The Invisible F-22 Raptor Will Kill 'Em All
By patriotroom Posted in Military Roundtable — Comments (82) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From Peace and Freedom '08, gently edited.
The newest U.S. Air Force jet fighter, the F-22, joined the Langley Air Force Base team at Langley, Virginia.
In actual in-flight simulated combat operations, two Raptors were able to operate without detection while operating head-to-head against eight F-15’s. The F/A-22’s scored simulated missile hits against all the F-15 aircraft and the F/A-22’s were never detected by either the F-15’s or ground based radar.
“The Raptor operated against all adversaries with virtual impunity; ground based systems couldn’t engage and no adversary aircraft would have survived in actual combat,” said Air Force Major General Rick Lewis.
The F-22 has a titanium and carbon fiber skin which makes it almost completely invisible to radar. The aircraft is so advanced that if its on-board locator is switched off even our own satellites can lose track of it.
.
The F-22 is the first military aircraft ever built that is equipped with a ‘black-out button’. That means the fighter’s pilot is capable of maintaining consciousness up to about 15+ G. The Raptor is capable of making 22+ G turns. If, some day, an adversary builds a missile that is capable of catching up to one of these airplanes and a Raptor pilot sees that a strike is imminent, he hits the ‘b.o.b.’ and the airplane makes a virtual U-turn, leaving the missile to pass right on by.
We've got such good stuff.
Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room
"Nothing else comes close."
Literally, as well as figuratively.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
"In actual in-flight simulated combat operations, two Raptors were able to operate without detection while operating head-to-head against eight F-15’s."
Don't listen to the MSM about our weakened position in the world...We my friends are still the MAN
Those Sweet little tinpot Dictators and Thugs all around the World just made in their pants.
"40 million American households with guns are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have guns."
... F-35 in a few years. I saw a prototype up close. It only gets better!
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(""The only reason that some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.")
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(""The only reason that some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.")
WW
If you ever get to DC, there's an F35 out at the Air and Space Museum at Dulles. One of the two that were built for the fly off. I saw it up close and personal before they shipped it there.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(""The only reason that some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.")
patriotroom
I think it's a neat plane with fantastic capabilities...but there are some issues.
1) It's very very expensive, North of $100 Million a copy if memory serves me right.
2) Congress is funding something like 120 of them in total. This is not a good number of airplanes when one takes into account accidents, maintenance and training requirements. Same set of problems confronted the B2 by the way.
3) It's sexy, and sex sells while the real everyday job of the AF; mobility, refuel, and intelligence looses out to the sexy. Matter of fact the C17 line is in question, the C5 fleet is getting long of tooth, and the B52 is older than just about anything, well other than John McCain....LOL.
4) The future enemy this country may face, that can field a high performance aircraft does not have anything close to the F22, but they will be able to put up high numbers of aircraft compared to our small fleet of aircraft.
5) The F22 does not really do Air to Mud as a primary mission, it's an air superiority platform, best one in the world right now, but future conflicts may rely on dropping Iron on target, and carrying supplies into a combat zones.
I'm not knocking the F22 or is it still the F/A 22, might have missed the memo, but there is more to the AF mission than the latest and hottest ride for the Fighter Pilot's union. The trash haulers and all the rest of the AF needs some love too. Buying more F22's to fix some of the real issues with deploying it makes it hard to cover the other missions that the AF does every day.
Don't forget that the F35 is just going into flight test, and it's a darn good aircraft too, and a heck of a lot cheaper than the F22.
______________________________________
The views expressed...yada yada yada
If I recall correctly, the Air Force is asking for something like 183 of them, and Congress actually wants to fund more. One of the few things that I actually agree with John Murtha on. And the more planes that are produced, the cheaper the unit cost of each.(they will still be extremely expensive.)
You are correct about other sectors of the Air Force needing funding. That reflects the general need throughout the military to begin replacing old equipment and general modernization. This fact is becoming more widely known, however, and everybody from the Heritage Foundation to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is making the case for devoting at least 4% of GDP to defense spending.(not including war supplementals.)
