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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 7, 4:56*am, Andrew Swallow wrote:
frank wrote: On Mar 5, 8:52 pm, 150flivver wrote: On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, Richard wrote: On Mar 5, 12:39 pm, "Ray O'Hara" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message m... On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara" wrote: "Mike" wrote in message ... http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...an_air_superio... Vanishing American Air Superiority what a load of ****. That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its finest. What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and hi/lo mix? You've given us so much to think about Ray. what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody else. the points the author makes are false strawman types. the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were building them. maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s? if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky. technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in 1935. what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste Worse. *Given the cost of the airframe, maintenance, crew training and support vs Drones...its more like bldg BB in 1935 instead of carriers.. Aren't y'all making quite a leap saying UAVs have surpassed manned fighters when to my knowledge, not a single UAV has ever successfully engaged a manned fighter. *Suddenly manned fighters are obsolete. There's a bit of difference between firing a hellfire or dropping a GBU on an unsuspecting pickup truck and attacking an IADS. *UAVs may be useful weapons but they hardly are close to having the speed, range, flexibility or firepower of a manned aircraft. Not to mention I'd trust Ed on scene far more than some throttle jockey watching screens at Nellis. Or Yeager. I've heard this we can do it unmanned before. Some stuff, maybe. Dumping manned fighters for UAVs. Stupidity. And you know what, when we need manned fighters in the future, its not a matter of going to wal mart and taking 2 of them. The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer. Andrew Swallow Tell me now what pilot would allow himself to be portrayed as the cab driver delivering the gunman to to the target? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
William Black wrote:
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... Ray O'Hara wrote: {snip} you like the author are judging the future by todays standards. do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future? {snip} Next wars - Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields. Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works... Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short. USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually just forment a coup and deal with the military. The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming. West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation of the current war) The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't amtter who the government is or what they say. Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the Americans. USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil Possible. What will Iran use for weapons? Iran has its own armaments factories. As well as IEDs Iran can now launch satellites on its own rockets. China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West may decide to stay out.) Interesting idea. How does China get their army there? Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state security guard as occupation. Andrew Swallow |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... William Black wrote: China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West may decide to stay out.) Interesting idea. How does China get their army there? Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state security guard as occupation. I'll bet the 'wherever' visa office will be busy that week. Have you ever tried to get a work visa for a 3rd World country? -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
William Black wrote:
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... William Black wrote: China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West may decide to stay out.) Interesting idea. How does China get their army there? Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state security guard as occupation. I'll bet the 'wherever' visa office will be busy that week. Have you ever tried to get a work visa for a 3rd World country? Chinese mines etc in Africa appear to have many yellow skinned security guards. Andrew Swallow |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 7, 8:42*am, Andrew Swallow wrote:
William Black wrote: "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... William Black wrote: China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West may decide to stay out.) Interesting idea. How does China get their army there? Guess. *On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state security guard as occupation. I'll bet the 'wherever' visa office will be busy that week. Have you ever tried to get a work visa for a 3rd World country? Chinese mines etc in Africa appear to have many yellow skinned security guards. Andrew Swallow I would view that concept with a jaundiced eye |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... Ray O'Hara wrote: {snip} you like the author are judging the future by todays standards. do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future? {snip} Next wars - Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields. USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation of the current war) USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West may decide to stay out.) Andrew Swallow we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading Aftica is a likely scenario. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... William Black wrote: "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... Ray O'Hara wrote: {snip} you like the author are judging the future by todays standards. do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future? {snip} Next wars - Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields. Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works... Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short. USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually just forment a coup and deal with the military. The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming. West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation of the current war) The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't amtter who the government is or what they say. Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the Americans. USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil Possible. What will Iran use for weapons? Iran has its own armaments factories. As well as IEDs Iran can now launch satellites on its own rockets. China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West may decide to stay out.) Interesting idea. How does China get their army there? Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state security guard as occupation. Andrew Swallow we need F-22 to defeat the Iranian air force? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Alan Dicey" wrote in message o.uk... Paul Saccani wrote: wrote: British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale. We still won. The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a shock. "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..." won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London "won" the battle. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 7, 2:58*am, Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:56*am, Andrew Swallow wrote: The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer. Andrew Swallow Tell me now what pilot would allow himself to be portrayed as the cab driver delivering the gunman to to the target? Sixth generation jet fighter pilots are going to be the leaders of swarms of robotic aircraft. Since they are already officers, this won't be much of a change for them. And fortunately they will grow up playing real-time strategy video games. -HJC |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
In message , Ed Rasimus
writes On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 23:27:36 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal. Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible. (Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real fighter' needed?) We had the wing root wiring for QRC-160 installed in the F-105 in late '65--early '66. The pods didn't get fielded until October '66. That was ECM, counter-measures. The RHAW gear for radar detection like a Fuzzbuster was deployed in F-100F Weasels in '65 and the F-105 force in spring of '66. It was considerably more sophisticated than Fuzzbuster. I suspect that tale is urban legend stuff. Found it in "The Pentagon Paradox" as being allegedly used during AIMVAL/ACEVAL for the F-14 and F-15. "During the work-up phase prior to the actual tests, the Red Force used a modified Fuzz Buster. The modification cost approximately $100. It was so successful that the Blue Force complained and the Red Force had to stop using it because radar warning receivers held the potential of revealing how easily radar guided missiles could be defeated and were therefore not permitted." It's the usual hype from that clique. Even if the RWR warns you of an incoming missile, you still burn off a lot of energy to avoid it, putting you at a disadvantage if you survive to the merge: and with BVR weapons against an enemy without, you have the option to snipe from range and then decline to close, should tactics and mission permit. I know I'm being a smartarse, but why not? Look at the roll rate of the F-5 family (including the T-38), look at its small size and low cost, see its successful utility as an Aggressor aircraft, why isn't it a contender for a Boyd war-winner? It's got guns and Sidewinders and not much else, it's cheap and agile and small, why isn't this an airframe the USAF should procure by the thousand and send into frontline combat? Thousands of airplanes mean exponentially more aircrews and manpower. Mission flexibility, payload/range, weapons system integration, etc. are all missing in the F-5. We used to joke at Williams AFB with the guys flying the training mission that they were like MGs; every fighter pilot should have one for fun but they weren't a daily driver. (PS, the F-5 didn't have Lucas electrics.) We're having similar problems here in the UK armed forces where there's a proposal to buy "hundreds" of Super Tucanos for close air support. After all, the airframe's cheap... and yet again the grown-ups have to explain that once you take your cheap airframe, equip it with the sensors, comms and countermeasures needed to get in, find and hit the target and get out alive, trained the pilots, stockpiled the spare parts, built up the ground crews, established the forward operating bases, set up the force protection and logistics for those bases... then your "cheap" airframe is delivering less capability for more money than a fast jet, and the pointy-nose fast-mover is usable in higher-intensity conflicts as well (so you still need them, and the Tucanos end up an extra not a replacement). It's like the 1990s "Bring Back the Battleships!" enthusiasts, who never really got their heads around the fact that - considering just the costs to reactivate the four Iowa-class BBs - the thousand or so shells they fired in action could have been one-for-one replaced with TLAMs and still worked out cheaper (as well as delivering many times the actual explosive with more accuracy). The cynic in me says the short-term answer to that problem is more and better carrier battle groups, unless you can guarantee that you have ready access to well-prepared airbases close to every credible threat. That's a specious argument. Blue water operations can't reach an incredible amount of land. Start drawing lines on continents that are more than about 150-200 miles from the coast and you'll disclose how much you can't service. And yet back in 2008, the HARRY S. TRUMAN was putting twenty sorties a day into Iraq, most well over the 200-mile line from her station, and some into Afghanistan. Carriers don't replace land-based air, but they get you some usable airpower faster while the land-based side spools up (and they retain utility when you've got political sensitivity about flying armed aircraft out of allied bases, but tankers are acceptable: a good case study was ALLIED FORCE where much of the British input consisted of Sea Harriers flying off Ark Royal in the Adriatic, because the Italians wouldn't let us fly offensive sorties out of Aviano). The example carrier aficionados like to cite is from 1992 or so, when Saddam Hussein tried to rattle what was left of his sabre post-GRANBY: the USN put a CVBG into the Gulf in three days and were flying operational sorties immediately. The USAF put a wing of, if memory serves, F-15Es into Saudi Arabia and were flying operationally within a week. There are times when four days without air cover is four days too long... CBGs are incredibly inefficient. The US has always operated as "one up/two back" and occasionally tried "one up/one back" but it's tough to keep the carriers on station without the numbers. Then take your combat capability and start factoring in self-defense requirements (include subs, cruisers, destroyers as well) add typical operational readiness rates to a 72 airplane air wing and you wind up with an assett that hovers around 40% offensive air capability. It's not a good bargain. Throw in slow deployment and you really don't have a solution for all your eggs in one basket. Absolutely agree it's not the sole solution, but as one tool in the box it opens up many options. (And land-based air has its own baggage of logistics, force protection and so forth). -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite | frank | Naval Aviation | 1 | August 30th 08 12:35 PM |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi | Charlie Wolf[_2_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 29th 08 03:19 AM |
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus | WiseGuy | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 9th 08 02:50 PM |