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.

 

The F-22 on Discovery Channel Future weapons

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   


We already know some of the stuff the F-22 is capable of. Just neat to see the F-22 as of right now.




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Oh Please.

There are five straight-up questions about the F-22 which this 'ex SEAL' dude failed to even ask for answers on:

1. In a straight line after an optimum takeoff/climbout to optimum profile height, how far can the F-22 supercruise?

2. Is the ALR-94 capable of generating precision (3D Range Known) targeting against S2A threats? Can it cue the Blk.20 SAR?

3. Can the F-22 carry assymetrically mixed weapons loads in the main bays?

4. Is the AIM-120D capable of sufficient INS/GPS strapdown performance (even if through the 2-way tether) to serve as a replacement ARM?

5. What is the REAL answer as far as the AF is concerned regarding continued production of the Raptor for 'other specialist roles' (F-117 and RF-16 replacement etc. etc.)?

ARGUMENT:
If the Raptor can get to the fight at 1.35 or better over a 600-700nm radius, it can dominate the sortie generation and TBM threat scenario decisions on GSTF deployment. If it can't then we _need to know_ exactly how limited the SSC persistence factor is relative to assigned tanking and mission profiles. Since that is the principle driver on whether the poor beast is 'better than an F-15' when it comes to added procurement.

If the Raptor cannot perform longrange, rapid (powered), suppression in support of conventional signature platforms, they should not be a part of it's initial strike planning until the IADS is completely rolled up with conventional ballistic weapons. Because the principle threat is **not** A2A, it's S2A. And without powered shots, you have to have LO to wait thru the munition flyout or risk being multiply engaged by SA-20 somethings.

If the Raptor can carry X4 AIM-120D and X4 GBU-39 (and particularly if the AIM-120D is a multirole missile), it is a LOT more viable as a mixed-mission airframe than if it carries (and I paraphrase Mister SEAL Guy here) '4 heat seeking missiles and 2 bombs on every mission'.

CONCLUSION:
By the time he got 'round to summarizing the Raptor in the above fashion, I was pretty much done with a muzzle mutt trying to do the rah-rah on a subject he clearly wasn't competent to discuss.

All the pretty video in the world doesn't change the fact that the USAF is playing the coverup game on the Raptors true capabilities to try and have their cake and eat it too on the utterly worthless F-35.

We should get the best platform for our defense, not the system most suited to employing pilots indefinitely.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
.....the utterly worthless F-35.



The F-35 has barely even begun it's 12,000 hour, six-year flight test program. It's mission systems haven't even been installed yet and you're characterizing it as "utterly worthless"?
Isn't that a bit premature? And why do you feel as such?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
get used to it alot of people on these forums love bashing the f-35 cause its multi role and doesn't do one thing "extremely well". In my openion I think it will be a good plane and get its job done, but my final vote is still out due to the fact that there is so lil facts on it right now and even less real world experince.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Casino2112
The F-35 has barely even begun it's 12,000 hour, six-year flight test program. It's mission systems haven't even been installed yet and you're characterizing it as "utterly worthless"?
Isn't that a bit premature? And why do you feel as such?


Oh he'll tell you why he feels thataway..

Well speculation is never premature if you have a decent idea of the roles/capabilities the aircraft is intended to fit into.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Oh he'll tell you why he feels thataway..

Well speculation is never premature if you have a decent idea of the roles/capabilities the aircraft is intended to fit into.


your right Daedalus SPECULATION is never premature. but its all speculation at this point or educated guesses. I've been very willing to listin to people like ch???? but after a while they are just saying the same thing with figures that they are creating about a plane thats not even done. Speculation is deffintly the right word for it.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Casino2112
The F-35 has barely even begun it's 12,000 hour, six-year flight test program. It's mission systems haven't even been installed yet and you're characterizing it as "utterly worthless"?
Isn't that a bit premature? And why do you feel as such?



What is it going to do that the F-22 could not do better?



edit: (better stick in another line or 2!)

Produce the F-22 in the numbers approaching the current JSF procurement and the unit costs will drop to comparable amounts (if not better).

Forget about the VTOL thing - its a farce anyway. The US will NEVER use VTOL carrierborne aircraft for anything other than CAS - and then stealth and supersonic dash speeds (and it will be a short dash by desire to have useable weapons loadouts) are not really in favour.

A navalised F-22 would have served the navy better than the JSF (and definitely the subpar hornet as well.

The main costs of the F-22 are in its development - anyone with a grain of common sense then knows the best way to get return on that is produce the sucker - lots and lots of them. [But the pentagon and common sense aren't on speaking terms]

[edit on 15/2/07 by kilcoo316]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

The main costs of the F-22 are in its development - anyone with a grain of common sense then knows the best way to get return on that is produce the sucker - lots and lots of them. [But the pentagon and common sense aren't on speaking terms]

[edit on 15/2/07 by kilcoo316]


HaHaHaHa
Thanks kilcoo thats last line was what I needed this morning! Hits the nail on the head and puts it in perspective that a good number of people on this board make more sence then half of the crap from the pentagon.

Makes me think though Canada just purchased the C-17 and is looking into to more options for medium lift etc... possibly DND IS listining to their common sence after so long.

Anyways thanks for the laugh was much needed.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Good video,

However, the video is wrong on one fact. The F-22 in NOT the most accurate Air-to-Ground platform. That distiction belongs to the B-2 Spirit.


Don't get me wrong, the F-22 is one kick-ass fighter. However, it's not the best at absolutly everything.


Tim




top topics



 
0

log in

join