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.

 

First Simulated F-22 Lost During Red Flag

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
An F-22 was shot down during the Red Flag exersizes in Nevada. The explanation for the loss is that an OPFOR aircraft regenerated after a shoot down and the F-22 pilot was unaware that the aircraft was 'live" and fell victem to a IR missile shot.



The friendly "Blue" force lost one F-22 during the exercise, Bergeson says. He attributes the loss to a confusing "mulligan," whereby an enemy "Red" fighter regenerated or reentered the fight unbeknownst to the Blue forces.

"We made some tactical mistakes, and one slipped through," Bergeson told reporters during a telecom from Langley AFB, Va., upon returning from the deployment. Apparently, the F-22 pilot did not realize the aggressor was not out of the fight and should have continued to attack the aircraft.
First Simulated F-22 Lost During Red Flag




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
So it was actually a real F-22 vice a simulated one? The title is a tad confusing...

Stuff like this happens in all exercises, especially if the regeneration line is close to where the blue forces are. That said, dead aircraft are supposed to squawk a kill removal code, which they turn off once they regenerate, so the 22 can't simply pass it away as saying they were surprised. Someone lost SA, whether it was the 22 driver himself, or the AWACs guy. Either/or, real world you're just as dead.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Willard it's not that simple sometimes, obviously in a real world scenario there is no "regeneration" in the middle of the fight. Since the OPFOR at Red Flag only numbers between 12-14 at any one time it is necessary to "regenerate" in order to simulate a large overwhelming enemy force. And sometimes it gets confusing as to whether or not someone it "dead" since all they have to do is leave the range and enter back... Had this been real world the F-22 driver would know that it's not a friendly and would know if it was still active or not. Now, having said that, losses do happen, nothing is invincible and lack of SA can get you no matter what you're flying. Still, the F-22 cleaned house at Red Flag and this makes the score what, like 11,325 to 1?


This is some of what Lt. Col. "Dozer" had to say about it, he was at this particular Red Flag (Colonial Flag) and has more than enough expertise to comment on the subject...


OK - back to the F-22. As you know I won't talk about the specifics of why, but as the Colonel mentioned we have "mulligans", essentially where a guy gets targeted and shot (a bad guy), and then the range training officer who's monitoring the fight makes a real time decision to let him "live", i.e. simulating that missile missed and the bad guy is still alive. This is a very realistic way to train, and has only really taken hold in more recent years. I'm a good poster child for this since on my first Mig engagment for real it took 3 missiles (see they're called "miss"iles not hittiles) to shootdown the Mig, not just one. That's very hard to simulate in training so we attempt to throw that in now and then to better train us to expect things not to work right in combat and to train us not to just blow a bad guy off until, as you would in war, you verify that aircraft is finished (fireball / crash / etc.). Unfortunately, even in training as in war, chaos rules supreme. With many guys on the radios at once, and the pace of action & communication rapidly picking up as airplanes start to get within shot range all at the same time, it's extremely easy to lose track of who's alive or dead because in training the "shot down" red guys are still really alive and flying around. Now you don't always know, as you would in combat, whether he's a live player or not. So you can infer from that how a guy people think is dead can rage around and get within range to take shots and kill blue players because everyone thinks he's dead. In the Flag there were many cases where Raptors & Eagles flew right past a guy who in war they would have known was still alive (and of course shot again until he blew up), but in the training mission they're locked onto him but think he's dead so they blow him off. Or it takes forever to figure out through radio calls who's alive and dead of all the actual aircraft flying around, NOTHING will screw up the simulated air battle faster than that - in the meantime the red guy is shooting blue guys - VERY unrealistic but there's not a good way around it under our current systems. You just have to do your best to pay attention and wade through it. There are times pilots followed a red guy around for minutes trying to figure out through the radio if he was "alive or dead", during that time the red guys often "killed" several blue players, needless to say in war after the first missile on that guy timed out with no fireball he would have been shot again, and again, etc.

All that being said, good comments posted previously, the Raptor isn't invincible, just the closest we've ever been able to come to that claim. If flown poorly, as I've said before, if you make a big mistake, or incorrectly fly the tactics and just have a bad / unlucky day and the bandit has an exceptionally lucky day, you & it can still get shot down. It's just a hunk of metal with a human operating it - it'll never be perfect.


