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.

 

f-22 vs 5x f-15s = ... ;))))

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Hey, Sminkey, I thought that this Debunking of your line of thinking might at the very least peak your interest. However I must say, seeing a direction this thread is taking, that I would like to avoid the
war.




WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- As the fate of the F-22 Raptor continues to be debated on Capitol Hill and in the press, it's increasingly important to separate fact from myth.
The following facts clarify America's need for the F-22 as the premier fighter of the 21st century Air Force:

Myth: Delaying initial F-22 procurement will not really impact the overall program.

Fact: The House vote withdrawing $1.8 billion in procurement funds for the F-22 in fiscal 2000 potentially sounds a death knell for the Raptor, the cornerstone of the nation's global air dominance in the 21st century. Even if the program survives this setback (which will be determined in a House-Senate conference committee in September), terminating current production will ultimately increase overall costs by $6.5 billion, causing the program to exceed congressionally mandated cost caps.

Myth: The Air Force doesn't really need the F-22 to maintain air superiority in the 21st century.

Fact: The F-22 is integral to the Air Force's tactical aircraft modernization program and the key to dominating the skies in 2010 and beyond. By the time the F-22 comes online, the F-15 (today's premier fighter) will be more than 25 years old. Without the F-22, the Air Force will steadily lose its edge in air superiority in the 21st century. By 2005, flying the F-15 into combat will be the equivalent of driving a 20-year-old car in the Indianapolis 500.

Myth: Other countries don't have the technology to compete with the F-15's defense and strike capability, so there is no reason to improve on it.

Fact: America's best fighter, the F-15, is on par with current Russian fighters, and behind Europe's and Russia's newest class of fighters set to roll off production lines by 2005. These include the French Rafale, Europe's Eurofighter and the Russian SU-35. The F-22's capabilities are critical to maintaining air superiority.

Myth: The F-22 doesn't bring anything to the fight the F-15 isn't already providing.

Fact: To maintain the levels of air superiority and dominance provided by the F-15 today, we will need the F-22's capabilities of speed, supercruise, maneuverability at supersonic speeds, stealth and integrated avionics to allow our pilots to identify and defeat threats. It also will give our air warriors a capability they've never before had: First look, first shot, first kill. Additionally, the F-15 does not provide any air-to-ground capability; the F-22 will provide first-day, near-precision, air-to-ground capability with the Joint Direct Attack Munition.

Myth: The F-15 will still be able to provide an adequate defense and effective strike force 15 years from now.

Fact: The F-15 is expected to provide an adequate defense and effective strike force for the next five to 10 years (when the F-22 is scheduled to become operational); but not 15. Without the F-22, we won't have the capability to counter the threat because we won't have the speed or stealth -- dramatically decreasing our chances of survival.

Myth: The Air Force's insistence on the F-22 is part of an obsolete, Cold War mentality because future conflicts will be low intensity and not require the same high-tech equipment we needed for the Cold War.

Fact: Low-intensity conflicts are not necessarily low technology. The threat includes not only advanced fighter aircraft, but also increasingly lethal surface-to-air missiles. The number of countries possessing the most advanced SAMs is expected to increase from 14 to 21 by 2005 -- an increase that will overwhelm our current fighter force's ability to gain air superiority.

Myth: The F-22 is cost-prohibitive and not worth the return on investment.

Fact: With an average aircraft "sticker price" (fly-away cost) of less that $85 million, the F-22 will cost less than 1 percent of the Department of Defense budget during its production period. In its most costly year, 2003, the F-22 will consume less than 5.6 percent of the Air Force budget; 1.7 percent of the defense budget and 0.25 percent of the total federal budget.

Myth: Air superiority is a "nice to have" that has to be weighed against budget constraints.

Fact: Owning the sky is worth the cost. For less than 1 percent of the DOD budget, the F-22 will enable all of America's air, land and sea forces to operate effectively and free from enemy air attack. Thanks to air superiority, no airman, soldier, sailor or Marine has lost his or her life to enemy aircraft in the last 40 years.

Myth: As a cost measure, rather than continue with development of the F-22, the Air Force can simply upgrade its current fighters.

Fact: The average F-15 will be 26 years old in 2005. Even with major upgrades, it will not match the capabilities of the newest foreign fighters. An improved F-15 would only provide one-third the effectiveness of the F-22 at nine-tenths the cost.

Myth: The Joint Strike Fighter is a respectable substitute for the F-22 at a much lower cost.