As for no nation possessing anything that comes close in capabilities, this is true for the present. There are, however, efforts underway by the Chinese and the Russians to build planes to counter the F-22. And given recent history, I'd say we cannot rule out the possibility that they will obtain the schematics themselves for the F-22.
What concerns me about the F-35 is that so many other nations will also possess the plane. I know this is designed to help defray costs, but I don't think it wise that we put ourselves in a position where our best plane(that we have in significant numbers) is the same as that of potential adversaries. Although the other nations that will possess it are currently largely our allies, one is never sure of future events, and its diffusion will make it easier for competitors to acquire info about it. I am not sure, but I would not be surprised if we were going to produce models for export, and buy more sophisticated models for ourselves.
And I would be remiss if I didn't echo the sentiments that it(the F-22) is just the most awesome thing I think I have ever seen. I am going to see one in flight this summer at the airshow in Dayton, Ohio. I can't wait.
Aetius728
I won't disagree with your commentary about the greatness of the F22, and they are impressive, but I did check and they come in at ~$138 Million a copy. You can buy two or three F35's for that, or almost 10 F16's. The next war may be against an enemy that field a large number of less technology sophisticated aircraft but in large numbers.
One thing to remember about the F22 is when it was first conceived and for what mission. The F22 was designed/conceived back at end of the cold war and was designed to go head to head with Soviet block aircraft. That threat is probably not going to come up again soon. The argument of force multiplier is still valid, I'll defer to others to talk about sorte generation rate, maintenance hour per flying hour and bunch of other factors, but there is a danger that with a small force of F22's they may not be all that combat effective a force as is desirable and the cost of building up a large force might be cost prohibitive.
I'd guess that's there's been tons and tons of ink and electrons spilled at War Colleges studying the issue, some of which is biased by which union the analyst belongs to in the AF. The Fighter pilot union loves it for sure, the other type crews and the UAV crowd not so much.
One of the things facing the next president is going to be a review of Defense policy and the problem of how to recapitalize the machinery being chewed up in Iraq right now. That's one of those topics that nobody is taking about right now and there's a huge price tag on replacing equipment being used up to fight the war. Those decisions also factor into how big a force of any weapon system will be, and doubly so for an aircraft that might be great but costs as much as a F22 does.
But the F-22 in flight is a thing of beauty, you'll enjoy the air show for sure.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
but I think that the assumption that other nations won't soon possess aircraft that can compete with the F-35 is one that we cannot afford to make. You can bet that vast sums of money are being spent by Moscow and Beijing to develop counters.
I am also not advocating a small force of F-22s. I am advocating a large force of them. I did some research, the DOD insists that 183 will suffice, the Air Force wants 381, and there are members of congress(of both parties)talking about funding even more. I know this will be expensive.
The countries understood to be likely to take the plane are
United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark and possibly Israel and Singapore.
I hope you're not expecting too many wars with us all!
but I will concede that the possibility is highly unlikely.
But not impossible. Suppose that Turkey becomes increasingly radical, and there is a revolution that is similar to Iran in ten or fifteen years? Unlikely, but I sure wouldn't rule it out.
Or suppose that Turkey is approached by China or Russia with a generous offer in return for sensitive info on the F-35.
Suppose Israel launches a strike on Iran or Syria, and one is shot down and recovered by unfriendly forces? I know this is unlikely, but such golden BB incidents have happened in the past. If I remember correctly, we lost an F-117 in the 90's during one of Bill Clinton's adventures abroad.
Suppose a virulent anti-American is elected in Denmark or Norway(which is a very real possibility) and is loose with secrets just to damage the U.S.? Such things are certainly not unprecedented.
Or for that matter, I think South Korea is on the list as well. Suppose the North Koreans get a hold of one?
None of these situations are likely, but the likelihood that one will occur, or that our real adversaries will acquire info from us or someone else that possesses the F-35 through good old fashion espionage is a risk that we cannot take. It is imperative that we have a plane with capabilities that exceed that of the F-35. That is why we should by a significant quantity of F-22s.