Note: I can't post the link since the source is another discussion board. U2U me if you want it.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Umm, yeah, thanks, having flown both OCA and DCA vuls in a range of exercises, I'm pretty confident I understand what kill regeneration means, and how it works!


As I said, dead aircraft in exercises squawk kill removal, so yes, it does get confusing, expecially near the regeneration point, however real world ops are also confusing. It is a lesson, regardless of whether it was the only simulated kill by Red Air against the F-22.




This is some of what Lt. Col. "Dozer" had to say about it, he was at this particular Red Flag (Colonial Flag) and has more than enough expertise to comment on the subject...


Not sure whether you're inferring here that I don't have the expertise to comment on the topic. Considering I said pretty much the same thing as Dozer. I'm happy to keep quiet in future if my posts aren't of use.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   

I'm a good poster child for this since on my first Mig engagment for real it took 3 missiles (see they're called "miss"iles not hittiles) to shootdown the Mig, not just one.


A line from WP's post that some would do well to consider when saying WVR combat is dead.



Aside from that, the fog of war will always claim casualties, the F-22 is no different.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Originally posted by Willard856
"Not sure whether you're inferring here that I don't have the expertise to comment on the topic. Considering I said pretty much the same thing as Dozer. I'm happy to keep quiet in future if my posts aren't of use."

Dont think that is the point willard cause your basically saying the same thing as this Dozer guy just in different words. Please don't get too offended by anything here as West is a huge 22 fan and maybe a bit of his defence is what is pushing you the wrong way, even though Westpoint is trying to be balanced you still can sence that he is ready to pounce on some of the unrealistic people of the forums of which you are not one.

Just wanted to give my 2 cents on what you and the other guys where saying.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

I'm a good poster child for this since on my first Mig engagment for real it took 3 missiles (see they're called "miss"iles not hittiles) to shootdown the Mig, not just one.


A line from WP's post that some would do well to consider when saying WVR combat is dead.



Aside from that, the fog of war will always claim casualties, the F-22 is no different.


Makes me think though how close would the Red have been to get the shot off? whats the max range of those IF missiles?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Originally posted by kilcoo316

I'm a good poster child for this since on my first Mig engagment for real it took 3 missiles (see they're called "miss"iles not hittiles) to shootdown the Mig, not just one.


A line from WP's post that some would do well to consider when saying WVR combat is dead.



Aside from that, the fog of war will always claim casualties, the F-22 is no different.


Makes me think though how close would the Red have been to get the shot off? whats the max range of those IF missiles?

Depends on the missile, 20km isn't unusual these days for max range of a modern IRAAM. Some Russian ones claim longer range (i.e. IR versions of AA-10 etc) but that's open to question.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Just one thing to remember with the IR version of the AA-10 - the kinematic range of the missile far exceeds the detection capability of the seeker. And it isn't lock after launch.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Just one thing to remember with the IR version of the AA-10 - the kinematic range of the missile far exceeds the detection capability of the seeker. And it isn't lock after launch.


So basically its an amazing missile that can't be properly used then? your saying that the plane carrying the missile has to fire the plane closer in to the target because the radar etc on the plane isn't properly equipted. OR are you saying that the missile flies blind till it picks up the target in flight so it sneaks up on the red aircraft (enemy)?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Not exactly - the missiles seeker needs to be locked onto an IR source before the fire control system will consent to release the missile. So, say the AA-10B has a maximum kinematic range (ie the range it will fly purely based on the missiles engine and fuel burn) of 10 nm (it isn't, but for purposes of the exercise...). However, if the IR seeker can only detect a particular IR source at 5 nm, and the system won't consent to release prior to this, then the kinematic range of the missile doesn't really mean much. As it doesn't with any seeker. Yes, some russian missiles may have a greater theoretical range than many Western ones, but if the seeker can't lock, then it is purely an exercise in measuring who's is bigger than who's...

There are only a few IR missiles that have a lock after launch capability, and most of these aren't confirmed. Having a lock after launch capability means the kinematic range of the missile does become useful. Some IR missiles have a BVR ability, thus the target may not get warning of a launch unless it has some form of cueing.

