the F-15 is 1960s technology - F-22 Raptor is 1980s tech - will therebe a NEW air-superiority fighter?

Airyx writes:

On May 6, 5:27Â*pm, AirRaid wrote:

Also I feel the F-15 was more advanced for the 1970s than the F-22 is
this decade, relatively speaking. /../

When the F-15 came out, a vast many people, especially the GAO and
Aviation Media, claimed that the F-15 was a waste of money because
it offered very little improvement over the F-4. /../ They failed to
take into account the improvements in sensors, agility,
maintainability, and most importantly, that the design allowed for
continuous improvement as new technologies became available.

So, the F-15A really wasn't that big a leap over an F-4, but as the
APG-70 was added, new ECM, AIM-120, etc, it became a better jet then
the F-4 could ever be.

In terms of sensors, and room for future technologies, the F-22 is a
HUGE leap over anything before it. The basic airframe design may be
from the late 80's but everything else in it is quite new. Also, the
design makes it far easier to replace or add modules to provide it
with new technologies.

Very good point.

/../

I'm not sure what you are looking for in air dominance. With the
improvements in AAMs, controlling the air comes down to these factors
in order:

1. Find enemy first
2. Shoot first
3. Be able to evade counter shot (if necessary)

#1 is achieved by having good sensors on-board your fighter, but more
importantly by having outstanding sensor fusion that takes-in data
from all sorts of off-board sensors and displays it to the pilot in a
meaningful way. This is what makes the F-22 the best, and the
technology it uses for this is modular, easy to upgrade, and
integrate, and all new. Nothing from the 1980's here.
Also invloved in #1 are stealth, and good ECM
#2 is all about the weapon, and the sensors used to guide it.
#3 is about short bursts of agility, and speed. We are unlikely to see
jets going through sustained maneuvers to gain a good firing position
(dogfights), since reliable shots can now be taken at long ranges and
from almost any aspect.

In WWII the "Big Blue Blanket" was a means to blunt enemy attacks
before they had a chance to close to uninterceptable distances. This
despite massive improvements in sensors in the USN during the war, and
the respective lack thereof on the enemy side. Point No.1 cannot be
overstressed, and neither can its implementation: there has to be
redundancy (sensors, sensor types and aircraft numbers; and now fusion
between them to synthesize greater ability than the individuals could
have had by themselves) to do the job properly. However, "optimizing"
is going to be very harmful if it tries to cut down on "redundancy" as
"unneccessary". The reason for this is that any "optimization" by
definition ignores possible changes in the enemy capabilities and
"unexpected" (by those with no experience of hard reality; or no
imagination g) developments that may affect the very model on which
the operational depoloyment of aircraft and sensors is based.

Many have said in the past that the days of the dogfight were over,
and they were proven wrong. Well, it was only a matter of time until
the technology matured.

The distances got bigger, but the mental game remains the same at its
co outsmarting the other guys. Still, in practice guys (and girls)
that can transition to this much much more complex web of combat are
probably going to be both similar and slightly different from people
who excel in "dogfights". Teamwork matters too so all types have a
role, neuro-surgeon type specialist detail experts as well as those
general practitioner types with a genius for overall diagnosis.

So, to that end, the Superhornet, and F-35 will do just fine, and the
F-22 could very well be our last manned fighter. Could use a bunch
more of them though.

Exactly.
--
BOFH excuse #139:

UBNC (user brain not connected)