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.

 

1 billion dollars to buy 23 more F-22s.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
ECM only work in certain directions. Modern short range surface to air missiles are all aspect and can engage targets from all directions. If you fire a surface to air missile at a A-10 from the frontal side the rear IR and Chaff are worthless. Also other jammers will also not be as effective either.

It's basiclly one shot, one kill against a A-10 if it goes up against modern missiles.

It was a good aircraft for when it was made and is still good for the job it's doing in Iraq and Afghanistan but seriously it's a missile magnet against any modern competent force.

It can stop nearly all SA-7 and red-eye style missiles but it has no chance against the newer missiles.

Also the remember RBS-70 is unjamable becuase it's laser beam riding guidance making it immune to IR flairs, laser jammers, chaff etc.... Countries such as Australia, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Norway, Pakistan, Singapore and Tunisia all use them.

A-10 was badass back in the day's now it's just over-rated becuase of the enemies that America faces.


.




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
ECM only work in certain directions. Modern short range surface to air missiles are all aspect and can engage targets from all directions. If you fire a surface to air missile at a A-10 from the frontal side the rear IR and Chaff are worthless. Also other jammers will also not be as effective either.


Umm... do you know how big the IR signature of an A-10 is? Those engines and their placement offer other advantages besides slow speed handling and increased survivability. What is your IR seeker going to lock on to from head on? Like I said, the A-10C has an improved ECM suite as well as IR countermeasures. It can survive against certain MANPAD's, and that's all it need to do. It's a CAS platform, not one that goes in the first day of the war in contested airspace. Once the battlefield has been sanitized of major SAM systems the A-10 can go in and deal with MANPAD's if it has to.


Originally posted by iqonx
It's basiclly one shot, one kill against a A-10 if it goes up against modern missiles.


Again, not for MANPAD's.


Originally posted by iqonx
Also the remember RBS-70 is unjamable becuase it's laser beam riding guidance...


The RSB-70 needs an outside source to feed it initial information on the location of the aircraft. It also has limited range and requires that the operator manually aim the laser beam at the aircraft. Good luck doing this against an A-10 at long distance while it's maneuvering. Remember, you only get one shot or else you're ashes.

[edit on 25-11-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
WP23,

>>
No you cannot do the same thing with a Super Hornet
>>

Let's also be honest and say that you cannot do ANYTHING with a JSF that the F/A-18E/F or more particularly the EA-18G isn't there to cover for.

>>
first the F-35 offers improved and more avionics,
>>

I would put the F/A-18 Lot-25 and up ACS against an F-35. The second man, the bigger forward fuselage, the APG-79, the MUCH larger displays. It's all there (or could readily be incorporated) to make this airframe a true netcentric warrior.

>>
better information sharing and gathering capabilities (cannot be understated),
>>

The nice thing about a nominally 'conventional' signature airframe is that you can lump-and-bump it sufficiently to make your netcentric requirements.

AAS-46 is not that hot (basically AAS-38 warmed over) but the ASQ-228 ATFLIR is roughly a match to the EOTS as that system is itself based on the AAQ-33 Sniper. The Super Horror pioneered IAM+Radar corrected targeting (HART as AMSTE) and while they then 'quietly let it die' for fear of proving how little difference there was with the achievables on the JSF, the fact remains that the APG-79 is good enough to support extended range (GBU-39 as much as 38) PTOD shots and it is just as capable as the APG-77 of being hooked up to a digital modem to achieve /truly phenomenal/ burst data rates.

>>
Stealth,
>>

Overrated according to a lot of sources. Not least because all contemporary S2A systems are _static_ as well as 'highly visible' and so if they illuminate, they have no hope of displacing from their position before Blk.VI HARM (power IAM) or GBU-39 arrive to obliterate the site.

If an F-15E can loft a GBU-39 nearly 60 miles downrange in tests from a _subsonic_ launch, the F/A-18E/F can do 'good enough' in avoiding the medium range threats. For the 20 something SAMs, you go in with cruise or F-22 anyway.

>>
expanded weapons payload
>>

Six of one. The Bug Deux is a devil of a stores environment with both acoustics and separation issues that have never really been resolved. That said, it can do the one thing it _has to_ which is carry numbered IAMs opposite HARM to a 350nm combat radius, without tanking.