1) We have the money for it. Or would if we'd stop wasting it on other things (probably without even leaving the military budget)
2) Well, 1,000 MiG-21s could probably shoot down 120 F-22s, but 120 F-22s supported by a thousand F-15s?
3) You can't beat the B-52. We dn't need a new bomber, we need replacement B-52s. Though I really can't argue against the jist of your point: that we more desperately need to spend some serious money in other parts of our military infrastructure.
4)If we run out of F-22s, we have F-15s and F-16s, and F-14s and...
Sure, we may need to rip them out of mothballs in a major war, but then, in the run up to a major war of this kind, we'd be spending the money to buy more F-22s...
5)Granted, but it's better at it than the Stealth Bomber (I don't remember its designation) or any of our other multi-mission aircraft. And we're not exactly running any missions that call for the B-52...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
I'm amazed that even a trained pilot can survive a 22 G turn and still keep control of his aircraft afterward.
If that's how far we've come, then the next generation of fighters after the F-22 may be capable of maneuvers that a human pilot can't withstand. They will likely be unmanned air vehicles (UAVs). What's the point of designing a fighter that can do a 40 G turn if it kills the human pilot inside?
I know there are many air-air missiles that can pull much more than 22g. Still a great airplane.
Almost any modern missile can "catch up" to the F/22. Most missiles fly at over Mach 3, which the F/22 can't do. Now none of the radar missiles would detect it, but are we really duping ourselves to think that the F/22 is heat sinking proof? Look at the vectored exhaust, there is no massive cool air mixing nacelles present like the F/117 or the B-2.
Sure, the F/22 would dump flares like there's no tomorrow once that threat is detected, but as awesome as the F/22 is, let's not pull a Titanic mistake on it's capabilities.
F/22 is the best large area combat platform. The best close range dog-fighter is the Euro Fighter Typhoon. I'd take the F/22 any day as it's better to be invisible than wicked fast in cornering.
Buck for buck, I'd take the F35's near F/22 capabilities along with it's price. Make my F35 the Marines' version with VTOL ;)
I worked at the plant that manufactured the ammo handling system for the 20MM Gatling Gun(approx. 6000rds/min). Always got stories from 'people'.
If you control the sky with your Air Superiority fighters your Air Support aircraft (A-10s and others - they're getting old too!) can concentrate on the support and not worry about defending themselves from other aircraft.
Trash haulers (Cargo Aircraft) are ageing, I don't see any Democratically conrolled Congress doing anything about that. I could be wrong but I doubt it!
Yes the F-35 is probably the last manned fighter. It is 'modular' by design and comes in various 'flavors'. The future is definitely UAV.
SteveLA: You're absolutely correct!
1) Limited production numbers drive the cost per aircraft up.
2) The C5 fleet is ancient! The oldest airframe is at least 30 years old! (could look it up but they were operational when I was in the AF in 1973!) C-141's are even older. But Cargo aircraft don't undergo the same stress as Fighter aircraft so they can last longer! There are C-130's that are even older and they fly those planes hard! A 5G turn would kill a C-5B! I think the wings would fall off! The C-17 was designed to fill the need to land large amounts of cargo into smaller fields and to be able to haul Army tanks more efficiently. Prior to the C-17 you needed a C-5 to transport the newer tanks and you could only ship ONE tank. They weighed too much and put too much stress on the airframe and cargo floor if they were loaded anywhere but centered over the main landing gear. When the C-5 was designed tanks didn't weigh as much! So the C-17 was designed with the newer tanks in mind!
3) Numerical superiority is not the same as force superiority! To come close, the 'enemy' would have to put up more than 4 times the number of aircraft. Then they'd have to shoot what they can't find! Modern Air superiority aircraft can find you and kill you at 3oo miles. That missile will be appearing out of nowhere and headed right at you before you even know there's another aircraft in the area.
Also American Military fighter pilots are the best in the world bar none!! I don't care whether they're Air Force, Army, Navy or Marines. Given the same aircraft American Pilot's will win 99.9% of the time. It comes down to training, training and even more training.
