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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
[
Also, I think the American pilots are very well trained, more so than those we face in "combat".




that well trained that they still manage to bomb British and Canadian troops...




posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leopardo

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


Dude - American pilots are UNDEFEATED in air to air combat using F-15's. Something like 110 kills vs 0 (thats right, ZERO losses). Isreal claims to be undefeated as well, though they may have lost 1 or 2 that they covered up. Basically, you are factually wrong in saying that there was ANY incident involving an American F-15 ever losing ANY A2A fight because it has yet to happen (edit: ) in actual combat. So please, let me see some country - ANY COUNTRY - show that they can kill more of ours then we do theirs before we start talking about training. Training is very important, but as ACTUAL combat (not "in theory" or "in simulations" or "in joint exercises") has proven for the last 50 years, the US is the best in the air.

[edit on 25-6-2004 by American Mad Man]

[edit on 25-6-2004 by American Mad Man]

[edit on 25-6-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Equipment hasn't COMPLETELY overshadowed the men, as long as the equipment meets the modern standard.
The first factor is missiles. The SU-30 (and I'm assuming all SU-27 variants share this characteristic) has 10 hardpoints. In a 1:1 fight, You're going to have a hell of a time evading 10 missiles. So assuming that your firing ranges are equal, it serves you well to have a numerical advantage, which can not be counted upon by carrier based air power in foreign territory (The typical US scenario). The result is that a competitive American fighter must use RAM and have the best possible counter-measures in order to force dogfights on under-trained enemy pilots.
The next factor then is agility. You've got to be agile to dogfight. This means thrust vectoring. (without thrust vectoring, the Su-30 and MiG-27 are already highly competitive, and the thrust vectoring of the Su-37 will make matters worse.)
Fuel range is a huge deal as well. Flanker is a nightmare in this respect. Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, which I've heard is required reading at Anapolis, considers the prospect of Su-27s stationed at Keflavik, Iceland (captured from America by a surprise attack) to be a decisive factor in keeping America away from a European or Middle Eastern front long enough to complete a rapid campaign. For an aircraft to be miserly with fuel not only increases its striking range, but increases the amount of time it can spend dogfighting. The ability to get there, fire your missiles, and turn around may not suffice for the modern fighter. A plane armed for an attack mission must be able to dogfight in self defense briefly and continue the mission, among other possible uses.

The short answer is... American training makes the difference, as long as that training is on how to fly the F-22 and F-35, which enjoy the necessary advantages of RAM and thrust vectoring. The next step is to lighten the aircraft to increase agility and range. This might be doable with the incorporation of carbon nano-tubing into aircraft designs, which will be cost prohibitive if not impossible until mass-production and advances in manufacture take effect.

The other thing to consider is that a couple generations down the line (technologically speaking) UCAVs may completely take over the role of attack planes. Fighters only exist to deal with attack planes, because ultimately air and naval warfare are for the benefit of the effort on the ground, so when attack planes become so numerous, small, and agile that they can not be engaged by missiles, the route chosen to deal with this will determine rather or not manned fighters continue to exist. If an AC-130 style plane is developed for downing scores of drones, if manned attack craft are still used for high altitudes and high payloads, or other contingencies, the figher will remain important, and will need to remain as it is because fighters will always have to engage other fighters to win the ability to carry out their other missions.
At a certain point though, there is no longer any way to know what will happen.

What if current weapons become obsolete against aircraft before lasers are a practical answer? What if ground based defenses or sattelite based ones make planes completely helpless to defend themselves?

It's going to be an interesting future if these weapons ever face eachother for any reason other than wargames to increase deterence. I believe Albert Einstein was right when he said "I do not know what kind of weapons will be used in World War III, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
This sounds more like a general raising alarms to increase military spending and cut some fat new contracts out for defense contractors. Really, I mean, its obvious, using older model planes when we have much newer ones against new russian fighters is a pretty lame way to say were losin it.

Me thinks someone be squaking to loosen the wallets in washington.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
i know right they claim to beat the F-15 but the F-15 is 30 years old and its still good let the russians try and build and aircraft that will still be the best after 30 years they cant



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Leopardo

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


Dude - American pilots are UNDEFEATED in air to air combat using F-15's. Something like 110 kills vs 0 (thats right, ZERO losses). Isreal claims to be undefeated as well, though they may have lost 1 or 2 that they covered up. Basically, you are factually wrong in saying that there was ANY incident involving an American F-15 ever losing ANY A2A fight because it has yet to happen (edit: ) in actual combat. So please, let me see some country - ANY COUNTRY - show that they can kill more of ours then we do theirs before we start talking about training. Training is very important, but as ACTUAL combat (not "in theory" or "in simulations" or "in joint exercises") has proven for the last 50 years, the US is the best in the air.

