User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/13/2023 11:58:20 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: First look, first shot, higher Pk at longer ranges than the AMRAAM against 5th gen threats in an EA environment. Rand Corp studies have to be taken with the same grain of salt they’re produced with. They’re thought experiments, not tactics development. Doesn’t fit in a fifth generation fighter though. Is it meant for F-15EX or B-21? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2023 11:58:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It turned out that our adversaries new tech is inferior to our old tech and we still have a lot of old tech. I think our strength is still superior logistics and the ability to protect force when it comes to a heads up confrontation. However the world is changing and while the F22 is a superior fighter by a long shot, you can't intercept a cyber attack or foreign funded legal invadionnwith a jet. Were not nearly as much at risk of falling to lost military battles as we are asymmetrical warfare. That’s true in most places. But not the Pacific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:03:32 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was in the FY10 budget. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Obama killed the program. It's kind of hard to have iterative improvement when the program is shut down and so few were made it doesn't make much sense to spend a bundle developing those upgrades for so few aircraft. If the line had kept going I imagine it would be that much more capable today. No, Obama didn't kill the program. The final production numbers were set before he ever came into office, and largely before he was even a US Senator. That was in the FY10 budget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:06:38 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: The military has F15s, F16s, F18s fighter jets still in service. The military still has B2s, B52s and other bombers in service. The F22 has never seen any real combat, costs billions in tax payer money, and is now in the crosshairs for being retired. I always thought they were impressive and an incredible feat in aerospace engineering. Why the retirement so early in its career versus so many other airframes? I am just a dumb grunt. It was kinda like the seawolf subs that flies. Cost is no object air dominance fighter designed to kill a peer military. It's still unrivaled in the world despite entering service in what, the 90s? It still has great speed, stealth, maneuverability, payload, and sensors, service ceiling....literally everything that makes a great fighter is in the 22. It also is not the most up to date on sensors (though its radar is still a monster), stealth coating, maintenance, and sensor fusion....that being said, only the f35 has it beat in those aspects...through lessons learned with the f22. It also is a victim of doctrine, where networking and sensor fusion with land, air, and sea assets beat out raw dogfighting performance....these are things that are being advanced further with the NGAD program. If it ever had an opportunity to kill bad guys, it would have done so very well, and would do so today. A dozen of them over Ukraine would end any thought of air combat in that theatre. It still has longer legs than the F35 and can fly higher...things that would come in handy of vast distance like say....the pacific theatre. It's just really damn expensive to operate and when Obama cut the program any economy of scale simply killed its value. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:14:53 AM EDT
[#5]
I think it scared the Chinese and they made a call to their senator to shut it down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:18:43 AM EDT
[#6]
Lots of promising improvements and additional buys in existing fighter aircraft were sacrificed on the altar of the F-22 program, further development of the F-16XL platform being just one example, only for the F-22 buy to be cut back so drastically.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:24:55 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lots of promising improvements and additional buys in existing fighter aircraft were sacrificed on the altar of the F-22 program, further development of the F-16XL platform being just one example, only for the F-22 buy to be cut back so drastically. F-16XL lost to F-15E. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:36:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: F-16XL lost to F-15E. In part because the concept of an advanced big wing F-16 was ultimately seen as threat to ATF, while the plodding Mud Hen wasn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:36:42 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Go listen to the Ward Carroll stuff on youtube, they were supposed to build a thousand of these to replace old F15's. Then production got cut to less than 200 so they could build MRAP's instead. They milked another 20 years out of the F15's and they are now falling apart. They aren't building F35's fast enough, so they grabbed some F15's out of Qatar's production line and are building new F15ex models with updates from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. (yes, we are still actively building F15's for other countries) Not stealth, but mach 2.5. It outruns the F35 in a straight line. Not being stealth, it can turn up the wattage on the radar and see stuff the F35 can't. You children could be flying F15's with modern upgrades. The plan is to have two different tools to use. For general use, it makes sense to have some cheaper aircraft for more mundane tasks. It's kind of cool. Agree with every thing except the F15 turning up the radar and seeing more than the F35. The whole beauty of it is that once you radiate. You are a Kill. And oh bye the way you can using the Helmet visor look all around the plan as if it wasn't there. Watch Ward Carroll he is one of the few F-14 RIO's that there were, small community and he is brilliant about getting info! And it needs a Tail Hook. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:37:11 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: The military has F15s, F16s, F18s fighter jets still in service. The military still has B2s, B52s and other bombers in service. The F22 has never seen any real combat, costs billions in tax payer money, and is now in the crosshairs for being retired. I always thought they were impressive and an incredible feat in aerospace engineering. Why the retirement so early in its career versus so many other airframes? I am just a dumb grunt. Shits expensive when you build less than 200 of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:38:26 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In part because the concept of an advanced big wing F-16 was ultimately seen as threat to ATF, while the plodding Mud Hen wasn't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: F-16XL lost to F-15E. In part because the concept of an advanced big wing F-16 was ultimately seen as threat to ATF, while the plodding Mud Hen wasn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:39:01 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ahh, the ol’ Mach 2.5 Eagle. As Joe Isuzu used to say, “Downhill. In a hurricane.” LOL yea 2.5 for how long. Or are you dragging a tanker with you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:42:21 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL yea 2.5 for how long. Or are you dragging a tanker with you? Maybe it's running off of metallic hydrogen? Or dilithium crystals? Or whatever the fuck it was they ran the Darkstar on in Top Gun Maverick? Mach 9 or your money back. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:56:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In part because the concept of an advanced big wing F-16 was ultimately seen as threat to ATF, while the plodding Mud Hen wasn't. Strongly disagree. It’s not stealth and it was short on thrust. The thing that killed it was technical risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:59:28 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree with every thing except the F15 turning up the radar and seeing more than the F35. The whole beauty of it is that once you radiate. You are a Kill. And oh bye the way you can using the Helmet visor look all around the plan as if it wasn't there. Watch Ward Carroll he is one of the few F-14 RIO's that there were, small community and he is brilliant about getting info! And it needs a Tail Hook. The F-15 has room for a much larger array so… So low probability of intercept radar was a lie? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 1:00:48 AM EDT
[#16]
We lost the Cold War
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 1:35:57 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Canada made some great contributions to the F-22. This post, however, isn't one of them. I was told that by a Lockheed Martin engineer FWIW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 2:40:29 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was told that by a Lockheed Martin engineer FWIW. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Canada made some great contributions to the F-22. This post, however, isn't one of them. I was told that by a Lockheed Martin engineer FWIW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:25:47 AM EDT
[#19]
Yes. They can't even kill a squadron of Su57. What a joke.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 7:41:16 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ahh, the ol' Mach 2.5 Eagle. As Joe Isuzu used to say, "Downhill. In a hurricane." Someone told the story of test flying E's right out of a depot service when they didn't have the conformals and everything was clean. They were hotrods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 7:57:46 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No real combat? So Syria and Afghanistan don’t count? I guess our nuclear arsenal is a failure also because we don’t use it. Some of the most effective weapons never have to be deployed. F-22 is one of those. Its use in combat was limited but it has proven to be highly effective in combat. Our enemies have been scared shitless of it for 26 years. Nothing matches it or comes close. It has paved the way for even more advanced fighter technology. Not a failure at all. It is a resounding success. This is where I'm at. No enemy on earth wants to play hardball with F-22s. That keeps the calendar clean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 9:07:05 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is where I'm at. No enemy on earth wants to play hardball with F-22s. That keeps the calendar clean. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No real combat? So Syria and Afghanistan don’t count? I guess our nuclear arsenal is a failure also because we don’t use it. Some of the most effective weapons never have to be deployed. F-22 is one of those. Its use in combat was limited but it has proven to be highly effective in combat. Our enemies have been scared shitless of it for 26 years. Nothing matches it or comes close. It has paved the way for even more advanced fighter technology. Not a failure at all. It is a resounding success. This is where I'm at. No enemy on earth wants to play hardball with F-22s. That keeps the calendar clean. That's assuming they can see it before it kills them or forms on their wing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 9:25:01 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's assuming they can see it before it kills them or forms on their wing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No real combat? So Syria and Afghanistan don’t count? I guess our nuclear arsenal is a failure also because we don’t use it. Some of the most effective weapons never have to be deployed. F-22 is one of those. Its use in combat was limited but it has proven to be highly effective in combat. Our enemies have been scared shitless of it for 26 years. Nothing matches it or comes close. It has paved the way for even more advanced fighter technology. Not a failure at all. It is a resounding success. This is where I'm at. No enemy on earth wants to play hardball with F-22s. That keeps the calendar clean. That's assuming they can see it before it kills them or forms on their wing. Like the flex on Iran's F4's  F-22 Raptor vs. F4 Phantom - "You Should Go Home Now" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 9:48:10 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But why retire the F22 and not the 15 or 16? What is the point of the billions spent when the only answer is that you can upgrade the F16 and not the F22. Then inst the F22 a useless endeavor The -15, -16, and -18 are the pinnacle of the 4th gen; plenty of room to upgrade and shuffle their roles around. The -22 was the launch of the 5th gen. Fantastic capabilities and head and shoulder above the 4th, but it's best contributions were the lessons learned about maintenance, upgrade paths, and RAM durability applied to the JSF/-35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 11:01:23 AM EDT