Fact: The Air Force's modernization strategy is to develop a mix of high-capability F-22s and lower-cost JSFs to achieve dominant capability and force readiness. The JSF is very effective as a low-cost, multi-mission aircraft optimized for attacking ground targets. It is not a substitute for the F-22. The JSF is primarily designed as an affordable replacement for the Air Force's aging F-16s and A-10s, and will depend on the F-22 for air superiority. Just as the F-15 and F-16 are a highly successful, synergistic team today, the F-22 and JSF will be the winning team of the future; however, neither can succeed on its own.



source




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   

America's best fighter, the F-15, is on par with current Russian fighters, and behind Europe's and Russia's newest class of fighters set to roll off production lines by 2005. These include the French Rafale, Europe's Eurofighter and the Russian SU-35. The F-22's capabilities are critical to maintaining air superiority.


While I am a big supporter of the F-22 program and think it should replace the F-15, I disagree with the above statement.

First off, the Su-35, nothing more than a shell with a FCS, has been cancelled, and doesn't have the avionics or weapons of an F-15. Currently the EF is lagging behind the F-15 due to some problems, but these problems should be fixed within the next 10 years. The Rafale on the other hand, i would consider that to be on par with the F-15, smaller RCS, more agile, but doesn;t have the speed, rate-of-climb, or the range of the F-15, neither the weapons, and I don't know about the Rafale's radar.

And i wouldn't use FAS as an accurate source of info, they have been wrong on some things. (like above)

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
There assesment above is correct. The F-15 will be obsolete within the decade.

The thing that I find most compelling though is that to keep the F-15's modernized is 90% of what it would take to replace ALL F-15's with F-22's! I just don't get it - the AF has a budget over 100 billion I believe, so why not spend the extra couple billion over a span of like 10 yeahrs to simply replace the F-15's with a brand new superplane such as the raptor?



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
There assesment above is correct. The F-15 will be obsolete within the decade.

The thing that I find most compelling though is that to keep the F-15's modernized is 90% of what it would take to replace ALL F-15's with F-22's! I just don't get it - the AF has a budget over 100 billion I believe, so why not spend the extra couple billion over a span of like 10 yeahrs to simply replace the F-15's with a brand new superplane such as the raptor?


I agree in 10 years the F-15 would be obsolete (unfortunatley), but as of right now, it's ahead of all Russian aircraft, and for the moment ahead of the EF and Rafale.

But out of the SH, EF, and Rafale, i expect to see them on par with each other or possibly the SH by just a bit.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I'd say it would go EF (once the kinks are worked out) then SH, the Mirrage.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Hockeyguy, You clearly love the SH as I love the Typhoon. We are not going to shake each others faith in either type, this is obvious to me as you think I am wrong and I think you are (for instance in maybe underestimating Typhoon against contemporary US types)), we will have to leave it at that and maybe some neutral poster could ajudicate on the matter if necessary.


[edit on 2-9-2004 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The F-15C, actively scanned radar or not is coming to the end of its service life, the airframe is old, the engines are antiques by todays standards. Only some F-15E's have the F100-PW-229 engine, the specific thrust output of the 220E engine is ok for subsonic cruising but doesn't have the dry thrust to weight ratio of a Typhoon or a Rafale.

If you wonder why afterburning is so bad take a look at simple statistics, at sea level static conditions per engine at MIL thrust each 220 engine sucks 10650 lbs per hour, rising to a horrid 60600 lbs per hour........per engine. That's a 470% increase in fuel consumption for a thrust increase for only a 63% increase in thrust. That's the whole philosophy of fighters like Typhoon, Rafale and F/A-22, get enough dry thrust not to use afterburner as much improving range and combat persistence and vulnerability to short range IR AAM's.

It's radar is indeed long range but the F-15 also has an enormous RCS and signature, coupled with 2 giant blowtorches in the back when its in 'burner and its not something I'd want to sit in during a furball. The twin tailed tennis court can be seen visually at quite a distance as well, a handicap the Raptor also has. Avionics and ergonomically the Eagle even with updates is still a 70's knob and dial cockpit with no sensor fusion or automation in stores handling or tactical situation handling. The Typhoon with its infrared search and track system can limit its radar use in some cases to avoid early detection. Way back in Vietnam the F-111 crews often were engaged with AA and SAMS simply because their terrain following radar acted like an electronic raid siren for the enemy, the same is true for air to air radars. Unless you have a system that is low probability intercept the moment you turn your radar on and aim it at somebody they'll see you earlier than you see them.