Hope this makes sense!



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
This is talking about "aircraft regeneration". This has to do with wether or not a target is"live" and able to fight. While it was a loss, it was born of a situation Unique to training. In real combat, you're not going to be attacked in 5 minutes by the plane you just shot down. Real enemies can't regenerate, and come after you a second time.

Tim

[edit on 3/11/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Hey FredT. Pardon an inexperienced Man but I dunno if your suggesting real or fiction on your thread?
Seems fictional but for sure, I'm unsure. Great to see you again Sir.

Dallas



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
FredT,

Some things to keep in mind:

1. If your smash is up and your fangs are clean you don't get into situations like this because you aren't required to play shotgun escort for a bunch of morons in Model Ts. I can't count the number of times I've warned about this issue. And it will get _worse_ as and if the USAF has the balls to strike configure the jet and lose AMRAAM to IAM.

2. While 'some' Western IRAAM (P5 and ASRAAM and probably MICA) are LOAL capable, NONE of ours are, nor are they really good at high alittude. If the F-22 is sporting along at 40-50K, most jets are going to be at least 2 and probably 5 MILES underneath it. This means the missile has to 'play up' into very thin air where it has no more motor impulse and very small lifting surfaces to finish the engagement. Only when the Raptor itself comes down off it's perch to a subsonic fight arena are you looking at real problems. The Chinese have a saying on this: "The wise dragon sits on the mountain and watches the tigers kill each other on the slopes beneath it." Particularly if the F-22 doesn't have a reason to be there but for the other hicks in the bubba brigade, tactics should instead be reorienting towards operating without 'joint force support' and the fact that that is not happening is not encouraging.

3. If the AAR-56 has even /half/ the capabilities of the DAS, it will be recording kill flashes as part of an integrated SAIRST function and probably be able to _skin track_ inbound threat weapons as well. APG-77 should be able to record explosive target fragmentation and death spiral. Certainly the IFDL, if able to emulate ACMI/TACTS should be quite capable of recording this. i.e. You are talking about a phantom missile from a phantom threat airframe under phantom tactical conditions which only highlight the Quite Real STUPIDITY of putting a ninja out front of a bunch of redneck airframes with an active air threat present. Take your time. Kill what you came for. Avoid _all_ unrelated=unnecessary engagements. As the heart of COE doctrine. Something which is antithetical if not 'immoral' to the white scarf upbringing that _STILL_ typifies most fighter pilot mentalities.

4. When you are co-pole firing at range or indeed under -any other- condition of not-an-NEZ exclusive killshot, there is no excuse not to double up your shot count. This is particularly true if you're at a distance where there may not be time for a clean up second round before the threat has SRM options. Or if you are using a weapon which doesn't send a datalink wardet confirmation (which the AIM-120D almost certainly does). Of course the almighty Air Farce doesn't want to hear this because that would mean acknowledging that they don't have 8 kills onboard, they have 4. At best. When you -have no other choice- 'defeat the arrow not the archer' becomes quite a valid TRD, Crosseye, Flyalong option.

5. If the Raptor is visible to a 5-6" seeker, it's a freakin' billboard to an 10" IRST/TVSU. This is 'good news' to every threatfor out there looking for yet another reason to transition to EO HUNTING WEAPONS off of low value spear carrier airframes or trucklaunch. Because the value investment curve crosses the cost per shot one at the point where you can reliably kill the threat airframe 'no matter what' it's envelope/energy or RFLO states are. At least in terms of putting the capability of the IRST into a missile that _if it misses_ can make another pass, this means you can run up missile costs to 1-2 million each and still be only 1/50th the equivalent of an 'actual fighter' (100 hunting missiles vs. 2 Su-30, hmmmm, which is more dangerous? Snort.).

