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
|
|||
|
|||
Twelve reasons to support the F/A-22
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRe...d=108-03312004
The following is an opinion-editorial from the April 2004 issue of Air Force Magazine by Editor in Chief Robert S. Dudney: .... Some believe OMB schemed with the F/A-22's critics in the Pentagon to stack the deck against the fighter. They observe that USAF won't be allowed to take part in the review and can only answer questions when asked. The study will probably wind up this summer. We can expect to hear a number of plausible-sounding reasons for why it would be OK to decimate the F/A-22 program. Those arguments will either ignore or fudge certain facts, presented here for handy future reference. .... The F/A-22 is the only fighter able to autonomously counter anti-access threats on Day 1 of a war and thereby open the way for other US forces. So is SEAD a near-term or a long-term requirement of the F/A-22 program? -HJC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRe...d=108-03312004 The following is an opinion-editorial from the April 2004 issue of Air Force Magazine by Editor in Chief Robert S. Dudney: ... Some believe OMB schemed with the F/A-22's critics in the Pentagon to stack the deck against the fighter. They observe that USAF won't be allowed to take part in the review and can only answer questions when asked. The study will probably wind up this summer. We can expect to hear a number of plausible-sounding reasons for why it would be OK to decimate the F/A-22 program. Those arguments will either ignore or fudge certain facts, presented here for handy future reference. ... The F/A-22 is the only fighter able to autonomously counter anti-access threats on Day 1 of a war and thereby open the way for other US forces. So is SEAD a near-term or a long-term requirement of the F/A-22 program? Any way this turns out, the fighter mafia screwed the pooch on this one. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:35:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRe...d=108-03312004 ... The F/A-22 is the only fighter able to autonomously counter anti-access threats on Day 1 of a war and thereby open the way for other US forces. So is SEAD a near-term or a long-term requirement of the F/A-22 program? -HJC SEAD, by it's very definition is a long-term requirement for tactical air operations. It isn't linked to an aircraft, but to a mission. Air defenses are designed to deny an attacker access. They can be surface-to-air assetts or air-to-air assetts. The stealthy pentration capabilities certainly indicate an ability to operate "autonomously". Your statement (from observation of your past bias) seems to be asking if "autonomous" means without other supporting systems. And, the answer is that on Day 1, the Raptor can penetrate the enemy air defenses and insure first, air dominance and second minimal effectiveness of surface systems. Don't fall into the "yesterday's war" syndrome of thinking that SEAD means Weasels, or SEAD means F-16CJs, or SEAD means stand-off jammers, HARMs and chaff dispensers. It simply means what the words say, suppressing enemy air defenses. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:35:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRe...d=108-03312004 ... The F/A-22 is the only fighter able to autonomously counter anti-access threats on Day 1 of a war and thereby open the way for other US forces. So is SEAD a near-term or a long-term requirement of the F/A-22 program? SEAD, by it's very definition is a long-term requirement for tactical air operations. It isn't linked to an aircraft, but to a mission. Air defenses are designed to deny an attacker access. They can be surface-to-air assetts or air-to-air assetts. The stealthy pentration capabilities certainly indicate an ability to operate "autonomously". Your statement (from observation of your past bias) seems to be asking if "autonomous" means without other supporting systems. And, the answer is that on Day 1, the Raptor can penetrate the enemy air defenses and insure first, air dominance and second minimal effectiveness of surface systems. Don't fall into the "yesterday's war" syndrome of thinking that SEAD means Weasels, or SEAD means F-16CJs, or SEAD means stand-off jammers, HARMs and chaff dispensers. It simply means what the words say, suppressing enemy air defenses. Sorry, I was too terse again. Will the F/A-22 be required from day one to be able to track hostile ground air defense assets and drop bombs or launch HARMs at them or will the SEAD mission be handled by other platforms until 2012 or so? If the "Weasel Raptor" development is delayed or canceled will the F/A-22 itself still worth buying as strictly an air-to-air platform? Also is F/A-22 stealth good enough to fly over say North Korea's air defenses unaided or will every "first day of the war" mission require jammer support and if so when will the United States military ever have a stealthy jammer? (This isn't quite as silly as it may seem. A stealthy jammer is seen only when it's active and only on the frequencies it's jamming.) -HJC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Henry J Cobb.exe failed a turing test with the following:
Sorry, I was too terse again. Will the F/A-22 be required from day one to be able to track hostile ground air defense assets and drop bombs or launch HARMs at them or will the SEAD mission be handled by other platforms until 2012 or so? If the "Weasel Raptor" development is delayed or canceled will the F/A-22 itself still worth buying as strictly an air-to-air platform? Also is F/A-22 stealth good enough to fly over say North Korea's air defenses unaided or will every "first day of the war" mission require jammer support and if so when will the United States military ever have a stealthy jammer? (This isn't quite as silly as it may seem. A stealthy jammer is seen only when it's active and only on the frequencies it's jamming.) -HJC I would say that, judging by past opertations by the US military, any SEAD package whether stealthy or not, would be assisted by at least stand off jamming. During the strikes on Serb military installations, F-117s were operating under a standoff jamming umbrella. Operating in any environment with an anti air threat would warrant a force protection package no matter how good the F/A-22 is. It certainly isnt invincible. £0.02 supplied. -- BMFull |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
And let us not forget that the X-45A is the prototype of a UCAV to do
SEAD. This is likely to be the ultimate answer for this mission. "BEN FULL" wrote in message ... Henry J Cobb.exe failed a turing test with the following: Sorry, I was too terse again. Will the F/A-22 be required from day one to be able to track hostile ground air defense assets and drop bombs or launch HARMs at them or will the SEAD mission be handled by other platforms until 2012 or so? If the "Weasel Raptor" development is delayed or canceled will the F/A-22 itself still worth buying as strictly an air-to-air platform? Also is F/A-22 stealth good enough to fly over say North Korea's air defenses unaided or will every "first day of the war" mission require jammer support and if so when will the United States military ever have a stealthy jammer? (This isn't quite as silly as it may seem. A stealthy jammer is seen only when it's active and only on the frequencies it's jamming.) -HJC I would say that, judging by past opertations by the US military, any SEAD package whether stealthy or not, would be assisted by at least stand off jamming. During the strikes on Serb military installations, F-117s were operating under a standoff jamming umbrella. Operating in any environment with an anti air threat would warrant a force protection package no matter how good the F/A-22 is. It certainly isnt invincible. £0.02 supplied. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Thomas" wrote in message om... And let us not forget that the X-45A is the prototype of a UCAV to do SEAD. This is likely to be the ultimate answer for this mission. And the X-43A drops JDAMs. "BEN FULL" wrote in message ... Henry J Cobb.exe failed a turing test with the following: Sorry, I was too terse again. Will the F/A-22 be required from day one to be able to track hostile ground air defense assets and drop bombs or launch HARMs at them or will the SEAD mission be handled by other platforms until 2012 or so? If the "Weasel Raptor" development is delayed or canceled will the F/A-22 itself still worth buying as strictly an air-to-air platform? Also is F/A-22 stealth good enough to fly over say North Korea's air defenses unaided or will every "first day of the war" mission require jammer support and if so when will the United States military ever have a stealthy jammer? (This isn't quite as silly as it may seem. A stealthy jammer is seen only when it's active and only on the frequencies it's jamming.) -HJC I would say that, judging by past opertations by the US military, any SEAD package whether stealthy or not, would be assisted by at least stand off jamming. During the strikes on Serb military installations, F-117s were operating under a standoff jamming umbrella. Operating in any environment with an anti air threat would warrant a force protection package no matter how good the F/A-22 is. It certainly isnt invincible. £0.02 supplied. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
24/7 computer tech support | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | May 5th 04 03:32 AM |
LONG DEPLOYMENTS, BENEFIT CUTS ERODE SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 0 | March 17th 04 07:57 PM |
USAFE commander: 86th Airlift Wing will divide for combat, support operations | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 27th 03 11:31 PM |
[AU] Defence support for Bush visit | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 7 | October 23rd 03 05:04 AM |
Hurt pilots form a support group at Fort Campbell | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 24th 03 11:57 PM |