4) The F-35's missions are vastly different. It can't even come close to competing to the F-22. The F-35 was designed to be an 'all purpose fighter' good at a lot of things not particularly great at any one thing. It will, however have amazing conventional, 'short' and vertical take-off and conventional and vertical landing capabilities and hover capabilities but an airplane that's not moving is an easy target!!! If you can find a copy of Nova's "Battle of the X-Planes" Watch it! It's amazing what goes on behind the scenes!
5) As far as dropping iron on the target. The destrucive power and accuracy of todays bombers is amazing. What used to take multiple aircraft multiple missions to destroy is now accomplished by one aircraft. Remember the footage from the 1st Gulf War? The capabilities have been improved! And if you can have RPV's (Remotely Piloted Vehicles)you can have RPMs (Remotely Piloted Missiles). Read Tom Clancy's "The Bear and The Dragon" novel to see the future of warfare. There are some inaccuracies but you'll get the overall picture!
Sorry for the lengthy post! Aircraft....love 'em!!!
Keep 'em flying
Si vis pacem para bellum
n/t
"40 million American households with guns are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have guns."
Anyway, about your point on the F-35 being the last manned fighter plane: I sincerely disagree. That will only be the case if we can't secure the health of the pilot during these dangerous maneuvres(sp). The military is still controlled by the folks who are terrified of "push-button" warfare (as well it should Always be).
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
The people who'll be making those decisions are the young officers who are having spectacular successes with the UAVs and RPVs now. Just look at what they're doing with the Predators and they weren't designed with those missions in mind! UAVs and RPVs still have humans at the controls, they're just not in the aircraft!
When I was a young airmen I used to say that upper management made decisions based on current data viewed through the experiences they had 20 years before! I didn't realize how right I was until I became one of those upper level guys!!
You can design an airplane to make a 15G turn but you can't re-engineer the human body, the Anti-G flight suit can only help with blood pooling to a certain point, bones can break at high Gs! I believe that 9 Gs is pretty much the upper limit right now and it can't be maintained over a sustained period of time.
I once read a science fiction story where the premise was that the pilots of fighter aircraft, because of the stresses of flying high G maneuvers, had become disembodied brains maintained in an artificial environment and were just plugged into their aircraft when needed. I don't foresee that, but then again, I just look at the current political landscape to remind myself of how wrong my prognostications can be.
Keep 'em flying
Si vis pacem para bellum
I got a lot of nicks, cuts, bumps and bruises fixing airplanes for Uncle Sam but I enjoyed almost every minute of it. The promotions were great paywise but they took me away from fixing airplanes which I really loved (unless I had to do it in Alaska, outside, in January!). The Air Force doesn't ignore training for it's NCOs so we got into classroom discussions like this!
BTW the F-22 carries a variant of the M61 Vulcan 20MM Gatling Gun. The F-15, F-16 and F-18 have a maximum firing rate of 6000 Rounds per minute. The M61 that the F-22 system carries was designed to fire at a slower rate.
One of the engineers I worked with calculated that the M61A1 & M61A2 at speed (6000 rounds/minute) had three projectiles in the barrel at the firing position! One at the muzzle, one at the mid-point of the barrel and one just being fired!
Here's a picture!
M61A1 Vulcan 20MM Cannon
I've been trying to find a good video of it firing but the ones I've seen aren't all that hot!!! I'll keep searching!
omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
not the greatest, but gets the effect across nicely. I'm sure that FutureWeapons has featured it, but it is not in their video archive.
Now also found at The Minority Report
From what I could see of the ammo handling system that looked to be a test of the CIWS (Close In Weapon System) that is installed on Naval vessels (I could be wrong) Sweet System!!! Radar tracking of multiple incoming targets (10 I think) computing relative time to impact, prioritizing the targets, and shooting them out of the sky! American and Canadian ships use the CIWS which is a 20mm system using the M61 Vulcan. Many foreign navies use the Goalkeeper system which uses 30mm rounds and a GAU 8! I wouldn't care to be at the receiving end of either system! The Army was experimenting with a ground based version of the CIW System to shoot down mortars. I found a video of the Block 1 Test of the system:
Enjoy!
