget behind america and britain is apart of the EU also giving the UK options that way.

2) or do we let britain be part of the f-35 project, give them one of our greatest fighters and still have them as our allys, (but the britain is still right in front of us where we can see them)


summary win/win situation for the US

possibly a win/win situation for britain (as we are on par with america in most aspects), but may well be slowing us down in other areas.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Sepiroth]



I don't believe US is in win/win situation. It is very amazing jet even it haven't flown yet, in some ways, it do disappointed to many avation admirers, we all thought Lockheed can do much better than that. I'm only very impressed with some of areas in F-35 are technology and engine. Hey, Sepiroth, I hate to be nitpick on you, its just that you have to accept, this single F135 engine already have twice more power than Typhoon's twin engines overall. Would you want to put these F-135 on Typhoon's twin engine bed to see how it can perform?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Daedalus, actually the final contract has not been signed yet. The deal is only at the second stage and there are several more rounds of negotiations to go through before it is complete.


Too the extent that the Saudi's may bail out last minute and go for the Rafael?!

I think not and you would hope not..

I presume the negotiations would center around the finer points of technology transfers, avionics/weapons suites, plans for future maintenance and infrastructural installations for the same in the UK/Saudi Arabia



Also, just to be ever so picky, its not '43rd Squadron' when you are talking about RAF units, its just plain ' 43 Sqn' I know its a tiny point in the grand scheme of things but you've no idea just how 'wrong' it looks to a brit the way you wrote it.



How quaint!

Any logical explanation?

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Just the way it is. It is the same deal with Australian units, it is 77 SQN and 3 SQN, not 77th SQN, or 3rd SQN.

You are becoming pedantic in your old age, aren't you Waynos?



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
And here's the irony of it all :

I did a little background checking and its seems the very same nomenclature is used in the IAF!


no 'st','nd','rd','th' add-ons here as well..
I was prompted to confirm the same when I was Willard's post about Australia and thus making the colonial association.
I would be willing to wager that all if not most commonwealth countries follow the same naming anomaly



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneMyrmidon
... Hey, Sepiroth, I hate to be nitpick on you, its just that you have to accept, this single F135 engine already have twice more power than Typhoon's twin engines overall. Would you want to put these F-135 on Typhoon's twin engine bed to see how it can perform?


Just to correct your post as you seem to have got your figures in a muddle.


The P&W F135 powerplant produces 40,000 lbs of thrust (c. 18,200 kg).
The EJ200 powerplant produces 20,250 lbs of thrust (c. 9,200 kg).

F-35 is single engined, so has 40,000 ibs of thrust (c. 18,200 kg).
Typhoon is twin engined, so has 40,500 lbs thrust (c. 18,400 kg).

Typhoon has more thrust than the F-35. Typhoon is also lighter than the F-35.

Regards



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Well, according to Wiki F-35 engine has 43 000 lbf thrust not 40 000.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Pratt & Whitneys own site lists it as

Thrust: 40,000 lb

www.pw.utc.com...

for anyone who wants to check.

I have to say i'd have prefered the uk to pull out of the F35 as well and navalise the Typhoon but it is way to late now I think were commited unfortunately.

I am not saying the F35 will be a disaster or anything I just prefer the Eurofighter.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Actually, the number is 43,000lb. It's not like it matters as the Typhoon will still have a better TWR.

Lockheed file

I don't why people keep bringing up the navalized Typhoon. I don't think you guys realize how much money it would cost to help it meet carrier requirements. It would most likely end up overweight and very, very expensive without offering any advantage over the F-35 besides having two engines. THat is why the Rafale was designed from the outset with carrier operations in mind.

Again, I don't remember anytime when a fighter designed for air force duty was navalized for carrier duty.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Well, according to Wiki F-35 engine has 43 000 lbf thrust not 40 000.


I'm just going on the manufactures website:

www.pratt-whitney.com...

Regards



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by longbow
Well, according to Wiki F-35 engine has 43 000 lbf thrust not 40 000.


I'm just going on the manufactures website:

www.pratt-whitney.com...

Regards

As I just posted P&W now has it rated at 43K in AB.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Daedalus, you are spot on with that last observation
The air forces of all the former colonies (well, the ones who were colonies when we had aeroplanes at least - not America) were all established within the RAF before moving out on their own so not only is the nomenclature the same but also the structure, uniforms and traditions all bear a resemblance to those of the RAF. This is well illustrated in 1930's and 40's editions of Jane's which included annual military and civil reviews in those days



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
IG,

I would not want to let the airframe be signature mapped by ANY foreign power.

And that is exactly what will happen, though of course it will be on the sly.

Simple 'reflectors' don't do any good when you are facing a high band, tight beam, threat.