A JSF may be able to carry as many small IAM as the bug does big (though not more) but it _cannot_ carry HARM. Until it goes external. And becomes a conventional signature jet.

>>
...and better flight specs.
>>

According to who? The JSF will have a typical combat military thrust to weight ratio of less than half at takeoff. It will have only about .9, even in burner. Any jet on the planet which catches it heavy with gas will butcher it in an even odds dogfight. And on the wrong end of a 700nm radius, it _can't_ dump fuel to get down to fighting weight.

With half the envelope of the Raptor, even under 'ideal' conditions of half internal fuel, it will also not supercruise. Because it's wing is too small in the A/B versions. And too damn large in the C.

Next, reread what I said above: The Just So Bleeped is not going ANYWHERE without a Bug of some model holding it's hand. Combine this with the fact that 'for the Naval services' there will still only be ten jets on-deck. And you are just plain screwed. You can't dedicate half your airwing to reinvent an A-6 VAW(H) capability.

>>
But anyway, the F-35 is not replacing the Super Hornet, it's replacing the C/D versions, as such, the Navy will have a powerful duo for ground and air ops.
>>

The Navy will have ten jets onboard. Replacing the F-18C/D with another fatwing bomber that is slow to accelerate and has the lowest of all three services thrust to weight ratios is a _bad idea_ if you intend to make the jet into a utility fighter as the Bug-1s /still/ are.

>>
I don't even need to list the improvements over the Harrier.
>>

Yeah, yeah you do. Because the majority of the USMC air community /hates/ the AV-8B for it's huge carded restrictions on operating envelope (especially the II+) and it's sucking dry of the mod/maintenance/training budget when they do their 'real work' with the F-18C/D.

In any case, you are looking at a typical detachment of 8-10 jets on an LHA/LHD and NONE on the new LPD-17. There are 5 LHA and 8 LHD. The LHA are due to start /reitiring/ sometime after 2011 and so you are looking at a TOTAL of maybe 130 jets available. 'There was a time' when that was less than two carriers could bring to the battle with a helluva lot more organic flex in targeting and support missions besides. Even today, it is only about the equivalent of 3.2 Nimitz ships.

And the number of jets on a Jarhead Cruise Lines will NEVER INCREASE because:

A. They don't have the gas pass to get to a theater quickly.
B. They have to have room for LARGER troop transports in the form of the CH-53 replacement and the Osprey.
C. The Squids will never relinquish blue-air dominance to a bunch of infantry mooks.

>>
The AF currently has no airplane that can even come close to the F-35 in the A2A role (besides F-22)
>>

The F-35 has roughly the aerodynamic performance of the F-15A.

>>
All the while it will still offer you a capable A2G capability with improved avionics and survivability.
>>

'Capable' A2G is defined by presence and sortie counts off the pointy end of the boat. The F-35 is INFERIOR in this to the logical solution which is a navalized UCAV. _UCAVs_ in turn being the 'gen-6' airframe which will completely undercut manned airframe sales because they are cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and can actually undertake useful peacetime missions like loitering border/EEZ overwatch, SAR, policing and even resource exploration missions.

The F-35 is a 700nm platform, in and out. At Mach .85, it's /still/ going to be a minimum 7-10 hour trip. And I doubt seriously if it will beat the F-16s 3,500-5,000 dollar per flight hour DCO numbers. Which means it is useless when you get to any target set that has to be found rather than bombed where it sits as a static structural target. A UCAV will fly out 1,100nm, sit there for TWO hours and then come home, without about 2/3rds the gas and no AAR.

Modern airframes with modern PTOD munitions are little more than bomb trucks. If you want to win modern wars, whether third or first tier threat based, you need MORE BOMBS ON TARGET and MORE TARGET _AREAS_ COVERED. Which can hardly be the case with 'all 10' JSF per carrier.

>>
Like others have pointed out, the F-35 will fill the Lo end of the Hi-Lo mix, and it will serve as our workhorse and main export program.
>>

The F-16 was the dumbest 'MSIP later' decision for a _bomb truck_ we ever made in defense spending. It made Texas Politics rich but it would have cost us the Third World War, whether fought over Germany or Iran.

DO NOT talk to me about Hi-Lo until you realize that 'low' should be both good at what it does and _less than half the price_ of it's Hi alternate. At 21 million each the last time GDFW offered a 'fair fight' bulk buy price, the F-16 is only about 2/3rds the cost of an F-15C (35 million) and thus fails on ALL counts of both tactical capability and cost performance.

