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.

 

Like Clubbing baby seals !

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Yep ! bran new show on the the HIS. (The History Channel ) The history of the YF-22 .

They Showed 4 F-15C 's going against 1 F-22 (all F-15C ) pilots were dowened within minutes of the F-22 pilot engaging ! All never new what hit them ,and what was so cool the last shoot down they showed the F-22 after the kill coming right over the last kill 2x
faster than the kill A/C (great footage ) .All of the pilots said they never had a chance.

Then (they had all the footage ) is a bran new episode on the history channel .

Then they had 8 F-18's (navy) go against 2 F-22's ,and all F-18's were shot down in very short order .

One of the F-22 pilots made a statement after coming back from downing the F-18's ..and said it was ( It's like Clubing baby seals ! ) cause it was that easy .

Was great ,hope everyone gets to see it on History Channel (first run was tonight 02/16 .

All so they said even right now with russian advanced radar ( it's 62 ft. long ,and 44 ft. wingspan ) but will only show up like a bumble bee.
```````````````````
fixed spelling in title


[edit on 20/2/07 by masqua]




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
can anyone youtube this? id love to see some of the footage, but i dont have cable!

/cryface



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
If nobody comes down here and buys a f-22 in the next hour.... I'm gonna club this baby seal...
I loved UHF.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Vertol,

>>
Yep! Brand new show on the HIS. (The History Channel ) The history of the YF-22 .
>>

Unfortunately, they don't cover most of the F-22 developments /since/ the ATF competition even though they throw images of the YF and F together in an almost random order.

>>
They Showed 4 F-15C 's going against 1 F-22 (all F-15C ) pilots were downed within minutes of the F-22 pilot engaging! All never new what hit them, and what was so cool the last shoot down they showed the F-22 after the kill coming right over the last kill 2x faster than the kill A/C (great footage ). All of the pilots said they never had a chance.
>>

First off, anybody going 1v.Many is making a _MISTAKE_. Particularly if he lets the fight go visual. Secondly, the inability of blind apes to see what kills them only means that they have no effective EO gear and are relying on MOB like bleepin' cavemen. Which is typical of the White Scarf mentality that dominates their flying club. Throw in FSO or PIRATE or particularly DAS/EOTS (even the F-14Ds AAS-42/AXX-1) and things will change.

Indeed, none of this is particularly new. The USAF was 'stooping' on F-5Es as early as 1976-77 during AIMVAL. What IS different is that when the threat has the ability to detect the inbound round and you are moving well above the Mach to support a 40-60K engagement capability, it is /really/ unwise to depend on first shot kills with only a single backup while you are generating all that heat via supercruise.

Again, F-15s learned this the _hard way_ wayback when when those same F-5Es, using fuzzbuster (Radio Shack cop warning) RWRs and 'Concept C' fixed bore AIM-9s still managed to force them into a Sprint-And-Drift engagement mode for fear of coming in too hot and taking a nose shot. With automated EXCM and HOBS on a hefty motor, this kind of stupidity becomes all the more counterable.

STAY AWAY FROM THE MERGE.

Lastly, the scene with the _YF-22_ flying overtop the Eagles was pure CGI, and thus not terribly impressive. Even as every shot of the 'Mighty F-15s' showed the E model, complete with Type-IV CFT and LANTIRN pods. Which is to say clubbing baby seals might actually be harder because of placard and mass restrictions if it had been accurate.

As is, almost all the dynamic maneuvering scenes were of the YF-22 configuration done as CGI and it kinda popped the bubble on the 'authenticity' of the program.

>>
Then (they had all the footage ) is a brand new episode on the history channel .

Then they had 8 F-18's (navy) go against 2 F-22's ,and all F-18's were shot down in very short order.
>>

The F-18 is and always has been (from the YF-17 onwards) a power cripple above 25,000ft. The USN/Marine boys have their heads wedged solidly up their nether regions in terms of thinking that 'If they (can just reach the) merge at 300 knots, the USAF stick monkeys will blow right on by and they can hose the nose across in a superman pointing maneuver and nail them with heat shot'.

Coupled to very few BVR shots on board and the huge drag deficit of the Super Bug and there is, again, nothing to brag about here. The F-22 is a war winner, but not because it fights better than our weakest fighter at it's weakest envelope point. The Raptor wins because it doesn't /enter/ the fighting arena where much superior fighters like the Flanker and Flubber and Rafale all match or exceed it's capabilities.

Such is one of the penalties inherent to flying a 50,000lb muscle car up against 25-35,000lb Porsches. You just DO NOT get into a slaloming contest.

EVER.

>>
One of the F-22 pilots made a statement after coming back from downing the F-18's... And said it was ( It's like Clubbing baby seals! ) 'cause it was that easy.

Was great ,hope everyone gets to see it on History Channel (first run was tonight 02/16 .
>>

