A reminder "dogfights of the future" on History Channel

why are they still talking about using "planes" .. linear propulsion ...
wheres the anti-grav? the time-space bending... you know.. that uber-efficient method of propulsion from way back in the 40's?

but no..thog use fire.. thog blow fire in this direction so thog go other direction

wouldn't the "dogfights" of the future be like... ultra complex -a-billion-moves-a second through 3D " space chess? " like saucers darting around each other trying to dodge one another ...and zap

i'd see it more like.. hovering dragonflies onto one another in midair as opposed to.. the long flight paths birds while fighting



-

[edit on 14-5-2008 by prevenge]

[edit on 14-5-2008 by prevenge]

Future as in 20 years from now. Yeah sure there could be a break through to get/use this tech but they went with what they though was possible/interesting.

I was talking more along the lines of a dogfight. I mean lets assume for a second that the F-22 is created by man, and as such, has flaws. Lets say that it expends all missels maybe shot a few enemies and missed others. And lets say that they engage enemy planes in greater numbers in dogfights, Who would win? Because if the answer is the side with greater numbers then why do we even need the F-22. Lets just go with a cheaper plane in greater numbers. Just my opinion though.

The F-22 has done extremely well in exercises against larger numbers of F-15's, -16's and -18's.
www.aviationweek.com.../aw010807p1.xml
Kill ratio in that first exercise: ratio 144:0


There is no doubt in my mind that it is the premier Air superiority fighter in the world right now, if that was the extent of your question.

THe F-22 based on the reading I have done has moved far more beyond a meer air superiority fighter.

While the stealth and supercruise etc is a natural evolutionary process of fighter aircraft, its the sensor fusion they talk about that truly separates it from others.

As Del mentions its kill rates is staggering in exersizes but it moves beyond this. In exersizes in Alaska it also funtioned as a mini AWACS sitting at 60000 feet directing other 4th gen fighters, deconflicting missiles from those fighters, etc. Also as they mentioned in the show and AWST there is almost no chatter between the Raptors as they share everything by data link.

So did the F-15 in it's day and against other USAF fighters on PAPER.



Unless we know the presumptions made it's specious to argue that the F-22 will be far more dominant in the air superiority role as the F-15 which , if official Israeli and other sources are to be believed, stands at around 105-0. If your going to fight horrendously outmatched third world 'enemies' that is the likely result to start with ( unless your the USAF in Korea and Vietnam) and the F-22 can't generate any more turkeys than are already around.



Right and is there any argument against the fact that the German 'Tiger' were the premier tank at the time? Want to remind us what happened to Germany? It's not how many 'premier' models of a highly lethal weapon you have but if they can be lethal often enough to affect the enemies force numbers or strategy. When the Germans conducted massed fighter sweeps over Britain in 1940 the Brits simply kept their fighters out of reach ( radar, and modern one's can track stealth aircraft well enough to clear the skies of friendly aircraft) and did their best to interdict the bombers when the fighters had to turn back for fuel. Sure things are different now but for the difference it's inherently the same.

The results weren't in a computer or paper simulation. It was in a large scale exercise off Alaska. Several other Red Flag exercises have shown similar results. Far better than the 1:1.44 ratio of the 2 F-15 to 4 F-5 engagements you stated.
From the original source:


That sounds much more demanding than 4 vs 2 to me.

I'm not sure exactly what point or what argument you are attempting to make with regards to the last paragraph. Perhaps you could clarify?

As if those involving F-5's and F-15's were? Why don't you read the rest of the PDF if you were wondering?



Yes but the F-15 , according to official sources, also have something like one hundred 'kills' for no losses and while i don't have any reason to suspect that the F-22 will be worse, per airframe, i wonder why anyone in their right minds would spend that four or five times more money to achieve a even higher 'kill' ratio against their likely third world enemies; isn't the cold war over?



You should read the entire page i linked to. My first question is obviously about the 2.5 hours a day. Who is going to defend the USA for the rest of the 21.5 hours in you average day? Is this a inkling ( and it obviously is) of the type of sortie rates the F-22 can mount? If a enemy with similar resources capabilities invested in buying 4-5 Su-27 ( pick something out of alphabet soup of 'versions') wouldn't they simply overwhelm the F-22's by virtue of being in the air when F-22's are having their stealth 'paint' reapplied?



So who did the real work in the defense of this supposed 'homeland' if only one third of the aircraft where F-22's? Why should presume that the F-22's absence will have affected the outcome if those were truly 'simulated' ( meaning as ineffective as they can make them while retaining a shred of credibility) red force aircraft? Why only 40 red force aircraft when just the presence of 8 F-22's should allow a red force to purchase 40-50 Su-27's/Mig -29's for a similar resource investment? Would 70 -80 late version migs/sukhois against 24 F-22/F-16/F15 not seem to be a more legitimate resource equality? I suppose that's too much planes to gather for a better approximation?




The F-22 can only 'supercruise' for about 100 NM, presuming the stated 400 NM combat radius, so you would have to keep those tankers pretty close to start with.



And in your opinion no large scale exercises involving F-15's have been conducted in the last thirty years? Right....



Why bother. Some people believe in miracle weapons while others dream about it but put it aside as they prepare to fight a real (TM) war. Since the USAF has such a hard time not blowing up the US army ( god forbid a enemy that actually puts planes in the air to cause equal confusion there) long range identification under combat conditions remains the biggest challenge and will probably continue to present a apparently overwhelming problem to those who dream of fighting without bleeding.

Again and again the pentagon has tried to move the envelope, so as to prevent the enemy from getting close enough to inflict casualties, but every time even hopelessly outmatched opponents have found ways to cross the open ground and bring the fight to where it hurts. Some people just can't learn and wont be taught and it's just sad that hundreds of thousands of young men, to say nothing of the women, have to go without the most modern body armor and sufficiently armored APC's because the Pentagon has decided to save a few overpaid pilots lives by expending 70 BILLION dollars on something the USAF just does not need.

Stellar

[edit on 15-5-2008 by StellarX]

I think I'd take the F-22 even at 4-1 odds. If you take out a majority of your enemy before, or if, you reach them, the odds turn to your favor. Besides, in close combat it all comes down to how good each pilot is. I don't know how well other countries pilots are, but I think America has some good pilots, I guess.

I would venture that if you put an average pilot in the F-22 that they'd be able to take on other fighters with great pilots with success. An inferior machine does a pilot no good. In WWI the British and French had good pilots, but because their aircraft where inferior at first they where shot down in huge numbers (the Fokker scourge).