>>
Why do you think thousands upon thousands of F-16's have been produced (and exported to far more nations) when arguably the F-15C and F-15E offer more capabilities in their respective roles?
>>

Texas has more gravita$$e in Congress than New York or Missouri does.

>>
For one thing the F-35 is not replacing the A-10 nor is it going to be doing 300Kt at 5K to get shot at by a Stinger. It's going to be dropping JDAM's from 20K like the F-16 does now. And BTW, when was the last time an A-10 was shot down by a stinger?
>>

Good! Then, since 'eyeball on target' is as ridiculous for the A-10C as it is for the F-16C and since NEITHER jet is going to be doing much A2A while 'CAS configured', why not let the job be assumed by a drone which has the same or better sensor suite?



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
For one thing the F-35 is not replacing the A-10 nor is it going to be doing 300Kt at 5K to get shot at by a Stinger. It's going to be dropping JDAM's from 20K like the F-16 does now.


Strange, the US Air force seems to think it is!


USAF F-35A –air-to-ground strike aircraft, replacing F-16 and A-10,


www.airforce-technology.com...




And BTW, when was the last time an A-10 was shot down by a stinger?



Never, but the A-10 is design to take a hit and keep flying!Look what all this plane can absorb without being shot down:


The aircraft can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high explosive projectiles up to 23mm. Their self-sealing fuel cells are protected by internal and external foam. Manual systems back up their redundant hydraulic flight-control systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power is lost.


How many airplanes can take that kind of damage and keep flying?

Tim



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Strange, the US Air force seems to think it is!

That was awhile ago. Now with the A-10C upgrades, the A-10 will be around for a pretty long time alongside the F-35.




How many airplanes can take that kind of damage and keep flying?

Not many. That's exactly why it's staying around.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
That is one bad-ass fighter plane.I'd have to say its well worth the $$$$$$$


Actually Crowpruitt

I would prefer you call the Raptor the Sukhoi Killer. That has a real nice ring to it...



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Tim, the F-35 is not replacing the A-10, the Thunderbolt II will stay around until at least 2028, the USAF gave up trying to replace the A-10 after ODS. At that point the A-10 will either be replaced by a hunter killer UCAV or a swarm UCAV concept which promises to revolutionize CAS while enhancing our denial of area capability.


And Kurt you've never liked the F-35 so you comment don't really surprise me but you are knowingly ignoring key upgrades and new capabilities that the F-35 brings. Look at it's role in context and realize that it hold far more promise as a future platform than current systems.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Just a thought for the Brits on ATS. If the F-22 now only costs $43 miilion a piece and with the pound sterling at its current exchange rate with the dollar wouldn't it be cheaper to buy the F-22 than the Typhoon? I know it won't happen but if we'd lift the ban on foreign sales would the RAF consider it?


Nah.. There to commited to the Eurofighter now. + It would look politically bad to the british public to have both of our new generation fighters from across the pond.

I remember when they imported the f-4 phantom, to cut criticisim they replaced the engines with rolls royce ones, but this made there performance worse as they were to heavy for it.

I personally don't think america will ever sell the F-22. I mean they would never sell a B-2 would they?

Still 21 million pounds for an F-22 is a very good deal!!

[edit on 26-11-2006 by clashrock]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   
WP23,

>>
Tim, the F-35 is not replacing the A-10, the Thunderbolt II will stay around until at least 2028, the USAF gave up trying to replace the A-10 after ODS. At that point the A-10 will either be replaced by a hunter killer UCAV or a swarm UCAV concept which promises to revolutionize CAS while enhancing our denial of area capability.
>>

The A-10 will never go anywhere that there is not a runway to land. Increasingly, that may NOT be a viable option as access denial becomes a function of alliance politics as much as TBMs.

The A-10 was 'built around the GAU-8' if that particular weapon is no longer necessary or useful, (because, at 15-20,000ft slant ranges which the IFFC mod makes LCOSS-possible from height, the HEI falls completely out of a 70ft CEP circle and the DU is considered 'unhealthy to the natives'), then the A-10 itself is worthless.