It sounds like an electric weedeater.
Of course, I can imagine combat vets who survived being on the receiving end of it would have PTSD flashbacks whenever they heard an electric wedeater afterwards...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
they cut the sound way, way, way, way down! I once stood about 12 feet to the side of a gun system test! The noise is unreal. You almost don't hear it as much as you feel it!! The pressure wave is just amazing, instant on, instant off!
I guess they've fielded some systems because at the YouTube site where I found the video one of the comments posted was from a guy who said that the system had saved his life once when he was in Iraq! I'll bet his flashback will be one of relief!!
si vis pacem para bellum
Back in the 80's, the sound of a firing M167 VADS at a firepower demo put me in mind of calling ralph and huey long distance. When the burst is fired, you hear a loud burping sound (the heave). Moments later, you hear the brass hit the ground (the splash).
Even ignoring the projectiles out of the business end, at a top cyclic rate of 6000 rounds per minute, that's a lot of floor pizza delivered.
I wonder how long it will take President Hillary Clinton to sell this technology to the Chinese.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
n/t
"40 million American households with guns are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have guns."
But you just aren't even eligible for the big gun club
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
height="100" ...right after the url of image...it will auto the width param ....please...your messin' Neil's layout
"40 million American households with guns are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have guns."
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Now THERE was an airplane. (^.-)
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
can they fly at Mach 2???
Si vis pacem para bellum
having worked on the F-14 and the F-111 as a civilian after 8 years with the Air Force. I first fell in love with fighter planes as a child, growing up near Stewart AFB, in New York.
I loved the F-4, but really found my love in the F-14. The F-15 was OK with me, as was the F-16 and I have never really like the F/A-18.
But, that was before the F-22. Wow, what a plane. YouTube is full of videos, as is the Boeing site. This plane will insure air superiority for many, many years to come. Amazing technology.
A government big enough to give you what you need, is big enough to take what you have - Thomas Jefferson
I worked on C141A/Bs,C5A/Bs, F4Cs, F4C Wild Weasels, F4Ds, F4Es and F4Gs. Was 'Airborn Radar and Radio Navigation Systems" old AFSC # 328X1 until they combined us with the Airborn Comm guys! Go Air Force!
si vis pacem para bellum
Being here in Anchorage with Elmendorf right next store, we always have some nice shows. And now that they are using the F-22's full time, it is like watching an aerial show every week.
And you feel/hear them more than see them. They are Extremely noisy.
I was about halfway through my time at Eustis when the first squadrons got to Langley and Norfolk in '03. Norfolk was a big issue because they were getting sued over the noise.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
cold weeks TDY at Elmendorf in January of 1990. You know it's cold when the temperature IS the news! I have a High School classmate who still lives there I believe. He got out of the AF and went Alaska ANG.
si vis pacem para bellum
How many infantry battalions could we fund for $100 million? How many aircraft does Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban have?
This is a good example of Secretary Gates' criticism of the Air Force: what have you done to support the GWOT?
I mean, can't we expect to dominate Iran and China with our air power right now?
Other wars will come and we may need something just like this. Its not like all will be perfect with the world if the GWOT is contained.
Air support has been very important. Especially that provided by bunker-busting bombs and the A-10s.
Do we need the F-22 for the GWOT? Probably not. But are we still going to prepare to fight the last war when we need to be ready to fight the next?
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
I remember a discussion I was a part of when I was in either leadership school or academy. I can't remember which. The most memorable thing out of that discussion was that no matter how much you thought you were prepared for the next war the enemy would probably show you that you didn't do enough! The premise was that if they were confident enough to attack you they beleived they had a chance of winning.
Si vis pacem para bellum
We can rely on our nation's industry and our military's ability to adapt to the parameters of any war, given sufficient time by their current equipment and personnel. Going from conventional warfare to anti-terrorism is a painful job, but the very methods of terrorism buy us the time we need. But being able to respond immediately is infinitely valuable in terms of lives and property saved.