It was not the first run. But it is an interesting show and an affirmation of our ability to /build/ war winnning systems as leap-ahead platforms with our resident technical prowess at a time when we could really use the lift.

That said, Rah-Rah A-merica BS should always be taken with a grain of salt and particularly the notion that this platform was designed for the 2020-2030 fight is pushing the envelope a bit as the Raptor will be roughly the same age as the F-15 is now and DEWS plus hunting/robotic air vehicles will own the skies completely.

>>
Also they said even right now with Russian advanced radar ( it's 62 ft. long, and 44 ft. wingspan ) but will only show up like a bumble bee.
>>

Depends on the aspect, operating band and ho big a 'really bright light' you have shining behind you as a dedicated support jammer. Probably one of the most interesting elements of the show which was just 'casually talked past' was how the Northrop design was entirely covered in RAM materials while the F-22 was protected by a few planform alignment tricks and the 'stealth ribbon' to keep travelling waves from coming back up from the trailing edge to the leading one.

Myself, I think that there is likely more to that narrow strip than is publically admitted to but even more so, I think that the conventional configuration of the F-22 is itself indication that this is a _specialized_ engagement system which exploits specific lanes of approach and engagement and it thus not quite the 'everywhere and nowhere' airframe that it is endlessly played up to be.

In this case, the combination of leveraging factors still gives the Raptor an enormous advantage over jets built to the 3rd Generation standards of the Teens and possibly even to the pre-NCW level other members of the 4th. But it doesn't necessarily follow that it is sufficient to allow our present /system/ of leveraging warfighters with specific 'door kicker' enablement addons to continue to function effectively.

Indeed, of particular importance is the utter lack of discussion relative to operating in a contest environment with mixed air and surface to air threats while supporting packages of conventional fighters. As an alternative to 'crossing the country at Mach 2, sling SDB as you go' which seems to be at least one Raptor jocks preferred vision for how to do things.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Indeed, of particular importance is the utter lack of discussion relative to operating in a contest environment with mixed air and surface to air threats while supporting packages of conventional fighters. As an alternative to 'crossing the country at Mach 2, sling SDB as you go' which seems to be at least one Raptor jocks preferred vision for how to do things.


Unfortunately the show was a rerun and was done prior to Northern Edge and Colonial Flag, though I assume you are aware of the results and discoveries made during those exercises. If the Raptor is this good now I can wait until the Block 20 and eventually Block 30 go mainstream.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Yea I no . But I like to Hype everything ! lol .Specially the F-22 .
After working on Military and Civilian A/C for 31 yrs. now .

I use to be like you , maybe 20 yrs. ago (yes I was a no-it all) and
still am .

But I got older and smarter and learned that If you hype something up to the max it's alot more fun to watch others pic it apart .

No big deal . But always remember the things I forgot you'll never no .



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   


But always remember the things I forgot you'll never no .


Like a K and a W presumably...

While EO/IR cueing may be useful in seeing the F-22, it simply makes a target aware it is going to die slightly before it does. The F-22 isn't going anywhere near a merge, and nothing currently in service will be able acquire, track and get a launch cue before the AMRAAM times out. Until a platform comes along that can overcome the Raptor's stealth advantage, and can outpole a two-way, multi-element datalinked AIM-120D, discussion on EO/IR systems as targeting options against an F-22 is moot.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
See just like Willard said ,but it's always nice to have somebody like me explain it in hyped laymans terms .lol



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   
W856,

>>
While EO/IR cueing may be useful in seeing the F-22, ...
>>

Or it's inbound missile, because defeating the arrow not the archer _works_ when you have:

1. Brave robots not cowardly men at the controls.
2. Enough EXCM/Maneuver capacity to evade the threat, mechanically.
3. Enough CHEAP airframes to soak the odds-on residual attrition for any
given engagement model (2 missiles:1 target, 60-40-20nm poles).

>>
it simply makes a target aware it is going to die slightly before it does.
>>

Not when the F-22 driver brings his aluminum cumulus into the visual fight as was _specifically commented upon_ by the opfor driver (himself a Raptor jock) who 'finally saw him pass over my windscreen as the first indication of where he was'.

This after having spent umpteen minutes 'looking for him' with _mechanical scan_ radars that scan the airspace like a flyswatter swinging for a gnat in the Astrodome.

During at least part of which the Raptor must have been close enough for AIM-9M.

>>
The F-22 isn't going anywhere near a merge, and nothing currently in service will be able acquire, track and get a launch cue before the AMRAAM times out.
>>

