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.

 

U.S. warned it could lose air supremacy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- United States must modernize its fighter jets to maintain air supremacy, a top Air Force general said Wednesday citing the success of advanced Russian-made jets against American planes in a recent exercise as signaling an erosion of its overwhelming advantage.

Gen. Hal Hornburg, head of U.S. Air Combat Command, said a U.S. air-to-air exercise with the Indian Air Force in February, in which India used Russian jets to defeat aging American F-15Cs, revealed "that we may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were."

U.S. defense officials have said Indian SU-30, Mig-27 and older MiG-21 jets, some armed with Russian-made AA-10 air-to-air missiles, got the best of F-15s based in Alaska in exercise "Cope India" high over northern India

www.cnn.com...

Hornburg said in an interview with military writers the air maneuvers emphasized his service's push for expensive, stealthy new F/A-22 "Raptors" being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters being designed by Lockheed with input from allies.

Defense experts in both the United States and Europe, however, have said it is unlikely that America -- with vast spending power and a major industrial base -- would lose its dominance in military technology.

I don't think we'll lose "air supremacy", with the F-18 Hornet in service, not to mention, F-22 Raptors and the F-35. We'll still be on top.
Also, I think the American pilots are very well trained, more so than those we face in "combat".



TPL

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
That general contradicts himself, first he says the US is losing the advantage, then he says it isn't.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
The U.S. Aero Defence Industry is only driven into action when a perceived threat is acknowledged by our Federal Government. The Soviet Union has never operated under these constraints.
Compare our bomber and airrefuling fleets to those of the Soviets. We have not designed a tanker, only modified exsisting civilian aircraft to meet this role. We still employ the B-52 in our bomber fleet.
Without the political backing for funding military projects we will always be in a position of catch-up.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Amusing. I thought their position was that air power these days was all about the machines, that humans were more or less irrelevant. Frankly, I'm not surprised.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I hope all of those people saying the raptor is a waste of money are reading this, because it is a very real threat. Russia has been making more or less equal aircraft for a long time, but now they have put out newer planes and the US hasn't. Maybe we'll get those 600 raptors after all...



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   
first we will get the raptor and that will solve the problem also we are getting the F-35 and count our "black projects" so we arent loosing nothing


[edit on 24-6-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
first we will get the raptor and that will solve the problem also we are getting the F-35 and count our "black projects" so we arent loosing nothing


[edit on 24-6-2004 by WestPoint23]


Remember WestPoint23 that US is NOT the ONLY one to have black projects.

Most countries have their own black projects.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   
yes but our black projects are more advanced due to our $$$$$$ and tech.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
yes but our black projects are more advanced due to our $$$$$$ and tech.


Very true, but these super advanced black projects won't help us untill the hardwear they are developing is deployed. Remember, Most black projects are research programs, so the hard wear they are working with is Not yet avalibal to the military for defense.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
What I don't get is, I always thought the f-16 was for air dominance. Shouldn't they fight the f-16 instead of the f-15? The f-16 our performes the f-15 I thought?
And how about the superhornet?

[edit on 25-6-2004 by Laxpla]



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Losing to a mig 21 ? i think they should kick pilots gettin "shot down" by mig 21



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
To consider air superiority I would think you have to weigh in the US's Stealth bombing capability, Air/Sea launched cruise missiles, not to mention the unmanned weaponized aircraft, plus the superior air surveillance planes we have.

While the US could lose some fighters according to the article, This would look like an attack by the enemy unprovoked. In this case it would only be a first battle loss probability. Once the US was engaged in combat with the enemy, the above mentioned weaponry would be unleashed this would place the enemies aircraft on the defensive, either hide or lose their aircraft.

To me a one on one comparison of aircraft does not show the whole story, to make a accurate assessment of air superiority, you must weigh all capabilities of either side. IMO



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
What I don't get is, I always thought the f-16 was for air dominance. Shouldn't they fight the f-16 instead of the f-15? The f-16 our performes the f-15 I thought?
And how about the superhornet?

[edit on 25-6-2004 by Laxpla]


No - the F-15 was our front line A2A superiority fighter (for the AF at least). This is going to form the bulk of our A2A forces while the Raptor slowly replaces them.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   
also if we were facd with loosing air superiority what do you think we would do seeped up and produce the black projects.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
or just throw a LOT of money into building Raptors and get the original 600+ planned. With a 10-1 kill ratio, we could send just our raptor fleet out and take out 6,000 aircraft.....MWUHAHAHAHAHA



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
This is actually a very interesting question but I would expand it to not just airpower, but dominance in general. A hundred years ago everyone thought the British Empire would last for centuries and that Britains position in the world was not only secure but also 'correct'. A misapprehension similar to that which America is now under. I'm sure the Romans felt the same way. But who would be the next superpower and would we like them? More importantly would they like us? HMMMM, not a topic for this board methinks.

[edit on 25-6-2004 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
or just throw a LOT of money into building Raptors and get the original 600+ planned. With a 10-1 kill ratio, we could send just our raptor fleet out and take out 6,000 aircraft.....MWUHAHAHAHAHA


obviously its a matter of pilots too, first train your pilots to beat mig 21's , planes from the 50's.. :-\
might be a single incident but hell somebody should invesntigate how a mig21 managed to shoot down an f15



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I read some Indian's post on this news, the whole country seems fall into
exciting because they airforce beat the US airforce in the exercise, and
they seems already be the number one of the world.

But I doubt that US airforce lose this exercise on purpose, they just want
to use this result to press congress give them more money. This is typical
military's tactics that when they want money, then they exaggerate the
threat.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   

but hell somebody should invesntigate how a mig21 managed to shoot down an f15


These things can happen in combat, or on excercise, I doubt the MiG 21 pilot had a blindfold on and his hands bound. On excercises in the past much the same has happened. In 1981 a pair of Royal Navy Sea Harriers successfully engaged a pair of F-14's. Theoretically impossible. A year later Sea Harriers were shooting down Mirages for real off the coast of Argentina for no loss to themselves. Its down to many different reasons. The quality of your equipment is a major one but also there is pilot training, awareness and ,dare I say it, intelligence too. Nor should it be explained away with a conspiracy theory about funding. Thats not in a pilots head when his pride is on the line against some foreign jet jockey, trust me.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Although I think these advantages are extremely important - our enemies don't have to have superior anything except patience. If things keep evolving with our diplomacy and irresponsible war endeavors, we'll lose economically - not to mention other "slow-death" methods of crashing the USA. I think there's an entirely new dimension to combat that isn't about military size & might - it's a dimension of anti-marketing, setting diplomatic traps and the opposition's luck of having idiots for US leaders.

Just an opinion - but it's certainly more comforting to be ahead of the curve when possible, in some respects I think we have gotten lazy with our defensive "mood" of the world. Since the Cold War, I think the political climate has been like a hurricane eye of clear-blue, sunny skies...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join