6. As I have ALSO long warned about, the Raptor is most likely a tank when it comes to visual rules missile warfare. It has the wing area of a high altitude heavy fighter, the fuel penalty of a longrange supersonic platform and the profile exposure predictability of a ghost in a powdered sugar explosion. As such, it is completely compromised as a 'dogfigher' because it is not throwaway cost:numbers optimized to that mission and with all the mass and envelope point restrictions it suffers along with (apparently) an inability to mechanically MAWS+EXCM+accel it's way out of the IR seeker cone at terminal distance, it should NOT be used under conditions where it is exposed to ANY such risk.
Indeed, IMO, this is just further proof to how inept manned platforms in general are because if you can't beat the inbound round kinematically, you shouldn't be dorking around in a visual range fight without TADIRCM. And TADIRCMs first target will always be the cockpit.
So much for the '8+1 with the gun' idiocy.

CONCLUSION:
'Synthetic Target' environments are what the military uses to make stylized casepoint arguments for why they need more or better of something. As such, it is entirely likely that this is just some trumped up scenario designed to make the Raptor look 'more real and less fantasy' before Congress. But it doesn't change the fact that, as a weapons platform, it is being poorly used by those who refuse to employ it as more than an A2A toy. For this reason, you cannot trust them to 'know what's best'. Even though they are nominally 'expert' at what they do. Because what they do /best/ is _lie_.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
2. While 'some' Western IRAAM (P5 and ASRAAM and probably MICA) are LOAL capable, NONE of ours are, nor are they really good at high alittude.


I thought the AIM-9X was LOAL capable, considering it has demonstrated such a capability...

As for the F-22 in WVR I'll go by what the pilots who fly it everyday have to say, and that's that they can maneuver with the best of them and put (all) weapons systems on target without too much difficulty. Then with impunity disengage and come back later.


[edit on 12-3-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Hey FredT. Pardon an inexperienced Man but I dunno if your suggesting real or fiction on your thread?
Seems fictional but for sure, I'm unsure. Great to see you again Sir.

Dallas


Hey Dallas long time no see. No its taken from AWST article about the recent Red Flag USAF exersize at Nellis AFB in Nevada. So its not "real" combat, but rather war games.

ch1466 Interesting points and I will have to get back to you on that



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   
WestPoint23,

>>
I thought the AIM-9X was LOAL capable, considering it has demonstrated such a capability...
>>

Snort. Off a 'submarine' (Chaparral landlaunch) at a sub-200 knot helicopter class target fully visible less than 5 miles downrange. Whoopy.
Launch, tipover, point, boom. It's not like it's going anywhere soon, you can afford to boost-coast.

Furthermore, you have to understand that the AIM-9X is another one of those enduring examples of a SWIL-gone-HWIL 'loopy' program in which every prediction of system performance which -worked- in simulations and handbuilt competition hardware has needed 'P3I'ing all the way through what should have been LRIP proving phases of a baseline capability.

What this has come down to is new rail interface, new section locking rings, major motor/CAS changes, new cryoengine, new autopilot/IMU (covered under 'IRCCM software improvements') and a new AOTD. As everything that could fail from the legacy hardware was fixed in a cascade manner of 'onto the next oopsy!'.

As such, other than the _most critical_ motor, AIM-9X is _not_ really based on 1970/80s technology anymore.

But nor is it anything like the massive step up in performance originally promised because they have poured money hand over fist into an EMD program to validate a capability that was supposed to only need about 20 launches (for comparison, AIM-9L took 129 and AIM-9M took 35) and has ended up needing about 10 per airframe.

GAO warned about this, back in 1999 or so when DOD was selling the program as a rapid ramp 'late to need' effort covering for what was basically NIH cheapskatedness in not wanting to pay for superior SRMs on conventional fighters (which most need them).

And DOD tactics were their typical promise-the-moon bait and switch gag act using a musical funding basis of switching program leads for what are essentially configuration unique 'not near production ready' lots of 100-150 rounds for each service, per annum. None war-ready (absent CATM and Spares). None optimized for more than one platform. Nominally this was for less than 5 million per annum (over basic acquisition costs).

But Raytheon and the other contractors however have been spending anywhere from 20 to 50 million a year. Probably being backfed by slush fund accounting in other programs. Raw antideficiency violations in action.

In late 2003, just before the first full rate production decisioning was supposed to happen, they all got caught and in classic 'too late to stop, too early to tell' (if it's finally coming together and whether the spec was ever valid if it does) fashion, the AIM-9X acquisition is now 'rephased' on a new BP21/PPA type acquisition effort so that effectively every years purchase is THE submodel AIM-9X-1/2/3/4/5/6 common standard for that year.

