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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
the F-15 is 1960s technology - F-22 Raptor is 1980s tech - will therebe a NEW air-superiority fighter?
The F-15 Eagle was designed in the 1960s. The Advanced Tactical Fighter, YF-23 and YF-22, were developed in the 1980s. The F-22 Raptor is simply the production version of the YF-22. Worse, some of the specifications and capabilities that the ATF was supposed to have, as of the 1980s, was dropped from the YF-22 and final F-22. Worse still, the watered-down F-22 came into service 5-10 years later than originally planned. Worse yet, instead of 750+ or even 380+, the Air Force is currently slated to get less than 200 copies. The F-35 JSF is newer than F-22, but is really a low-end solution optimized for ground attack and only modest (even if decent) air-to- air capabilities. F-22 / F-35 is another high/low mix like the F-15/F-16. But unlike the F-15, of which there were a decent number (many hundreds), there will be precious few F-22s. Sure the F-22 can win against 5- to-1 odds or even 10-to-1 odds. But what about 20-to-1 odds, if the USAF is pitted against Russia+China within the next 10-15 years? Also I feel the F-15 was more advanced for the 1970s than the F-22 is this decade, relatively speaking. Obviously I am not saying the F-15 is more advanced than the F-22, I am saying the F-22 is not as state- of-the-art now as the F-15 was back then. The F-15 was a tremendous leap beyond the F-4. Is the F-22 really that much of a leap beyond the F-15? Maybe in sensors and low-observability "stealth". The F-22 carries almost the same weapon systems and weapons load as the F-15. Sure there have been some improvements to the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, but not a revolution. I know there will be those that disagree with me, and maybe some who agree. I do not believe that unmanned aircraft will take over the air- superiority / air-supremacy / air-dominance role as quickly as some think. Not by 2020-2030 anyway. Maybe I am wrong but I don't think so. The F-22 is finally in service now (as of a couple years ago). Back in 1981 and early 1980s, the USAF came up for the requirements for the ATF, what would, about 25 years later, be in service as the F-22. What, if anything, is the USAF thinking about in now 2008 for the future of the air to air mission, as it was in the early 1980s with the ATF? I'm thinking of not only the needs of the USAF, but services that depend on the USAF, such as the U.S Army and U.S. Marine Corps. The U.S. Navy seems to have given up on advanced high-end fighters. There is no true direct replacement for the F-14 Tomcat. The Naval ATF / F-22N was canceled over 15 years ago. I don't believe the Super Hornet nor the F-35 are going to be able to provide air dominance. Unless something changes, the entire U.S. armed forces will depend on, give or take, 183 F-22 Raptors. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
the F-15 is 1960s technology - F-22 Raptor is 1980s tech - willthere be a NEW air-superiority fighter?
On May 6, 5:27*pm, AirRaid wrote:
Also I feel the F-15 was more advanced for the 1970s than the F-22 is this decade, relatively speaking. *Obviously I am not saying the F-15 is more advanced than the F-22, * I am saying the F-22 is not as state- of-the-art now as the F-15 was back then. * * The F-15 was a tremendous leap beyond the F-4. * *Is the F-22 really that much of a leap beyond the F-15? *Maybe in sensors and low-observability "stealth". * The F-22 carries almost the same weapon systems and weapons load as the F-15. *Sure there have been some improvements to the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, but not a revolution. 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. Of couse they looked at it only in terms of cost vs speed, and the number of on-board kills. From that perspective, why spend on this money on a jet that is slower then an F-4 and carries the same number of kills? 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. I'm thinking of not only the needs of the USAF, but services that depend on the USAF, such as the U.S Army and U.S. Marine Corps. The U.S. Navy seems to have given up on advanced high-end fighters. There is no true direct replacement for the F-14 Tomcat. * *The Naval ATF / F-22N was canceled over 15 years ago. *I don't believe the Super Hornet nor the F-35 are going to be able to provide air dominance. 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. 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. 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
the F-15 is 1960s technology - F-22 Raptor is 1980s tech - will there be 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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
the F-15 is 1960s technology - F-22 Raptor is 1980s tech - willthere be a NEW air-superiority fighter?