Which is of course why we have ATS displayed incidents of F/A-18s putting their pipper on F-22s suffering a severe case of the BFM stupids in their bloody cadillacs.

Which is why F-22s make '9 kills, including a gunshot' because they press after running out of SAFE weapons and think they are God to always get away with it. Strange thing there, God doesn't think he's a fighter pilot.

>>
Until a platform comes along that can overcome the Raptor's stealth advantage, and can outpole a two-way, multi-element datalinked AIM-120D, discussion on EO/IR systems as targeting options against an F-22 is moot.
>>

Nope. Because-

1. The threat, if it's smart, won't come for the Raptors, they'll go for the support platforms and the strike packages. Probably from dispersal bases after the sweep has boomed-by.
2. The threat, if smart, will increasingly go for an MFFC approach in which the 'lo as light' end of the hilo mix is an unmanned system that is little more than the A2A version of a target drone with just enough numbers to sweep the airspace like dogs before the horse mounted hunters (if any). In this case Dispersal is a given because the drones can launch from the back of a truck and recover by parachute.
3. With all fast-SAM shifting to ARH and soon multispectral seekers while /already being/ (for like the last 30 years) 'netcentric' in their ability to look from over there and shoot from at your feet; operating under the assumption of destroying all A2A comers, regardless of scenario, is delusional. Because _even if it is TRUE_ the predominant threat is one of the 100nm ranging SURFACE TO AIR system which can be salvo fired up to 24 at a time from ONE site. Making life hellish for any system which penetrates enemy airspace either on their own or in support of the Raptor.

CONCLUSION:
Especially at current platinum bullet force levels, the Raptor needs to become it's own mission force so as to maximize the flexibility of tactics in it's employment. That IS why they brought F-16 and F-15E drivers 'into the mix, early on' after all.

It cannot afford to be chained to the strike package by numbers or role restrictions. Once you drop the white scarf mentality you can graduate to the _basic_ level of 'what it can do and what it cannot' operational reasoning and then begin asking hard questions:

1. Can the F-22 self-suppress with AMRAAM D in any present or evolved form sufficient to avoid needing companion EA/DEAD assets on popup threats? As a function of both signature:WEZ and pole out this is critical.
2. Can the F-22 carry assymetric loadouts of 4 AIM-120 and 4 GBU-39 so that it is not 'either a bomber or a fighter'?
3. How well can the ALR-94 generate range-known precision ELS cues on it's own, in combination with Blk.20 SAR and with support from ferret configured drones, given we can no longer afford worthless junk like the E-8 and RC-135 as 'riskable assets' across a pretty deep fence.
4. How FAR can the F-22 bring the fight, at supercruise, to drive the sortie numerics and thus inventory force structure commit in a GSTF door-kicker doctrine designed to generate just enough IADS kill in the available window before the rest of the (legacy or subcruise) 'followon flows in' to finish.

I am a fan of the F-22. I have always believed in it, even when I knew how and why they were screwing it over for the good of the pilot corps and export profiteering. But I will /never/ condone using it like an F-15C with Stealth. That is such a goddamn waste and everyone who knows anything about the restrictions we face with multiplatform 'system of systems' interlocking support missions knows this beyond all else.

The F-22 is what the F-117 was promised to be and never was. The 'one plane, four aimpoints' _standoff_ COE platform.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Kurt, thanks for the reply. I think it is the first one for a while where you haven't addressed me as a moron, idiot or coward.



1. Brave robots not cowardly men (Willard: I'll presume you meant other than me
)at the controls.
2. Enough EXCM/Maneuver capacity to evade the threat, mechanically.
3. Enough CHEAP airframes to soak the odds-on residual attrition for any
given engagement model (2 missiles:1 target, 60-40-20nm poles).


1. No argument here, I've said enough times on record that CUAVs are the future. I just don't think it is now, or by 2015.
2. You manoeuvre, release expendables, and the 22 presses home the advantage by reducing the shot range, all while remaining outside the WVR arena. And it takes a gutload of countermeasures to beat the current AMRAAM.
3. Back to CUAVs, and I agree. But then, there are other options to deal with such targets, and good targeting will allow selective engagement, with the right weapons.




Not when the F-22 driver brings his aluminum cumulus into the visual fight as was _specifically commented upon_ by the opfor driver (himself a Raptor jock) who 'finally saw him pass over my windscreen as the first indication of where he was'. This after having spent umpteen minutes 'looking for him' with _mechanical scan_ radars that scan the airspace like a flyswatter swinging for a gnat in the Astrodome.

During at least part of which the Raptor must have been close enough for AIM-9M.



Hey, you can't beat idiocy. The only thing I can suggest here is some bograt got bored. And should be dealt with accordingly. Going WVR in an F-22, unless high to extreme risk, is an exercise in stupidity. Again, I've said this before. Risking a platform like this is dumb.