Which has also meant a lot of headaches between USN/USAF service purchases which were always supposed to be standardized 'for costs' and in reality never were (each service fixing what they though was most-broke for their own particular platform, that year). This being why things like the LAU-7 qualification and JHMCS across the board has taken so damn long while our 'number one' Raptor (AFAICT) /still/ flies with AIM-9M.

Yet of all the glitch fixes incorporated thus far, the one thing I have not read about them doing was filling the void space in the back of the electronics body duct which has always been reserved for a 'potential future datalink'.

Which means you _still have_ a 20km seeker on a 10km motor pipe and hence _neither ability nor need for positive shot control_ against a 500 knot dynamic target. Since official USAF policy remains to never have a mad dog A2A system, there is no LOAL.

Given the 5" motor and draggy airframe, if AIM-9X LOAL in fact happens at all, it will be because they want to sell it and not the Brit AIM-132 as a primary cheap A2A weapon on the export F-35. I'm sure it would be 'nice' given the masking conditions on the F-22 sidebays but given how poor the weapon kinematic overall is, I still don't think it's justified as an excuse to bring the Raptor in close.

>>
As for the F-22 in WVR I'll go by what the pilots who fly it everyday have to say, and that's that they can maneuver with the best of them and put (all) weapons systems on target without too much difficulty. Then with impunity disengage and come back later.
>>

Drivel. Ask a fox to tell you what a chicken is. Horns, cloven hooves, long hairless tail. Big Buck Teeth.

The F-15 is nominally the best 'air superiority fighter other than the F-22' in our service. Where the definition of air superiority of necessity means the ability to execute WVR as a mix with BVR conditioned A2A fighting.

Yet anywhere below 25,000ft (i.e. subsonic) a GE engined F-16 is a superior sustained energy machine simply because it isn't working against all that mass and lift displacement in holding a Ps curve.

While anywhere at or below 15,000ft, the F/A-18C will beat **both** USAF jets because it has superior pointing and /sufficient/ energy (especially -402'd).

The F-22 is the F-15 with another 12,000lbs (3 tanks) worth of gas internally and only about 200 square feet of added wing area to carry it. Watching it wallow around high alpha maneuvering is about as painful as watching the F-15A chase F-5Es around a circle with about half the effective roll rate as they flit about in front of it.

And _if they are honest about it_ any worthless Ego Driver will admit this as a function of protesting 'but by the time we merge they will be nothing but defensive!' vomitus. To which the only good answer is that if they are totally defensive, you shouldn't have to merge.

Small Is Just Plain Better In Visual Range Fighting.

Harder to see.
Easier to change maneuver state.
Easier to regain energy state.
Cheaper to saturate the threat airspace with.

Now throw in further modifiers like _an operational IADS_ and the need to either suppress it on the fly or avoid being detected by it as you go Luftberry round and round on each other and NONE of the heavy fighters are a match. Because they are too damn few and too poorly equipped for SEAD to be trusted on their own on a 30-50% sortie threat vs. the nominally 3-4% of sortie based air encountered.

The F-22 should be considered a COE strike platform like a stealthy F-15E more than any form of Air Superiority wonder weapon. If only because you blow up air forces on the ground 6 at a time. And then you go bomb a couple IOCs for good measure.

The more you abuse the F-22 as an HDLD asset 'protecting the unsaveable' as conventional platforms, the more you risk an accident where a 133 million dollar airframe is splattered over some Mukhtar Al Baddie's North 40 and every techint team on the planet is on their way to buy souvenirs.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
WP23,

>>
I thought the AIM-9X was LOAL capable, considering it has demonstrated such a capability...
>>

Snort. Off a Chaparral track against a simulated ASW helicopter as part of a _sub launch_ encapsulation test scheme? Less Than 5 miles away = Pop, Tip, Point, Boom. Mr. Beanie Prop ain't goin' anywhere fast enough to make a difference.

www.prnewswire.com.../www/story/02-06-2006/0004275416&EDATE=Feb+6,+2006

That said, I would like to see pictures of AIM-9X on -any- F-22. Since last I heard, the AIM-9X integration effort for /next/ year went south when they canx'd the JHMCS in favor of F-35 vaporware.