Switch over completely to anti-terrorism and a conventional war will sweep over us too quickly to adapt. Thus, keep the ability to fight both so that whichever happens, we can respond rapidly and effectively and adapt as neccessary.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Remember to ration your ammo.
"40 million Democratsn households with guns are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have guns."
Our military has spent its resources on technologies that supposedly would win wars without boots on the ground. Then the pesky enemy decided not to cooperate and fight us instead with IEDs and terror campaigns. Guys like Shinseki tried to tell Rumsfeld.
Planes are great, but what we need are lots of expert ground troops to win. We need to own the sky but I question if we need a super-advanced aircraft to do it when F-15s and F-18s seem to do an unmatched job already.
But let's just suppose war does occur over Taiwan. The Chinese, by all accounts, can beat the F15 and F18. Now what?
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Owning the skies is only a big deal, I suppose, if you DON'T. Because of the US's unequaled air superiority, we own every bit of sky in the Mideast. Terrorists have to go to great lengths to hide themselves from Death From Above. Just to put this in some perspective, think on these things, in terms to the USA completely owning the skies:
Tactically speaking:
--they dare not assemble in large groups.
--even if they are in TOTALLY friendly territory, and have spies and watchers in a 100-mile halo around them, they are not safe and they know it.
--Supplies and troops moved around in convoys? In military transport vehicles? No. They have to resort to civilian vehicles in very small formations, HOPING that somebody has not ratted them out.
--mortar attacks from a safe distance? Define safe.
--a sniper who has allied troops in a sector pinned down in a village or neighborhood - he is going to die that day, just as soon as the troops call in a nearby helicopter. Going. To. Die.
-- The allies can, on minute's notice, project major force at almost any distance - they can act on intel or on a suprise ambush with such speed and force that they will wipe out the enemy.
Strategically speaking, to combat our ownership of the skies:
--they have no possible R&D projects. Islamist terrorist states are 60 years behind us in technology. Heck, maybe 100 years.
-- they can only import anti-aircraft technology from Russia,China, and NK at some cost, with the HOPE that it will be effective, that the shipments won't be intercepted, informers won't give the US intel, that the supplying countries can supply either the operational people themselves, or adequate training to be effective weapon systems. Also, they can hope that the US will not bomb them into dust the day before the systems go on line.
-- they have no hope whatsoever of getting Russian, European, or Chinese planes into the sky, having no bases (that would survive the construction process before being bombed into rubble). Even if they did, our planes would shoot down their planes like so much target practice. We have not only the best technology, but the best training.
Is this sky ownership costly? Sure. But worth it.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
But we want to own them forever.
The way you stay ahead is to continue to be forward looking.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
remember how well that 'peace dividend' of the early 90's worked out.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
If our ground troops don't succeed, I wonder what significance our navy and air force will have in a world where we turn away from the ultimate challenge of taking and holding enemy terrain.
In a multi-nuclear world I don't know if we can get away with F-111s bombing our enemies anymore, when they can fire a missile right back at us.
I'm all for guaranteeing supremacy, but like I originally said, $100 million could buy a serious amount of ground capability and manpower. One plane, or the ability to deny a significant amount of enemy terrain and populace...
TT, you seem to be laboring under the assumption that by spending that kind of money on our advanced airframes, we are neglecting money for the ground troops.
I disagree with that assumption. They are not only getting lots of money thrown their way, there is some SERIOUS money devoted to R&D that is yielding major on-field success. You should watch FutureWeapons some times.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I'm sure the F-22 will be effective in smaller, hot wars. But if we ever tangle with the Chinese, the F-22 might be the wrong path.
I keep thinking back to WW2 when, initially, our aircraft were often inferior to enemy aircraft. What granted us success early was good pilot training and producing planes by the tens of thousands. I'm even more taken with the Russian approach to aircraft and their legendary ability to be fixed by a farm boy with nothing more than a wrench.
I feel safer with much cheaper aircraft that we could quickly manufacture (mostly) in the U.S. should the need arise, then bleeding edge aircraft system that can't be ramped up. The F-35 was supposed to satisfy this need, but it too has ballooned in cost.