BVR the Eagle does have some advantages, the large gain antenna it has simply because of its size means for a given power output it can detect more return than a smaller one so is likely to get off the first shot all things being equal. But IMHO that's all it has left for it. Once it gets into visual range, any of the newer generation European canard deltas has enough turn rate and enough specific excess thrust to out turn and outgun the Eagle.



[edit on 2-9-2004 by MPJay]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Hey, Sminkey, I thought that this Debunking of your line of thinking might at the very least peak your interest. However I must say, seeing a direction this thread is taking, that I would like to avoid the
war.


- ain't no 'war' going on here AMM, just some talk. Feel free to pitch in, your 2cents/pennies, if you're interested, is what it's all about.....so long as you can take a little to and fro over it if we don't agree.




WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- As the fate of the F-22 Raptor continues to be debated on Capitol Hill and in the press, it's increasingly important to separate fact from myth.
The following facts clarify America's need for the F-22 as the premier fighter of the 21st century Air Force:


- That's an interesting piece AMM.

I would just point out that every 'threatened' major defence program going had such a 'defence' of it published at one time or another.

They're all always the most vital! things ever ....and they're all always almost free if you buy zillions of the things......and the 'debate always runs that if you don't buy them in bulk you'll be leaving your brave troops in a situation similar to forcing them to use biplanes to face Raptors!

I could refer you to the 'studies' done in the mid/late 70's which 'proved' (at the height of the cold war no less!) that buying F16's or F18's instead of more F15's or F14's (or upgraded varients of them) was the biggest waste of money ever and practically guaranteed the USA would lose the cold war and be subject to Soviet domination in no time at all.

To top it all anyone who doesn't see things their way is invariably either a commie traitor (such a pity for then that bogeyman has gone, China just isn't in the same league) or a girly-man(!?) or both.

I exaggerate to make the point (but if you listen to those guys for any time it's not much of an exaggeration).

With 'defence' the line between sales pitch and truth can be very very hard to see, those guys are good at it.....and thanks to the inevitable linkage between military and manufacturer those blokes are ironically about the last people to ever tell the tax-payer the unvarnished truth about any thing. This is why they hate outside analysis. It usually either takes their toys away or lets them have fewer of them.

But let's remember, I have at no time said the F 22 should be cancelled outright.

I have no confidence that claims that many hundreds of F22's are 'needed' just because of a bunch of interesting paper planes (with electronics, if not actual airframes, at least one and probably two generations behind) from Russia or licence built by China (when by any rational assessment they are at least a decade away from deploying something which could even get close to the standard set by a properly supported and equiped F15......and even then they couldn't deploy in large numbers).

.....and as for the notion that either Typhoon or Rafale are ever going to fight the USAF? That, IMO, is plainly absurd.

(Europe isn't going to even attempt to sell Typhoon beyond Australia or Canada. My bet is on them being used exclusively in Europe as their design has been skewed so thoroughly to a European requirement.

....even the usual sale of a stripped down version to Saudi looks very unlikely......and, lets tell the truth about Saudi, even if they were they'd mostly be flown by 'contractors' or 'instructors' from Europe anyway.)

Even the Israelis selling Lavi to the Chinese was hardly a credible threat compared.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Thankfully sminkey the leaders of my government dont listen to fools. We will continue to build our military while your country continues to dismantle yours. As for not needing the F-22 well WW1 was called the "war to end al wars" I think that says it all.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Thankfully sminkey the leaders of my government dont listen to fools.


- Hmm, resorting to implying play-ground abuse and insults now are we?

You loser.

.....and as the rest of the world knows (and that large part of America not sadly afflicted); I'd lay off of comment regarding the current US government and fools if I were you.


We will continue to build our military while your country continues to dismantle yours.


- Wrong. We have maintained a sense of proportion and have not handed ourselves over to preposterous infantile paranoia.

Our military is quite sufficient given the degree of rational plausible threat we face and is not in the process of either retarding our economy or hurting our living standards.....or potentially anyone elses either. Thanks for the interest though.


As for not needing the F-22 well WW1 was called the "war to end al wars" I think that says it all.


- I think your desparately shallow and superficial comparisons and clich comments say it all actually.

The USA currently outspends the next 25 countries combined in the 'defence' spending league.

That is the kind of grossly disproportionate and absurdly over the top situation I am talking about.

.......and given I have never talked about cancelling the F22 what are you on about? I'm happy to debate what I've actually said but this is just idiotic.

Are you blind and incapable of reading accurately or just happy to make a fool of yourself?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
-Stop leading these people to misleading information Sminky. We do not have more budget in defence then 25 countries

-Its more like around 37.


www.globalsecurity.org...