Without a helmet, in 360`'dogfight HOBS mode', you are down to cueing the seeker off your wingman or AWACS picture and that seems a tad dicey to me, even given the airframe masking issues of the sidebays may make a LOAL option nice.

Blk.II is still aways out and without the new GCS/IMU interface and datalink for superlofting, I don't think that the AIM-9X is going to be useful to a Raptor in the JBVR 'intermediate' realm either.

Too damn small a motor. Too little confidence in the mad dog weapon as a function of standing doctrine.

www.aviationnow.com...

Add to this a horribly wasteful development effort $pent fixing cascading-component-flaws (legacy as a curse) on a platform to platform and year to year ('lead service switch') basis. So that the whole AIM-9X is a joke.

P3I should come after you have a solid baseline, fully seek eagled.

Instead it was used as a cover to reinvent a bad weapon.

>>
As for the F-22 in WVR I'll go by what the pilots who fly it everyday have to say, and that's that they can maneuver with the best of them and put (all) weapons systems on target without too much difficulty. Then with impunity disengage and come back later.
>>

The F-15 is nominally the USAF's best Air Superiority Fighter 'except for the Raptor'.

By definition, this means a mix of WVR/BVR dominant capabilities. Yet ask any HONEST fighter pilot and a late model (GE) F-16C is a match for the Eagle anywhere up to 25K in energy maneuver circle fights. Ask any HONEST fighter pilot and the F/A-18C will beat both, below 15,000ft. Because it can point like nothing else in our inventory.

Why would the F-22 be better? It weighs 66,700lbs of which some 18,342lbs (4.5 F-15 610s) is _unditchable_ gas. Being largely the same configuration, it has the same problems the Eagle does as a function of wide lift+control moment lateral displacement across a 'lifting body' airframe resulting in massive inertia penalties in pitch + roll + P&R recovery rates on an 840 sq. ft. wing which is 'not just a tennis court but the stadium seating as well'.

Small is Better for WVR. If nothing else, absent any real heatshot protection, you can usually afford to throw more of them away.

www.cdi.org...

CONCLUSION:
A2A encounter rates for the past 20 years of warfare show something like 3-4% per sortie rate. OTOH, surface to air threats are almost /always/ present and radar guided (high altitude capable) ones are perhaps 30-40% of that.

Absent JDRADM (as AIM-120D) and given the requirement to go Luftberry with a kadingus threat and no HOBS cue (even if the missile is there), flashing aspect all over the place and RUINING your planform controlled stealth while burning up gas pushing more gas around and around the circle. You have already lost.

Why play the game in a jet that wins the maneuvering battle by not fighting below the merge?

You blow up airforces on the ground, 6 at a time where the SDB can't miss and nobody can shoot back. Then you go drop on a couple SAM battery control radars for sport and _go home_.

As such, the F-22 should be considered a stealthy F-15E as much as C replacement. Something to be employed carefully in it's own right, not as a status symbol ace maker and fighter pilot play toy.

In particular, you go and use it as an 'enabler' for conventional signature platforms and you run the risk of either FLE or actual shootdown killing an HDLD asset before it's time as much as over Mukhtar Al Baddies' North 40.

The former we cannot fix without reopening lines and making massive changes in fleet aging cost of operations schedules (PDM and Spares).

The latter will bring all of the worlds techint teams running with their checkbooks, looking for souvenirs.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
2. While 'some' Western IRAAM (P5 and ASRAAM and probably MICA) are LOAL capable, NONE of ours are, nor are they really good at high alittude.


KPI,

I can think of three US missiles with Launch and Leave capibility:

AIM-54 Phoenix

AIM-120 AMRAAM

AIM-9 Sidewinder

Read up on these three, and you'll see they all have launch and leave capibility

Tim



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
As such, the F-22 should be considered a stealthy F-15E as much as C replacement. Something to be employed carefully in it's own right, not as a status symbol ace maker and fighter pilot play toy.


I agree with this. I think that if we wanted a superior fighter plane we should of developed from the F-14 not the F-15E.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join