My hunch is that in the next big war, the fighters will be much less important than a future missile system with advanced, independent AI and sensors. Again, going back to WW2, the fighter may go the way of the Battleship, with the new player being an aircraft carrier of the skies - a missile carrier - defended by next-generation A-10 warthogs in role akin to AEGIS equipped cruisers and destroyers.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
A heavy missile carrier might look something like a modified C-17. With a capacity exceeding 80 tons, I'm guessing a maximum missile deployment would be constrained by load and launch requirements, not weight. Even so, carrying 120 or more AIM-120C AMRAAM sized missiles is certainly possible for a single aircraft. A light missile carrier might look something like a modified C-27J. With a capacity exceeding 30 tons and similar constraints, it might carry 40-60 missiles. For comparison, the F-35 can carry three and the F-22 can carry up to six such missiles. Both the heavy and light missile carrier concepts would likely be able to loiter in a defensive position much longer than any fighter squadron, using a lot less fuel and manpower.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
I have a book somewhere where they did essentially that. Sci-Fi, of course, but they were pulling warships off the ocean floor and turning them into starships. Was pretty silly even in Sci-Fi...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
"The C-17 Globemaster III is the newest, most flexible cargo aircraft to enter the airlift force."
- U.S. Air Force
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Why are we wasting taxpayer $$ fighting last year's war when the wave of the future is nanotechnology?
http://www.masstech.org/institute/research/nano_report_04/defense.pdf
[Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'd insert one of those little smiley thingies here, but emoticons are against my religion.]
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Isn't the next war supposed to have no men at all and be run by solar powered robots with no carbon footprint and firing non toxic bullets ?
;-) they aren't against my religion
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Hey Mode don't take it the wrong way. Everybody involved in any kind of technology was there at one point. Give it time you will learn why tech isn't a magic wand.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I don't believe tech is a magic wand, but it can be transformative in very short time frames.
Forty years ago, when I was born, computers were mainframes owned and operated by companies, universities, and the government. Today, the iPhone in my wife's handbag is not only more advanced, but it provides capabilities that have transformed commerce, banking, communications, entertainment, etc. In fact, if someone were bold enough to predict that an iPhone like device (superior to Star Trek's comunicator) would transform society in a few decades, someone like you would have laughed. Thing is, it's not so much the end-product that transforms society, but all the little steps in between.
Thin-film solar, graphene, nano-batteries, etc. -- used in combination, the result will be probably even more revolutionary than the iPhone.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
I certainly wouldn't have scoffed at the transformations the computer would bring.
I can say this with some certainty because I didn't then. Of course among the technologies I didn't scoff at at the time were
Core Memory (Ahhh little magnetic donuts on wires)
Magnetic Bubble Memory(actually mobile domains in garnet)
Fluidic Computers
Hybrid Digital Analog computers
The Videophone (even though I did speculate that ugly people might not flock to it)
Holographic Memory (Finally here but not really)
Oh and there are some other techs that were around back then
Solar Cells
Advanced Batteries
Geothermal Power
Wind Power
And Fusion power.
You see I still am not mocking the tech. I am just mocking the way you propose having the government spearhead it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But I believe current global conditions -- the Saudi promotion of Wahhabism, the related Islamic terrorism, the explosive economic growth of China and India, approaching parity with the Chinese military, the spread of high-tech skills throughout the world (and dare I say, Global Warming) -- are systemic of our loss of influence, ingenuity, and strength. Becoming the leaders in alternative energy (and the ensuing transformations to come) could shift the global balance once again, but back in our favor.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
...if in the process we lose our humanity?
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Still not as cool as our aircraft which are perennially mistaken for UFOs...
would be so expensive that the military would only be able to afford one.
The airforce would get it on mondays, wednesdays and fridays.
The navy tuesdays thursdays and saturdays
the marines would split half a day sundays with the maintenance crew.
Seems we are getting close. But yeah its a spectacular plane. Nothing else comes close.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777