Indeed, in OEF, everyone _preferred_ the Marine system of high altitude CAS-stack offsets at cardinal points vs. the 'overhead CAS' method which the USAF/A-10 community espoused because jets were fast-in-out at minimal threat to themselves and minimal TOT lag between passes. And because it was easier to use targeting technology from a high slant to bring together the 2-eyes-on-target methodology of smart weapons employment.

The A-10 has ZERO at-altitude physical performance margin because, between the weak TF34 engines whose complete upgrade has NOT been paid for and the airfoil which is not only straight but nearly supercritical in it's extreme cambering (and thus becomes radically unstable as the KCAS and Mach point come closer together at 20K feet and beyond) it can't FLY well enough to be service effective 'over the White Mountains' type flying it routinely encounters.

Bluntly, it is just NOT an aerodynamically viable airframe in the high-must-be-fast part of the envelope. And it never will be.

Indeed, it has a /helluva/ time hooking up with tankers anywhere but the heart of the 'weather band' in the 10-15K foot range, a fact made worse by the fact that it doesn't have a bloody combat tank to aux-up it's loiter time.

>>
And Kurt you've never liked the F-35 so you comment don't really surprise me but you are knowingly ignoring key upgrades and new capabilities that the F-35 brings. Look at it's role in context and realize that it hold far more promise as a future platform than current systems.
>>

And you argue against your own perspective by saying that the A-10 IS viable in the CAS role, a role which is perhaps THE MOST stressful of all 'netcentric' activities.

Despite the fact that said hog has NO radar to look through weather or FAC-A/KScout pickup and coordinate the arrival of inbound bombers.

NO force-wide targeting pod.

And only LIMITED (the DSMS did not gain SADL connectivity because the dumbass morons in Army leadership wouldn't agree to a standard architecture for it) 'digital battlefield' capabilities.

Bluntly: An MQ-1 with Lynx and MTS is a _better_ 'CAS' system on the front end of the ISR loop because it can afford to fly out 200nm and sit on station for 17-20hrs while retaining sufficient standoff to be outside the trashfire/MANPADS envelope.

Thus SEEING the bad guys move their 'battlation sized' formations into place to ambush the poor little Rat Patrol jeep column headed down a single traffic route. Lynx has something like a 4" scan:scan resolution at 15km sir. That's enough to distinguish FOOTPRINTS. No A-10, nor F-35 /pilot/ is EVER going to match that, from altitude.

And so, given you /triple/ the 3-4 million dollar cost of the Predator in adding a jet engine and gas sufficient to lift realistic weapons loads (eight GBU-39 is still twice as many guided shots as the A-10 typically brings to the game) to heights and Mach points compatible with fast tanker orbits; you STILL should not put a 100 million dollar fighter ahead of a 15 million dollar UCAV. Nor even a 10 million dollar 'upgrade' to a CAS jet which was a failure when first designed.

Both the A-10C and the JSF are thus living proof that the military exists to further their own existence and the military industrial base to make a profit off of it.

NOT to protect US.

We The People.

The signatories on that piece of yellowed paper they all claim to love and defend so much.

Because they are NOT choosing to 'sacrifice' in putting the _best system_ into place for the mission, regardless of what it does to their jobs and profit margins.

Until and unless we come to acknowledge and repair that all-too-human level of corruption in our defense establishment and indeed Government as a whole, we will NEVER be able to say how many of what type of gold-plate alternatives we put into the 'Hi' portion of the tier as backup to the bombtruck force.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
CH1466,
Your replies to others always seem very authoritative. I'm curious to know if they are based off of any "boots on the ground" experience?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I understand the F-22 can't do everything the F-35 can. The F-22 is still a superior aircraft, and if we gutted F-35 development, we could afford many more F-22's and fill holes emerging in the Air Force.

CAS is the name of the game, and that is predicated on air superiority. You can't predict what the future holds, but knowing you own the skies for decades to come seems more important. Maybe it's just me. In a CAS support role, the F-35 can't carry a large payload while remaining stealthy, or remain over the battlefield for extended periods. This job should be filled by heavy bombers, Updated AC-130, and UAV's. Until we have those, A-10's and F-16's fill the gap.


It is speculation on my part, but I'm betting each F-35 will cost more than the F-22 when all is said and done. If this turns out to be correct, it will fail in the export market anyway.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by crusader97
CH1466,
Your replies to others always seem very authoritative. I'm curious to know if they are based off of any "boots on the ground" experience?



Yeah, I'm just naturally bossy and natively mean...

