If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:55:29 GMT, John Smith wrote:
We should be willing to pay any price to continue to completely dominate the battlespace. Absolutely! The USA should spend 90% of GDP on armaments! Abolish the civilian economy! If we ever lose that edge, we'll find ourselves back into another Kora, I see the progrsamme of reducing expenditure on education is already paying dividends. Vietnam, WWII nightware that no one wants. Your shinny new car [...] won't matter for a damn Absoluetely! After all, shins on a car are useless. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Rob van Riel" wrote in message om... I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies easily. I think you'll find that within visual range the Mig-29's had the edge but the Phantom's would have killed them BVR. In any event the Germans ditched the Mig's and kept the F-4's Keith |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:55:13 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote: I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies easily. I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly, as these tests showed. Actually from an article I recall reading back then, quoting accounts from the pilots who actually participated, the F-4s *did* win. I specifically remember the laments of East German pilots of getting waxed by "lousy Phantoms". wasnt that article from '93? if i remember that article right, the west german flown F-4 out fought the mig-29s flown by the former East. but once the Former East Germans were taken in hand and taught how to dogfight by the West Germans, the F-4 was on the loosing end of the stick. which gose to show that now matter how good your technology is or how supperior your equipment is, if you are not trained to take it to its maximum potential, its useless. correct me if im wrong please, remembering this article from memory. I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better. Rob |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:39:44 -0800, Lyle wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:55:13 GMT, Scott Ferrin wrote: I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies easily. I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly, as these tests showed. Actually from an article I recall reading back then, quoting accounts from the pilots who actually participated, the F-4s *did* win. I specifically remember the laments of East German pilots of getting waxed by "lousy Phantoms". wasnt that article from '93? if i remember that article right, the west german flown F-4 out fought the mig-29s flown by the former East. but once the Former East Germans were taken in hand and taught how to dogfight by the West Germans, the F-4 was on the loosing end of the stick. which gose to show that now matter how good your technology is or how supperior your equipment is, if you are not trained to take it to its maximum potential, its useless. correct me if im wrong please, remembering this article from memory. Same here :-) I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same article. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
I think you'll find that within visual range the Mig-29's had the edge but the Phantom's would have killed them BVR. With AIM-7 missiles presumably. I don't know if the Germans also got AA-10 missiles, but if they did, I wouldn't be too confident about the Phantoms coming out on top. If no AA-10 were available, the Migs were hardly performing at full potential. In any event the Germans ditched the Mig's and kept the F-4's Both are slated to be phased out in favour of Eurofighters. The Phantoms will go last, but then, they were recently updated with new electronics. I can imagine many good reasons why the Germans chose to upgrade the Phantoms rather than the Migs, most of which have to do with having a reliable supplier. Rob |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote: Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words, beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do you think the F-22 is so inferior. First of all, the program is NOT largely classifield; you can go into any military bookstore and buy shelfs full of F-22 Raptor books that are updated frequently. Nothing in them suggests anything of radical new technology. Between the F-22 Raptor and Su 47 Firkin, I'd definately pick the Su-47. Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is projected at $162 million each!!! That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22 SHOULD have but really doesn't. What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes. Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the shortfall? The entire purpose of the F-22 program is premiere air-to-air superiority- period. This is simply not so against the Su-35, Su-47 and MiG MFI (if any are adopted) as well as the best armed Typhoon, Gripen, and Rafale. This is also not so against anti-stealth radar and integrated Russian missile systems that can lock onto this aircraft. And none of this addresses the future air-to-air UCAV which is in its infancy right now. We tried to use an experimental Predator in that role a while back and it failed- the Iraqi MiG shot it down. But the Predator isn't a true UCAV. Once those become available in the next decade man vs machine engagements will take place and the UCAV has the advantage of small target size, enhanced manouverability, and might carry BVR missiles as well. Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million, and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen. Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a Lexus that is just as good a transporter? The Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, Su-35, Su-47, and MiG MFI are not comparable to a Yugo. The Russian aircraft can perform aerial manouvers our aircraft can't and they have BVR misiles also... not to mention continued development of plasma stealth. The European fighters are all excellent canard/deltas with a vast array of available armament; and unlike the F-22 are already operational. Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability. Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE. The aircraft cases you mention historically deal primarily with export versions flown by undertrained pilots of client states. Try using the F-22 over Russia or China against their defense systems and trained pilots flying non-export aircraft. The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the Flanker and Eurofighter. So, specifically, how much "NOT that much better overall" is the Raptor? How are you quantifying the advanced, not-yet-publicised aspects of the F-22? What not-yet-publicised aspects? Ha! Supercruise, glass cockpit, and the ability to fire BVR missiles... so what? The best Typhoons will have the wide HUDs, all glass cockpit, voice command authority, sextaplex redundancy, a future fly-by-light system, full auto-recovery even in combat mode, self diagnostics, impregnated sensors, a radar-cancelling emitter pod, as well as a huge array of armaments including Mauser's modified dual-feed jamless BK-27. I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do many other taxpayers. That's it. I really like the idea of putting the technology choices in the hands of the taxpayers. A dog is a dog and the F-22 is barking loudly. It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series production. Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which the UCAV never sees before being morted? More like the reverse- the F-22 that is swarmed by UCAV-launched killvehicles and can't shake them. Or the F-22 that is barraged by ground and air systems directed by a loitering UCAV designator. I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future. The F-15 is 30 years old! The technology was incredible, but it is now obsolescent, if not obsolete. However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat emerging until after 2010 at least. This is 2003. We've been in development of Raptor since 1985 and will finally reach IOC in 2006. So, when do you want to start production of the counter to that "serious threat" emerging after 2010? Our enemies are China, N Korea, Iran, Syria... with China the most serious threat air-wise over Taiwanese independence. That would pit our carrier aircraft against mainland fighters in the Taiwan Straight. But China will only be able to send up a majority of older stretch-MiGs in any invasion attempt plus their indigenous Xian strike aircraft. None of these pose a real threat to our aircraft... unless China decides to nuke a carrier battlegroup. The problem arises over Russian sales of advanced Sukhoi aircraft on the open market and their final adoption of a new air superority fighter around 2012+. Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6. This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems. I think our money should be spent more wisely... Have you considered that the greatest value of F-22 will be precisely to counter "primarily a ground attack family".... Have you noticed that US forces have not had enemy aircraft overhead since Korea? What would you spend our money on, oh wise one? The F-22 is supposed to be an air superiority only fighter. Now that the program is jeopardized financially there is all this talk of naval variants, strike craft, and stretched tactical bomber. I personally still favor developing a seperate air superiority fighter... but with a reasonable price tag of $75-80 million each- not an astronomical $150-200 million dog. I guess you don't mind forking out the cash for such obscene expenditures. Reminds me of the USAF $8000 toilet seat and $700 bolt. Unless we are covertly funding black projects with F-22 money let's axe the program and pour the funds into UCAV development, technology upgrades on all frontline combat aircraft, and more advanced missile systems. Rob |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message m... Ed Rasimus wrote in message . .. On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote: Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words, beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do you think the F-22 is so inferior. First of all, the program is NOT largely classifield; you can go into any military bookstore and buy shelfs full of F-22 Raptor books that are updated frequently. Nothing in them suggests anything of radical new technology. Between the F-22 Raptor and Su 47 Firkin, I'd definately pick the Su-47. NOT largely classified? Woah.. Find me an official site (Lock-Mart or USAF) that lists the actual performance of the F-22. Top speed, supercruise speed, range, max altitude, etc. You won't. Those figures are not published. In the books you mention, "experts" estimate the aircraft's performance or quote official sources that give nebulous answers. Second, the Su-37/47 isn't a production aircraft, and never will be. Comparing a more-or less paper airplane (the SU) to an aircraft in series production is a joke. You might as well say the F-22 wouldn't fare well against the Starship Enterprise. It isn't relevant. Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is projected at $162 million each!!! That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22 SHOULD have but really doesn't. What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes. Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the shortfall? The entire purpose of the F-22 program is premiere air-to-air superiority- period. This is simply not so against the Su-35, Su-47 and MiG MFI (if any are adopted) as well as the best armed Typhoon, Gripen, and Rafale. This is also not so against anti-stealth radar and integrated Russian missile systems that can lock onto this aircraft. And none of this addresses the future air-to-air UCAV which is in its infancy right now. We tried to use an experimental Predator in that role a while back and it failed- the Iraqi MiG shot it down. But the Predator isn't a true UCAV. Once those become available in the next decade man vs machine engagements will take place and the UCAV has the advantage of small target size, enhanced manouverability, and might carry BVR missiles as well. The F-22 should be superior to anything that will be in production for the next 10+ years, and will always have a significant advantage against airborne or groundborn threats compared to conventional aircraft. Even IF (a big IF in my opinion, given the finances of that country) Russia decides to produce a next generation fighter, it won't be in service in meaningful numbers until when??? 2015 or later? One thing that isn't frequently mentioned is that the aerodynamic performance and relative stealth of the F-22 will allow it to disengage enemy aircraft, radar, and missiles. First, with the speed of the aircraft, the opponent has less time to ID, track, and fire on it. Second, aircraft's stealth also reduces the radar's effective range, and further reduces the launch window. Third, if a missile is launched, the aircraft's speed will allow it to extend the range of the engagement, hopefully to the point where the targeting radar (for instance) loses lock, and the missile loses track. Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million, and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen. Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a Lexus that is just as good a transporter? The Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, Su-35, Su-47, and MiG MFI are not comparable to a Yugo. The Russian aircraft can perform aerial manouvers our aircraft can't and they have BVR misiles also... not to mention continued development of plasma stealth. The European fighters are all excellent canard/deltas with a vast array of available armament; and unlike the F-22 are already operational. As has been discussed time and time again, radical low speed maneuvers look great at the Paris Airshow, but will not be effective in combat. If they were, the airforces of the world would be flying sidewinder equipped Pitts Specials. snip Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which the UCAV never sees before being morted? More like the reverse- the F-22 that is swarmed by UCAV-launched killvehicles and can't shake them. Or the F-22 that is barraged by ground and air systems directed by a loitering UCAV designator. Who is going to field these UCAV's? The Martians? Other than the US, nobody else has the money or technology to field a formidable UCAV system, and even the US is still years away. snip The F-22 is supposed to be an air superiority only fighter. Now that the program is jeopardized financially there is all this talk of naval variants, strike craft, and stretched tactical bomber. I personally still favor developing a seperate air superiority fighter... but with a reasonable price tag of $75-80 million each- not an astronomical $150-200 million dog. I guess you don't mind forking out the cash for such obscene expenditures. Reminds me of the USAF $8000 toilet seat and $700 bolt. Unless we are covertly funding black projects with F-22 money let's axe the program and pour the funds into UCAV development, technology upgrades on all frontline combat aircraft, and more advanced missile systems. Rob Do you understand the concept of fixed costs? The $100 million plus "cost" of the F-22 includes all of the fixed development costs. Engineering, testing, tool building, software development, etc. That money is gone. Never to be recovered. Any sane person takes a look forward view and realizes that IN TOTAL, it would cost more to design, develop, and field your "$80" million aircraft than it will cost to field an equivalent number of F-22's.. What do you think the first production Ford Taurus cost? A billion dollars? Maybe $10,000 of that was the cost to produce the first car and the remander was the cost to design the car, develop and test prototypes, and then to rework the factories to be able to produce the car. That's the same situation with the F-22. It costs a HUGE amount of money to get to a position where you are ready to build aircraft. Once you're in that position, the actual production costs are not that much different than any other large twin engined fighter... KB KB |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
phil hunt wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:55:29 GMT, John Smith wrote: We should be willing to pay any price to continue to completely dominate the battlespace. Absolutely! The USA should spend 90% of GDP on armaments! Abolish the civilian economy! The US currently spends about 4.6% of its GDP on the military, down from about 6% during the Reagan years. If the US were closer to 6% not only could it perhaps replace equipment that's older than its troops, but also afford more troops so the ones in Iraq could spend a bit more time at home with their loved ones. If we ever lose that edge, we'll find ourselves back into another Kora, I see the progrsamme of reducing expenditure on education is already paying dividends. And this relates to a warning about avoiding another Korean conflict how? And given that fifty years later we're still having problems with North Korea shows, just like Gulf War I, we should have finished it properly the first time. Vietnam, WWII nightware that no one wants. Your shinny new car [...] won't matter for a damn Absoluetely! After all, shins on a car are useless. I also suggest before you criticize others misspellings you check yourself; "progrsamme" and "Absoluetely" come to mind... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What do you think the first production Ford Taurus cost? A billion dollars? Believe it or not I recall it was in the vicinity of FOUR billion. Even developing the first generation of Pentium chips I've read was over a billion. Maybe $10,000 of that was the cost to produce the first car and the remander was the cost to design the car, develop and test prototypes, and then to rework the factories to be able to produce the car. That's the same situation with the F-22. It costs a HUGE amount of money to get to a position where you are ready to build aircraft. Once you're in that position, the actual production costs are not that much different than any other large twin engined fighter... KB KB |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:46:51 GMT, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote: "robert arndt" wrote in message om... Ed Rasimus wrote in message ... On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote: Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words, beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do you think the F-22 is so inferior. First of all, the program is NOT largely classifield; you can go into any military bookstore and buy shelfs full of F-22 Raptor books that are updated frequently. Nothing in them suggests anything of radical new technology. Between the F-22 Raptor and Su 47 Firkin, I'd definately pick the Su-47. NOT largely classified? Woah.. Find me an official site (Lock-Mart or USAF) that lists the actual performance of the F-22. Top speed, supercruise speed, range, max altitude, etc. You won't. Those figures are not published. In the books you mention, "experts" estimate the aircraft's performance or quote official sources that give nebulous answers. Second, the Su-37/47 isn't a production aircraft, and never will be. Comparing a more-or less paper airplane (the SU) to an aircraft in series production is a joke. You might as well say the F-22 wouldn't fare well against the Starship Enterprise. It isn't relevant. Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is projected at $162 million each!!! That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22 SHOULD have but really doesn't. What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes. Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the shortfall? The entire purpose of the F-22 program is premiere air-to-air superiority- period. This is simply not so against the Su-35, Su-47 and MiG MFI (if any are adopted) as well as the best armed Typhoon, Gripen, and Rafale. This is also not so against anti-stealth radar and integrated Russian missile systems that can lock onto this aircraft. And none of this addresses the future air-to-air UCAV which is in its infancy right now. We tried to use an experimental Predator in that role a while back and it failed- the Iraqi MiG shot it down. But the Predator isn't a true UCAV. Once those become available in the next decade man vs machine engagements will take place and the UCAV has the advantage of small target size, enhanced manouverability, and might carry BVR missiles as well. The F-22 should be superior to anything that will be in production for the next 10+ years, and will always have a significant advantage against airborne or groundborn threats compared to conventional aircraft. Even IF (a big IF in my opinion, given the finances of that country) Russia decides to produce a next generation fighter, it won't be in service in meaningful numbers until when??? 2015 or later? One thing that isn't frequently mentioned is that the aerodynamic performance and relative stealth of the F-22 will allow it to disengage enemy aircraft, radar, and missiles. First, with the speed of the aircraft, the opponent has less time to ID, track, and fire on it. Second, aircraft's stealth also reduces the radar's effective range, and further reduces the launch window. Third, if a missile is launched, the aircraft's speed will allow it to extend the range of the engagement, hopefully to the point where the targeting radar (for instance) loses lock, and the missile loses track. dont forget with the higher initial velocity of the missle launches of the F-22, it should be able to engage at longer distance. Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million, and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen. Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a Lexus that is just as good a transporter? The Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, Su-35, Su-47, and MiG MFI are not comparable to a Yugo. The Russian aircraft can perform aerial manouvers our aircraft can't and they have BVR misiles also... not to mention continued development of plasma stealth. The European fighters are all excellent canard/deltas with a vast array of available armament; and unlike the F-22 are already operational. As has been discussed time and time again, radical low speed maneuvers look great at the Paris Airshow, but will not be effective in combat. If they were, the airforces of the world would be flying sidewinder equipped Pitts Specials. snip Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which the UCAV never sees before being morted? More like the reverse- the F-22 that is swarmed by UCAV-launched killvehicles and can't shake them. Or the F-22 that is barraged by ground and air systems directed by a loitering UCAV designator. Who is going to field these UCAV's? The Martians? Other than the US, nobody else has the money or technology to field a formidable UCAV system, and even the US is still years away. snip The F-22 is supposed to be an air superiority only fighter. Now that the program is jeopardized financially there is all this talk of naval variants, strike craft, and stretched tactical bomber. I personally still favor developing a seperate air superiority fighter... but with a reasonable price tag of $75-80 million each- not an astronomical $150-200 million dog. I guess you don't mind forking out the cash for such obscene expenditures. Reminds me of the USAF $8000 toilet seat and $700 bolt. Unless we are covertly funding black projects with F-22 money let's axe the program and pour the funds into UCAV development, technology upgrades on all frontline combat aircraft, and more advanced missile systems. Rob Do you understand the concept of fixed costs? The $100 million plus "cost" of the F-22 includes all of the fixed development costs. Engineering, testing, tool building, software development, etc. That money is gone. Never to be recovered. Any sane person takes a look forward view and realizes that IN TOTAL, it would cost more to design, develop, and field your "$80" million aircraft than it will cost to field an equivalent number of F-22's.. What do you think the first production Ford Taurus cost? A billion dollars? Maybe $10,000 of that was the cost to produce the first car and the remander was the cost to design the car, develop and test prototypes, and then to rework the factories to be able to produce the car. That's the same situation with the F-22. It costs a HUGE amount of money to get to a position where you are ready to build aircraft. Once you're in that position, the actual production costs are not that much different than any other large twin engined fighter... KB KB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|