That said, _nothing_ 'usefully comparitory' will be done or said until the JSF is in the bag. It is the law of commercialism over sense. You must buy before you brag about any possible competitor in your own or other services.

KPl.

Willard,

Similarly, it's just downright silly when you have MAYBE 90 airplanes in a given theater, to ask them to 'escort' someone which is all that the JFACC's designated mission commander will be able to call for.

Just as with OAF when neither the F-117 nor the B-2 tasking came 'from within the theater'. Mind you, the French still buggered the former but the fact remains that if you have 20 air defense SOC/IOC/EWR /without which/ the enemy is back to active illumination with each battery site, it's better to send in the F-22 on it's own (dedicated support jamming and 'all for you' clear air space rules on BVR engagement and BMC2) than to try and have it be compromised by playing sheepdog to a bunch of conventional signature, subsonic, baaaaaahmers.

That's what the GSTF and particularly the Blk.20 upgrade with the SDB and SAR is _all about_. You find the sights in realtime using overhead and UAVs and then you slingbomb them from beyond any real hope of local defensive engagement.

At which point, YES, the rest of the world gets to play second best bunny as they come in and support the ground war or the eradication of civillian industry. Something which our erstwhile 'allies' have proven rather reluctant to do on more than one occasion I might add.

That's the reality of _production_ Stealth and gliding-IAM folks. You destroy the threat and then bombing what's left becomes an exercise in flying endless CAS stacks or 'Interdiction' missions which basically any UCAV can do because the 'fighter' portion of the mission is _done_.

If half of you were half as smart as you claim to be in designing jets that are little more than a graduated improvement on the Teen Series, you wouldn't pretend that arguing over which is the 'best fighter' matters. And thus stop LOMD'ing your way into a desire for high priced /toys/ under the pretense that 'getting to play too' means diddly dip on a top-performance basis.

Rather it is ENTIRELY about _not_ engaging the absent air threat. AVOIDING the surface threat. And goosing the guerillas after a good long watchful ponder (8-10hrs) as to their provable intent to do harm.

Unfortunately, you just can't get past your hero fixation on the mutant under glass to see that the robot which comes after is the real (cheap and effective) war winner.

The country which could deliver and operate 100 Predator/Reaper class UAVs to any theater right now would be the darlings of foreign policy 'invitation to the ball'.

Put that in your hash pipes and smoke it.


KPl.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
KP,

If you are playing in the same airspace (and while I understand you don't think other nations should, unfortunately for you that is the way things are going to be for a few years yet) then you need to understand how the other platforms operate. I'm not going to escorted by a UAV, but when mission planning I need to understand how it fits into the bigger picture. Sure, the 22 is going to take out the high level anti-access systems before anything else even considers a fence check, but once the door is open, if the F-22 is still in the airspace, you need to understand where it will be, what it is doing, and how it is doing it.




At which point, YES, the rest of the world gets to play second best bunny as they come in and support the ground war or the eradication of civillian industry. Something which our erstwhile 'allies' have proven rather reluctant to do on more than one occasion I might add.


Civilian industry generally isn't an acceptable target these days unless there is a direct military advantage to be gained that outweighs the impact on the civilian population. Once again, like it or lump it, but that's the way it is. And as for the allies not supporting, how about some examples? During CAS in OIF there were very few times that bombs weren't dropped when needed, and most non-drops were due to piss poor terminal controlling or C2 screw-ups. Coming home with bombs in a war zone is a crap feeling, especially when in many cases it was needless.




Unfortunately, you just can't get past your hero fixation on the mutant under glass to see that the robot which comes after is the real (cheap and effective) war winner.


Does every post of yours have to turn into this? Those who have been here long enough know your thoughts on the matter. I've certainly posted that UAVs and DEW are the way of the future, though I disagree with your timeline. But the whole pilot bashing is getting a little old. It cheapens your argument more than anything.




Put that in your hash pipes and smoke it.


Nice finish. Won't find that one in the Harvard manual of style!

And as for the holier-than-thou snipe at other nation's signature mapping the F-22, the US isn't particularly well known for playing by the book in this regard either. It is a fact of life when operating with other nations, so deal with it. And seeing as foreign aircrew are already flying your two most sensitive platforms, who really cares about corner reflectors or pencil beams?

While the US might be fine in Iran, and maybe North Korea with unilateral action, you might need some help with China. And a theatre like that is not the place to be learning Coalition ops on the fly. And that's why Red Flags and Iraqs have other nations participating. Not for the easy fights now, but the harder ones to come.

There's still some residue in my pipe, feel free to take a toke.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
the f-22 sounds a good fighter from what ive heard, i wouldnt mind the UK getting it put it that way


oh well we are getting the f-35 and with that and the eurofighter (typhoon) we can say we have 2 out of 3 the best aircraft/s money can buy at the moment



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join