[#25]
Sigh -
 F-22 Raptor Catches Aircraft Arresting System • Pearl Harbor-Hickam |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 11:13:58 AM EDT
[#26]
They're haven't been a massive fail at red flag. Neither has the 35.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 11:19:40 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're haven't been a massive fail at red flag. Neither has the 35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 11:33:25 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: F-22 is a great plane but it’s got about three big problems for us. 1. It’s closed architecture and doesn’t like to upgrade. 2. It’s old and needs upgrades. 3. Itty bitty legs. NGAD looks to be trading maneuverability for range. Rumor is it’s going to be a big bitch. Like F-111 inspired. But it’ll also be open architecture, incorporate everything learned from F-22 and F-35, it’s supposed to be minimal technical risk (build the plane then worry about adding risky tech) and stealthier. It ought to be the best thing yet. And apparently it’s moving a lot faster than most think. This man knows something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 11:37:59 AM EDT
[#29]
My understanding from reading RAND Reports on possible engagement scenarios for China is that the F-22 can't stay on station very long and would be highly dependent on tankers to refuel tthereby limiting the U.S.'s ability to maintain air dominance over the South China Sea. The problem is not only the limited range of the F-22, but that we don't have a lot of bases within range of the South China sea, so an aircrafts fuel efficiency and endurance is going to be a big factor. When you consider the DOD Defense Policy is Asia focused than it makes a lot of sense that they're looking for something else now. If we were focused on Russia than it would probably be good to go for awhlie longer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 11:45:24 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Slicked up, no conformals, at 40k with no guy in back in a slight dive. Someone told the story of test flying E's right out of a depot service when they didn't have the conformals and everything was clean. They were hotrods. The highest Mach number I've ever flown was in a Strike coming out of Depot, too...but it was nowhere near 2.5....and to apply that number to a combat-configured jet (even a much-cleaner C model) is the funny part. Anyone repeating that number with a straight face as a reference to combat capabilities of the Eagle just doesn't really know how non-meaningful of a number it is. I don't have any pics of the flight I took the speed run on, but here's a shot of one of my few solo flights in the F-15E, taking a stripped-down jet to be dropped off at Depot back circa summer 2003. The jet is still wearing its soon-to-be-removed nose art from Shock and Awe. Edit: lol at the low fidelity of digital cameras from 2003.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 11:56:20 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The highest Mach number I've ever flown was in a Strike coming out of Depot, too...but it was nowhere near 2.5....and to apply that number to a combat-configured jet (even a much-cleaner C model) is the funny part. Anyone repeating that number with a straight face as a reference to combat capabilities of the Eagle just doesn't really know how non-meaningful of a number it is. I don't have any pics of the flight I took the speed run on, but here's a shot of one of my few solo flights in the F-15E, taking a stripped-down jet to be dropped off at Depot back circa summer 2003. The jet is still wearing its soon-to-be-removed nose art from Shock and Awe. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/Hackersolo_JPG-3059199.JPG All cleaned up were the Es dramatically slower than the Cs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 11:59:40 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very cool. All cleaned up were the Es dramatically slower than the Cs? No, basically the same. In some cases even faster, when powered by the Pratt -229. The -220 was the C model's "big engine", where the -220 was the E model's "small engine". All of that is fixed with the GE -129 engine in the F-15EX...the engine both of them should have had the whole time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:19:59 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, basically the same. In some cases even faster, when powered by the Pratt -229. The -220 was the C model's "big engine", where the -220 was the E model's "small engine". All of that is fixed with the GE -129 engine in the F-15EX...the engine both of them should have had the whole time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Very cool. All cleaned up were the Es dramatically slower than the Cs? No, basically the same. In some cases even faster, when powered by the Pratt -229. The -220 was the C model's "big engine", where the -220 was the E model's "small engine". All of that is fixed with the GE -129 engine in the F-15EX...the engine both of them should have had the whole time. Oooh, maybe we need a Fat F-15 with F135 engines, 900 square foot wings (as we proposed on the F15XX about 1990), and 100000 pound MTOW. Add a dash of radar aperture. Fill the ammo vay with gas, and bay 5 with electronic gadgets. Beat the empty weight down with defensible analysis and testing as in the olden times. Also a tailhook.  