If I counted right, recheck I just woke up.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
-Stop leading these people to misleading information Sminky. We do not have more budget in defence then 25 countries

-Its more like around 37.


www.globalsecurity.org...

If I counted right, recheck I just woke up.


- Thanks!
You make my point for me.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Laxpla
-Stop leading these people to misleading information Sminky. We do not have more budget in defence then 25 countries

-Its more like around 37.


www.globalsecurity.org...

If I counted right, recheck I just woke up.


- Thanks!
You make my point for me.


-Yes I do, and I am proud we are spending that much, to prevent other threats and terrorist attacks.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I'd say it would go EF (once the kinks are worked out) then SH, the Mirrage.


I would prefer the SH over the first 2 tranches of the EF.

The Eurofighter is facing problems, but I agree once the kinks are worked out (if they are worked out) it will be just fine, or it will end up to be another Euro-consourtium underperformer.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
If we look at the arms race throughout history, for every defence breakthrough, there is always a way found to bypass it offensively. Armour - Armour piercing arrows, Castles - Siege machines, you get the drift.

Therefore how long radar "Stealth" is an advantage depends on long it takes engineers and scientists to come up with a counter, IE an alternative or complementary sensing system. And when that happens, and it will, who knows, the Raptor's and other Stealth planes stealthiness may end up being a liability, lighting them up like a christmas tree....

On the F-22 Vs 5 F-15s, how do we know that the F-15 pilots didn't lose on purpose?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla


-Yes I do, and I am proud we are spending that much, to prevent other threats and terrorist attacks.

How is a fighter jet going to help prevent a terror attack?
Shoot down a plane? Well done you can use an F-14 for that job.
You spend all this money staying well ahead of any country yet attack countries that have 1980-1999 tech?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kwikblade
On the F-22 Vs 5 F-15s, how do we know that the F-15 pilots didn't lose on purpose?

How can they lose to something they can't see? More importantly, WHY?

The purpose of IOT&E is to expose the problems and liabilities. Why would they hide them? These are the same pilots that will be flying in Raptors. If there is a weakness, they want to discover it so that it can be addressed, either with tactics or technology.

There is no incentive to hide operational problems in IOT&E. That would defeat the purpose of the test. To think that one failure in the test cycle would somehow cause a cancellation is just not reality. If there is a problem, they want to expose it.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   


-Yes I do, and I am proud we are spending that much, to prevent other threats and terrorist attacks.


You could catch up with and shoot down a Boeing 767 in a Hawker Hunter, or an F-86 if your national pride would prefer it



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer

Originally posted by Kwikblade
On the F-22 Vs 5 F-15s, how do we know that the F-15 pilots didn't lose on purpose?

How can they lose to something they can't see? More importantly, WHY?

The purpose of IOT&E is to expose the problems and liabilities. Why would they hide them? These are the same pilots that will be flying in Raptors. If there is a weakness, they want to discover it so that it can be addressed, either with tactics or technology.

There is no incentive to hide operational problems in IOT&E. That would defeat the purpose of the test. To think that one failure in the test cycle would somehow cause a cancellation is just not reality. If there is a problem, they want to expose it.


Well, my question was kind of "tongue in cheek" just to see how some of the most enthusiastic proponents would reply. The reason being that after "Cope India", you all (USAF enthusiasts) were only too quick to disbelieve that the F-15 could lose to the SU-30K, but when it came to the F-22 vs 5 F-15s...

One of the main reactions was that US pilots lost on purpose because they wanted to create a sense of urgency for the F-22. Well, I'd say that the F-15 pilots could have lost far worse than they did in reality, to reinforce in the minds of Congress that the F-22 is indeed, vastly superior to the F-15 - and therefore worth the expense.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I will try to keep this short, but i read up to page 3, where i just had to say something, so i havent really read the whole thing here, but i can hazard a guess that it was an argument about whos better, US or Europe, at least that was what it looked like, but based on what in have read, two things in the way of the F-22 i think, are,
1) The Royal Air Force
2) Eurofighter Typhoon

The F-22 mabye able to take down the F-15, i would really like to see a squadron of F-22's takle the RAF's new toys, every one so far who i have talked too about the F-22 has based there opinions on simulators, that is not real life, i must admit, the F-22 is an impressive aircraft, but just because it has stealth doesnt mean it will win the fight, if our RAPIER surface-to-air missiles can detect F-117's, well, i will leave the rest to you imagination. P.s. if i have time l8r i will read the rest of the topic.... doing test revision.........




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join