On May 6, 6:27*pm, AirRaid wrote:
The F-15 Eagle was designed in the 1960s. The Advanced Tactical Fighter, *YF-23 and YF-22, were developed in the 1980s. The F-22 Raptor is simply the production version of the YF-22. Worse, some of the specifications and capabilities that the ATF was supposed to have, as of the 1980s, was dropped from the YF-22 *and final F-22. Worse still, *the watered-down F-22 came into service 5-10 years later than originally planned. Worse yet, instead of 750+ or even 380+, the Air Force is currently slated to get less than 200 copies. The F-35 JSF *is newer than F-22, but is really a low-end solution optimized for ground attack and only modest (even if decent) *air-to- air capabilities. F-22 / F-35 *is another high/low mix like the F-15/F-16. * * But unlike the F-15, of which there were a decent number (many hundreds), there will be precious few F-22s. * Sure the F-22 can *win against 5- to-1 odds or even 10-to-1 odds. But what about 20-to-1 odds, if the USAF is pitted against Russia+China within the next 10-15 years? Also I feel the F-15 was more advanced for the 1970s than the F-22 is this decade, relatively speaking. *Obviously I am not saying the F-15 is more advanced than the F-22, * I am saying the F-22 is not as state- of-the-art now as the F-15 was back then. * * The F-15 was a tremendous leap beyond the F-4. * *Is the F-22 really that much of a leap beyond the F-15? *Maybe in sensors and low-observability "stealth". * The F-22 carries almost the same weapon systems and weapons load as the F-15. *Sure there have been some improvements to the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, but not a revolution. I know there will be those that disagree with me, and maybe some who agree. I do not believe that unmanned aircraft will take over the air- superiority / air-supremacy / air-dominance role * as quickly as some think. *Not by 2020-2030 anyway. Maybe I am wrong but I don't think so. The F-22 is finally in service now (as of a couple years ago). * *Back in 1981 and early 1980s, the USAF came up for the requirements for the ATF, what would, about 25 years later, be in service as the F-22. What, if anything, is the USAF thinking about in now 2008 for the future of the air to air mission, as it was in the early 1980s with the ATF? I'm thinking of not only the needs of the USAF, but services that depend on the USAF, such as the U.S Army and U.S. Marine Corps. The U.S. Navy seems to have given up on advanced high-end fighters. There is no true direct replacement for the F-14 Tomcat. * *The Naval ATF / F-22N was canceled over 15 years ago. Well, the navy dead-ended themselves with fighter aircraft and movies of fighter aircraft. The idiots have been told since like 1950, that the two mix like nuclear reactors and machine guns. Which is really where the cruise missiles, GPS, and internet came from for the idiots. And the air force hasn't invested in anything other than stealth technology, since the wanks first saw the Blackbird. So their aircraft isn't really an aircraft development program, it's a leen on your grandchildren's homes. *I don't believe the Super Hornet nor the F-35 are going to be able to provide air dominance. Unless something changes, the entire U.S. armed forces will depend on, give or take, 183 F-22 Raptors. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
the F-15 is 1960s technology - F-22 Raptor is 1980s tech - willthere be a NEW air-superiority fighter?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
the F-15 is 1960s technology - F-22 Raptor is 1980s tech - willthere be a NEW air-superiority fighter?
AirRaid wrote:
The U.S. Navy seems to have given up on advanced high-end fighters. There is no true direct replacement for the F-14 Tomcat. The Naval ATF / F-22N was canceled over 15 years ago. I don't believe the Super Hornet nor the F-35 are going to be able to provide air dominance. How can the United States Navy expect to win the war, when it has no fighter that can match the performance of the main enemy fighter? Won't the Japanese Zero sweep the USN's aircraft from the skies? ;-) -HJC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GAO: Joint Strike Fighter: Management of the Technology Transfer Process. | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | March 16th 06 02:38 PM |
"Why Raptor? The Logic of Buying the World's Best Fighter" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | August 11th 04 03:20 PM |
Airpower: India threatens US air superiority | Krztalizer | Military Aviation | 71 | July 10th 04 08:06 AM |
Air Force Raptor fighter starts operational trials, By John J. Lumpkin | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | May 1st 04 10:18 PM |
USAF Fighter-Attack SPO members from the 1980s? | R Haskin | Military Aviation | 0 | September 20th 03 12:06 PM |