Doesn't change the fact that if we NEEDED to put 200 aircraft up in a constant 24:7:365 rotation to 'stabilize' Iraq under an all seeing eye that backtracked every car sniper and mortar team back to whatever rock the crawled from under, we couldn't do it with 5,000 dollar per hour F-16s.

We -might- get close to it with 1,200-1,500 $/flthr jet UCAVs. Simply because you would only need about 300 such aircraft in theater to sustain, just on the different loiter endurance factors.

And because they would be jet UCAVs and because they would be using cheap pin-tail-on-donkey glide-IAMs from 60 miles or more out, they could just as readily perform D1R1 missions behind or in front of F-22 or F-18F combat controller 'escort' platforms.

Screw Air Combat 'fighterism for it's own sake'. An AMRAAM or RamAAM or TurboAAM off a robot will kill you just as dead. And stealth + standoff + numbers beats performance on the S2A threat as well.

The USAF _knows_ this and is /desperate/ to 'Ostrich The Obvious' until such time as they can get their assured union employment status back under control with the 'only 80% as expensive!' (112 vs. 133 million) F-35.

Despite the fact that they are technically in _Contempt Of Congress_ (an act which could be RICO proven to be a deliberate conspiracy) in refusing to have 1/3rd of their deep strike be unmanned. (DOD would respond that cruise missiles are 'unmanned' I'm sure but we could still swing a few by their EML nuts).

Meanwhile our glorious warriors also fail utterly to acknowledge what the 'buy both' hi-lo idiocy of policy on the F-22 and Just So Beeped is setting our economy up for and how that effect will likely snowball to untenable levels.

When the vaunted U.S. 'Military Machine', having been beaten by a bunch of bloody goat herders (/again/) is forced to run broke-tail yiping from the Gulf.

Namely that oil will be routinely sold in Euros and Yuans, the Dollar-as-fiat currency era will be an artifact of history and with our massive debts unsecured by a REAL commodity value, our economy will crash and burn like a cast iron duck in a magnet minefield.

So yes, I'm just /so incredibly proud/ of our Armed Forces ability to win yesterday's war. Does that answer your question?


KPl.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

Does that answer your question?


KPl.


Not really. I wasn't necessarily referring to this thread. I just didn't know how much "hands-on" experience you had behind your opinions, or if they are based mostly on observation.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Despite the fact that they are technically in _Contempt Of Congress_ (an act which could be RICO proven to be a deliberate conspiracy) in refusing to have 1/3rd of their deep strike be unmanned. (DOD would respond that cruise missiles are 'unmanned' I'm sure but we could still swing a few by their EML nuts).


So yes, I'm just /so incredibly proud/ of our Armed Forces ability to win yesterday's war. Does that answer your question?
KPl.


Even if they ARE in contempt of congress, by refusing to have 1/3 of their deep strike platforms unmanned, I still say they are doing a Good Job! The last time we had a bunch of No-Nothing politians running the military, we were in Viet Nam. And we all know what a US victory that Was!


I agree, our military has a lot to be proud of! Also, no one wins Every war!

Tim

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Ghost01]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
That $1BN contract for 23 Raptors looks to be for long lead in costs only, but I'm not cetain. After all, adding a single Raptor to Lot 3 cost the Air Force $117.6M, but I digress.

I think that's a good point about the savings that UCAVs may offer, but I was really trying to think about low cost manned options, so bear with me.

Try and imagine an injection moulded airframe conisting of just 7 major components (2 fuselage sections, 2 wings with an embedded carry through box, 2 horizontal stabilizers, 1 fin) the material could be a combined epoxy resin/fiberglass/carbon fiber composite, control run requirements would be minimal as the aircraft would be fly by wire with no hydromechanical backups, the engine could be some form of hybrid Ramjet with just 4 throttle settings and very few moving parts, avionics would be best described as austere, with a solid state planar array radar with modular interchangability for each mission profile and a laser target designator.

Ok, what I just posted above is probably totally unfeasible, both from an engineering aspect and perhaps from the concept of giving our warfighters something that they regard as inferior (the swarm concept is a reasonable phrase).

Has there ever been any research in this area, is the concept even feasible, or should foreign customers just buy from China - I confess that when I'm contracted to help re-build, oh let's say New Zealand's air force, buying Chinese would be my probable advice.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join