Now I'm curious about the installation envelope for the engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:23:59 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oooh, maybe we need a Fat F-15 with F135 engines, 900 square foot wings (as we proposed on the F15XX about 1990), and 100000 pound MTOW. Add a dash of radar aperture. Fill the ammo vay with gas, and bay 5 with electronic gadgets. Beat the empty weight down with defensible analysis and testing as in the olden times. Also a tailhook. Now I'm curious about the installation envelope for the engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:35:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oooh, maybe we need a Fat F-15 with F135 engines, 900 square foot wings (as we proposed on the F15XX about 1990), and 100000 pound MTOW. Add a dash of radar aperture. Fill the ammo vay with gas, and bay 5 with electronic gadgets. Beat the empty weight down with defensible analysis and testing as in the olden times. Also a tailhook. Now I'm curious about the installation envelope for the engine. I'm told those engines would demand some pretty serious reworking of the fuselage. A fighter is often defined by its engine or engines in this case. The one advantage I know we have over the Chinese, at least for a little while is knowing that our engines are much better than theirs. Heck they even make movies where their cruddy engines are a major plot point. I was talking to my best friend recently about the development of the Century series fighters and how they were often designed around a certain engine but wound up with much more powerful engines in service. I think the F-101 was a rather extreme case of this. But I think that can also be chalked up to, "how do you build supersonic fighters when no one has ever built them before?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:39:55 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm told those engines would demand some pretty serious reworking of the fuselage. A fighter is often defined by its engine or engines in this case. The one advantage I know we have over the Chinese, at least for a little while is knowing that our engines are much better than theirs. Heck they even make movies where their cruddy engines are a major plot point. I was talking to my best friend recently about the development of the Century series fighters and how they were often designed around a certain engine but wound up with much more powerful engines in service. I think the F-101 was a rather extreme case of this. But I think that can also be chalked up to, "how do you build supersonic fighters when no one has ever built them before?"  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:40:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I mean...would any eagle driver say no to 80k lbs of thrust? $10 says it can super cruise...as long as you wedge those big fuckers in there without going totally midcap... If you get them going fast enough they'll fit.....if not get a bigger hammer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:41:04 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm told those engines would demand some pretty serious reworking of the fuselage. A fighter is often defined by its engine or engines in this case. The one advantage I know we have over the Chinese, at least for a little while is knowing that our engines are much better than theirs. Heck they even make movies where their cruddy engines are a major plot point. I was talking to my best friend recently about the development of the Century series fighters and how they were often designed around a certain engine but wound up with much more powerful engines in service. I think the F-101 was a rather extreme case of this. But I think that can also be chalked up to, "how do you build supersonic fighters when no one has ever built them before?" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Oooh, maybe we need a Fat F-15 with F135 engines, 900 square foot wings (as we proposed on the F15XX about 1990), and 100000 pound MTOW. Add a dash of radar aperture. Fill the ammo vay with gas, and bay 5 with electronic gadgets. Beat the empty weight down with defensible analysis and testing as in the olden times. Also a tailhook. Now I'm curious about the installation envelope for the engine. I'm told those engines would demand some pretty serious reworking of the fuselage. A fighter is often defined by its engine or engines in this case. The one advantage I know we have over the Chinese, at least for a little while is knowing that our engines are much better than theirs. Heck they even make movies where their cruddy engines are a major plot point. I was talking to my best friend recently about the development of the Century series fighters and how they were often designed around a certain engine but wound up with much more powerful engines in service. I think the F-101 was a rather extreme case of this. But I think that can also be chalked up to, "how do you build supersonic fighters when no one has ever built them before?" Hence "Fat". I'm going to scale things similar to the F-18E tactic so the new airplanes look the same to casual observers. This new airplane needs all the internal volume for gas that can be scrounged. Hopefully scaling the inlets doesn't make it look goofy and give away the game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 12:43:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oooh, maybe we need a Fat F-15 with F135 engines, 900 square foot wings (as we proposed on the F15XX about 1990), and 100000 pound MTOW. Add a dash of radar aperture. Fill the ammo vay with gas, and bay 5 with electronic gadgets. Beat the empty weight down with defensible analysis and testing as in the olden times. Also a tailhook. Now I'm curious about the installation envelope for the engine. Maybe we could call it the "Eagle GD". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 2:55:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe we could call it the "Eagle GD". This just screams for AI to make a rendering. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:04:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: and aren't those things kinda stacked decks against the more advanced platforms? Like worst case scenario type situations? Yeah red flag is supposed to be the most realistic set of scenarios money can buy. Everyone comes and brings their best. The french aren't invited anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:51:12 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If they are two entirely different roles, why retire the F22 so early on compared to just about every other airframe in use? Limited numbers built. When you develop an upgrade or sustainment program, the more airframes you can apply it to the more the fixed costs are amortized. There just weren't enough F22 made to warrant keeping it in service, compared to thousands of F-16. Similar thing happened ot the F-106 - great plane, could have hung around another few decades, but, unlike say the Phantom, there weren't enough of them to spread the cost of development over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:53:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are only 180 F-22s left in the operational inventory. Compare that to the 800+ F-16s and it is easy to see why we would retire the F-22. As the aircraft fleet ages, parts become harder to procure, manufacture, or cannibalize leading to lower mission capable rates, longer lead times for MICAPs and increased phase maintenance requirements. Also not all of that 180 are combat-coded, so a handful or two are only good for training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:54:34 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it is a cost versus actual world world use scenario, so the billions spent on the F22 was nothing more than an R&D project? The F16 is far older than F22, so wouldn’t the parts issue be more of detriment compared to the F22? From a fiscal standpoint, there is no real practical scenario in which the existence of the F22 makes sense. The F16 is far older, but still makes more of fiscal standpoint than the far newer and more technologically advanced airframe. From a numbers point if the view, the F22 only exists for R&D. Think of it like this - would you make more money making tires that fit on a Chevy pickup or on a Bugatti Veyron? How many tires are you going to end up selling verses the fixed cost of R&D and production facilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 3:57:23 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: B17s in service? fap fap fap. Long obsolete, but fap fap fap |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:07:53 PM EDT
[#46]
No other fighter aircraft on Earth can really compete. That's the primary purpose, for which it's a huge success.
In theory, the other thing it's good for is to keep the bad guys spending billions and chasing their tails TRYING to field something on par. Of course that second part is kinda out the window these days since we're so complacent (or complicit in the case of the Biden bunch) and letting the Chinese buy or steal our military tech. Now is all that worth the $$$ spent? That's a different question IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:21:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Go listen to the Ward Carroll stuff on youtube, they were supposed to build a thousand of these to replace old F15's. Then production got cut to less than 200 so they could build MRAP's instead. They milked another 20 years out of the F15's and they are now falling apart. They aren't building F35's fast enough, so they grabbed some F15's out of Qatar's production line and are building new F15ex models with updates from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. (yes, we are still actively building F15's for other countries) Not stealth, but mach 2.5. It outruns the F35 in a straight line. Not being stealth, it can turn up the wattage on the radar and see stuff the F35 can't. You children could be flying F15's with modern upgrades. The plan is to have two different tools to use. For general use, it makes sense to have some cheaper aircraft for more mundane tasks. It's kind of cool. Yep. You don't need a bajillion-$-per-flight-hour airframe to check out airlines off course or with radio problems, or civillian planes that wander into restricted air space, or to shoot down a spy balloon, or .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:27:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In part because the concept of an advanced big wing F-16 was ultimately seen as threat to ATF, while the plodding Mud Hen wasn't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: F-16XL lost to F-15E. In part because the concept of an advanced big wing F-16 was ultimately seen as threat to ATF, while the plodding Mud Hen wasn't. Non-concur. Having engine redundancy, which the F-15E has, and the F-16XL has not, is a very important thing for an airframe intended to get down in the weeds and thus be expossed to ground fire and radar-directed anti-aircraft guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:34:59 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It turned out that our adversaries new tech is inferior to our old tech and we still have a lot of old tech. I think our strength is still superior logistics and the ability to protect force when it comes to a heads up confrontation. However the world is changing and while the F22 is a superior fighter by a long shot, you can't intercept a cyber attack or foreign funded legal invadionnwith a jet. Were not nearly as much at risk of falling to lost military battles as we are asymmetrical warfare. That's what a lot of people don't understand. The F-22 is a great airplane, and also a great example of our failure to adapt. Having superior fighters was important in WWII. Not so much since then. It's virtually irrelevant these days. There are zero adversaries building an Air Force that could legitimately challenge the capabilities we had in 1997. Developing an air force, centered around stealth designed to penetrate sophisticated IADS, in the era of advanced missiles and UAS, has proven to be a fools errand. People knew all this, warned about it... But the flying club successfully lobbied for an endless budget in a fruitless attempt to keep themselves employed and relevant. Our idiot policy makers and corrupt defense establishment listened to them. The result is we spent the national treasury on capabilities that are now virtually meaningless. And we continue to double down on this foolishness and discuss NGAD. I hope the air shows and fantasies are worth it. The empire crumbles from this level of ignorance and stupidity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 4:43:03 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Think of it like this - would you make more money making tires that fit on a Chevy pickup or on a Bugatti Veyron? How many tires are you going to end up selling verses the fixed cost of R&D and production facilities. Will both vehicles be provided for R&D purposes?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