However, the adversary would have been simulating AA-11. Which tactically raises issues with a FH shot, as well as the OBS capability compared to AIM-9X. But still, it was a needless exercise.




Which is of course why we have ATS displayed incidents of F/A-18s putting their pipper on F-22s suffering a severe case of the BFM stupids in their bloody cadillacs.

Which is why F-22s make '9 kills, including a gunshot' because they press after running out of SAFE weapons and think they are God to always get away with it. Strange thing there, God doesn't think he's a fighter pilot.


Oh, come on, surely you've heard the story here. From memory, it was a 9k' offensive perch for the Super Hornet, and only came about because the Super Hornet guys would only play BVR dead meat if the Raptors provided some training value in return. In the form of a target. A sopwith camel could've got that shot. Not to mention the Super Bug busted the NCABM, once again proving that fighter pilots are inherently stupid, which I'm sure you agree with.

As for the Raptors pushing into a rear aspect gun shot when out of safe weapons, context is everything. If the aircraft is so good it can get there without being threatened, then good luck to it.




1. The threat, if it's smart, won't come for the Raptors, they'll go for the support platforms and the strike packages. Probably from dispersal bases after the sweep has boomed-by.
2. The threat, if smart, will increasingly go for an MFFC approach in which the 'lo as light' end of the hilo mix is an unmanned system that is little more than the A2A version of a target drone with just enough numbers to sweep the airspace like dogs before the horse mounted hunters (if any). In this case Dispersal is a given because the drones can launch from the back of a truck and recover by parachute.
3. With all fast-SAM shifting to ARH and soon multispectral seekers while /already being/ (for like the last 30 years) 'netcentric' in their ability to look from over there and shoot from at your feet; operating under the assumption of destroying all A2A comers, regardless of scenario, is delusional. Because _even if it is TRUE_ the predominant threat is one of the 100nm ranging SURFACE TO AIR system which can be salvo fired up to 24 at a time from ONE site. Making life hellish for any system which penetrates enemy airspace either on their own or in support of the Raptor.


1. The threat ain't that smart. But it is getting smarter. But to get airborne, they need to get past the DCA which will be established as the primary need in the first days of the air war (as well as hope their runways are still functional, and there isn't an SF guy with a scope sitting 3km from the piano keys...). As it was in Iraqi Freedom. Strike platforms won't fly until air superiority is achieved (there are other options), and support platforms will be positioned such that retrograde will be easily initiated. All while an F-22 supercruises to a shot. Even with an AO as small as Iraq, and with platforms such as the F-15 and F/A-18, there was minimal risk the highest threat to the HVAA, the MiG-25, would get through and get a shot. Until the Russian prove that the AAM-L is anything other than a paper exercise, the risk will be mitigated.
2. Absolutely. But until this happens, we're stuck with manned platforms.
3. Yes, but that one sight relies on an FCR to target those 24 shots, generally in a specific arc. Which means it can be exploited. And while this is going on, it needs to deconflict with the drones/manned red air flying around like rabid dogs. And lets face it, the SA-20 is going to be the first thing to soak up a shed-load of LO 200nm+ weapons. How many SA-10/20 do China possess? I'm tipping it is a lot less than the total cruise missile total that was launched during OIF...

Kurt, I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. When I heard the F-22 was escorting Aussie F-111s in the flag, I couldn't believe it. Stupid in the extreme. The 22 is THE key enabler for future air combat (well, until 2015 at least). Employing it in the same way that the previous fighter was is not smart, and I would hope that this was simply a function of not wanting to give too much away to your friendly allies (a position I'm sure you agree with), as well as boredom. Fight how you train, train how you fight though was a tenet of the Red Flag from the start, so maybe there is indeed a problem with tactic development. They need to focus on the next threat, not the current one.

Thanks for some interesting points.

Willard



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Which is why F-22s make '9 kills, including a gunshot' because they press after running out of SAFE weapons and think they are God to always get away with it. Strange thing there, God doesn't think he's a fighter pilot.


The Raptor had 144 kills in Northern Edge, only two of those were via a gun, and in both cases the F-22 was not detected until after the kill. Those kills however were not part of any standard fight plan, but rather of opportunity and circumstance. The OPFOR was trying to overwhelm the blue forces and instead of bailing out and letting a blue force bird get shot down the Raptor pilot decided to press on his advantage and kill more red forces. He decided to use the F-22's capabilities to the fullest and get a gun kill undetected, as Willard said, if you can do that, well, good for you...



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join