[edit on 25-6-2004 by American Mad Man]

[edit on 25-6-2004 by American Mad Man]

[edit on 25-6-2004 by American Mad Man]


i wasnt saying anything about our pilots... anyway...
how was this 102-0 achieved? i need to know that....



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The F-22 Is a sweet bird. Stealthy, Fast, and heavily armed check my blog for details. with aircraft like this in the making and the f-35 soon to be accepted in to our air force we wont be losing air dominance any time soon.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
you could lose it if the russians get some money or china actually build s a decent fighter plane.
if you built the yf23 you wouldt lose it



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   
American General Hal Homburg Recognizes Superiority of Russian Fighters



American General Hal Homburg has recognized the superiority of Russian fighters. According to him, the air forces of countries in whose inventories are Russian Su-30MK fighters have a definite advantage and in the future may present a threat to American air superiority. He commented so sensationally in an interview for the USA Today newspaper on the victory of India's air force pilots in Russian airplanes in training fights against American F-15C Eagle fighters. This has become in reality a sobering shower for many in the USAF, the American General emphasized.

Source: 27.06.04, Golos Rossii radio station



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
feindflug are you listening to anything we are saying the F-15 is 30 years old!!!!!!!!!
let the russians or anyone with a SU-30 try and approach the raptor they will get blown out the sky beore they know that anything is there even the F-35 would beat a SU-30!



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
feindflug are you listening to anything we are saying the F-15 is 30 years old!!!!!!!!!
let the russians or anyone with a SU-30 try and approach the raptor they will get blown out the sky beore they know that anything is there even the F-35 would beat a SU-30!



now how many f22 and f35 do you have now?



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   
we will have about 24 in 2005 it dosent matter if we dont have any now in use what matters is the ability of the aircraft to beat the Su-30.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
the su-30 is just one plane. the russians have hundreds of designs and all they need is cash. once they have that then you will see a very adavanced set of fighters.
also your exagerateing the F22's combat preformance.
the f22 is just one jet it cant win a war.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I think 400-600 raptor 1000+ F-35 also our current jets yeah we could win air dominance and everyone has great ideas but if you don't have the cash to make them oh well they are useless also devil take a guess how many aircraft do you think the pentagon is hiding from the American people.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
how many aircraft do you think every country in the world is hideing from its people
hell britains more secret we have the secret act so there isnt any leaks like in america
i said the f22 NOT the jsf as well.
with both jets you win a war.
the f22 may be good but its only as good as the pilot and the situation its in



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
sorry but the British are at least a decade behind the US in making jets you have to admit it if you don't its pathetic what's your best modern fighter jet that British have produced not bought produced?


[edit on 30-6-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leopardo

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Leopardo

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


Dude - American pilots are UNDEFEATED in air to air combat using F-15's. Something like 110 kills vs 0 (thats right, ZERO losses). Isreal claims to be undefeated as well, though they may have lost 1 or 2 that they covered up. Basically, you are factually wrong in saying that there was ANY incident involving an American F-15 ever losing ANY A2A fight because it has yet to happen (edit: ) in actual combat. So please, let me see some country - ANY COUNTRY - show that they can kill more of ours then we do theirs before we start talking about training. Training is very important, but as ACTUAL combat (not "in theory" or "in simulations" or "in joint exercises") has proven for the last 50 years, the US is the best in the air.

[edit on 25-6-2004 by American Mad Man]

[edit on 25-6-2004 by American Mad Man]

[edit on 25-6-2004 by American Mad Man]


i wasnt saying anything about our pilots... anyway...
how was this 102-0 achieved? i need to know that....

The perfect combat ratio was achieved because of the best tech in the world along with one of (if not THE ) best training programs. Basically, since the F-15 was introduced, no enemy has ever shot one down in A2A combat.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
sorry but the British are at least a decade behind the US in making jets you have to admit it if you don't its pathetic what's your best modern fighter jet that British have produced not bought produced?


[edit on 30-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

actually wrong we have the tech we just dont implement it.
hell take the lynx now thats fine engineering the only helicopter that can loop with out stalling,but then again it aint gona hold up against an apache is it.
also the eurofighter is a fine aircraft and its being produced ,if you looked, and is in service right now with one of our squadrons whos name i cant remember at this time.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I think 400-600 raptor 1000+ F-35 also our current jets yeah we could win air dominance and everyone has great ideas but if you don't have the cash to make them oh well they are useless also devil take a guess how many aircraft do you think the pentagon is hiding from the American people.


hey foxnews creation, you will be lucky if you will get more then 200


The USAF has a total requirement of 224 aircraft and the first operational wing of F/A-22 Raptors will be based at Langley AFB in Virginia,



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
don't wrry if we desperately need air superiority in a war thy will produce them also devil read my post a little more carefully I said that the British have developed not bought the French made the euro fighter not the British
.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join