No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:52:29 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:33 +0100, ess
(phil
hunt) wrote:


An air superiority system needs high thrust/weight ratio, high
manueverability, reasonable range, short response time etc. It also
needs a sensor suite that can find, sort and allocate weapons to
the
enemy. Ideally it should have longer reach than the enemy platform
and
possess sufficient stealth to allow first-look/first-shot.

The sensor suite for US operations is increasingly space based with
Global
capability.

Only as long as the birdies above don't sustain interference
or attack. What then? You still need the traditional means
of reliably delivering the weapons to the target. Hotshot
fighter jocks could probably still succeed with a grease pencil
mark on the sight glass, and memorizing a set of direct bomb
tables... but must we resort to WW I tactics every time Ivan,
Mustafa, or Won Hung Lo geek out a way to scramble the RF?

If they start jamming communications it won't matter if the information
is
space based, or comming from an AWACS. In order to make any kind of
comparison you would ahve to compare to what is done today.

Who is "they" and when did they develop a frequency agile comm-jamm
capability? Millimeter wave for intra-flight data sharing?

I don't believe there is a they, but John T makes a good point that there is
some possible vulnerability to jamming.

A reliable airborn weapons platform with data link capability
is what is needed.

Sure. As long as you never transmit the good stuff in the clear
until you REALLY need it in a war. Wipe out the other guy within
the first ten days or so, and you're home free; after that, he'll
be turning your displays into masses of grass...

I don't believe there is much support in the system for the lone wolf
fighter pilot scenerio. There may be some of that inside the F-22
community, but that space is not the rocking chair career booster it
onece
was.

Tactically you seem to be out of step with the last fifty years of
fighter operations. There hasn't been a "lone wolf fighter pilot
scenario" in any plans since pre-Korean war. What is being discussed
is the ability to survive on Day One, to go where you need to and then
to dismantle the command/control/communications and the defensive
reaction capability without attriting yourself.

Sure.

There's no "lone wolf"
involved. Colin Powell spoke of putting out their eyes in DS. That's
part of the big picture. The F-22 allows intrusion of a mature IADS
and dissection of it. It isn't about "career booster" it's about
winning wars. That takes people at the pointy end.

The only target for the F-22 is Europe and killing Eurofighters is it's only
sold mission.

The USAF airplane procurement cycle is too slow and bogged down
with politics to produce tech advantages in individual manned
airborn equipments.

Not to mention the scads of college boys writing code
to do things they don't understand - and feel (erroneously)
that the GIs - from E-1s to generals - can never understand.
Libraries, libraries, libraries; if it doesn't work as spec'd
with existing, just add others to bog it down some more.

Yes, that kind of thing even comes to the fore in the commercial World.
Tremble spent a fortune trying to be in the aviation avionics business,
only
to find that their softhead small GA pilots could not follow a
specification.

Dare I suggest that comparing GA to military tactical aviation is a
bit of apples/oranges? Dentists will continue to kill themselves in
Bonanzas while fighter pilots will develop new ways to de-fur the
feline.

Well now, Trimble still sells to the military.