kdittyr Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 Well, this is an odd topic to argue because most of it is based on speculation on both sides. Many, many people have stated that the second the first shot is fired all planning is out the window. This is true in many ways, as I am sure you can all imagine. The misconception of stealth technology is that it ALWAYS works and the plane is COMPLETELY invisible... well, that is not true. I am sure that there have been great gains in stealth technology allowing more and more scenarios to lend themselves to using stealth than were available when the F-117 and B-2 first went into service. For stealth to work optimally, the conditions must be right but that doesn't mean that the mission will be scrubbed if they aren't. I remember when the French announced that they had tracked an F-117 in the first Gulf War, yet they would not provide any shred of evidence. Well, one could look at that from two different angles: 1. They are full of it and have no evidence, what-so-ever. 2. They had great evidence and the US came in and shut them up, gathered the data and created new ways to combat France's find. Unfortunately, at some point in the future an F-22 will get shot down, period. Much the same as the F-117 some years ago. There is such a thing as the "golden bb" and it will find it's mark, though I hate to admit it. I find it pretty dumb to tout real world untested systems as the "Titanic" of the skies... when we all know the results of the Titanic of the seas, though it sure was something great on paper. As the son of a US Strategic Air Command planner (retired, now) I have a living thesaurus of information at hand who is more than happy to let me in on the unclassified stats of systems and vehicles. I grew up living around and loving the US military systems, and still do. I prefer the sleek lines our planes, yet I admire those of other countries as well. I know that the F-22 is a huge step in the right direction, and Reticuli is correct that this is the last front line fighter that will be manned. Hell, they are planning on using robots as front line Marines... that is crazy. Let's not forget that we (those of us in the US) are currently in two wars: Afghanistan, and Iraq. While we could probably sustain a smaller scale action on another front, you cannot plan for that and expect your results to go as planned. I forsee Isreal making the step against Iran in March-ish, and I too see it being just like the Osiraq attack. I also believe that this attack will have the full backing of the U.N. as they seem to be posturing themselves inline with that idea. Getting back on topic, this will never be a clear argument because most people have made up their minds already. It is much like the classic Mac -vs- PC argument. You can spout stats for days, but nobody really cares about them because they are really just waiting for you to stop talking so that they can spout off their own stats... much like I have done. In reality there is a ton of technology out there that will help in conventional wars: Believe me when I say that there will be more wars with conventional starts than just the wars on terror. With countries like N.Korea and China (who needs a full fledged war to manage their HUGE population). But when it comes down to it every bit of tech is as dangerous as it was designed when implimented in the way it was designed be-it in conventional or guerilla warfare. Sorry to bore you with useless info that really isn't on topic, but I had to get some of that out. __________________ kdittyr
GGTharos Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 Actually I think, if you have a close look, you'll find that the big misconception is that stealth /doesn't/ work ... or perhaps more accurately, people don't really get /how/ stealth works. Long-wave radars may be able to see a stealth aircraft, so you can vector fighters there ... but -then- what happens is that the -real- threat radars - the fighter's radars and missile radars - have extremely ... EXTREMELY reduced capability against stealth aircraft. As the F-117 shoot-down demonstrated, you need to pretty much get all the stars and planets to line up to pull it off. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
kdittyr Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 I agree, I know that stealth works (from data only), I know how stealth works and I am happy that it does work. I like the commercial for the US Air Force that showed F-22 screaming across the sky and it touts the stealth capability of the plane to allow a cross section the size of a small bird-- "that's one mean bird". Pretty amusing. There is a great book out there that provides a great insight into stealth technology and skunkworks tech: Skunk Works : A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed I read that and both learned alot and enjoyed the heck out of it. Definately worth the read. Also, I forgot to mention: Just because something isn't stealthy doesn't make it less deadly. Look at the B52, that thing has a RCS of darn train and I would love for someone to tell me that it isn't lethal. __________________ kdittyr
GGTharos Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 Cool, I'll try and get my hands on that :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
D-Scythe Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 Just because something isn't stealthy doesn't make it less deadly. Look at the B52, that thing has a RCS of darn train and I would love for someone to tell me that it isn't lethal. It isn't lethal to anything with wings ;)
Guest IguanaKing Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 Actually, it was on at least 3 occasions. Those were all more than 30 years ago though. ;)
D-Scythe Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 Actually, it was on at least 3 occasions. Those were all more than 30 years ago though. ;) You're telling me that a B-52 was lethal in the 1970s to enemy fighters? Hmm, wonder why they spent all that money putting the F-15A in service in the late 70s then.
Guest IguanaKing Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 1. MiG-21 NVAF April 16, 1972- gunner unknown 2. MiG-21 NVAF December 18, 1972- SSgt. Samuel Turner 3. MiG-21 NVAF December 24, 1972- A1C Albert Moore I'm not saying that fighter escort isn't necessary, but, apparently, the Buff was able to defend itself on a few occasions with its .50s in the tail.
D-Scythe Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 1. MiG-21 NVAF April 16, 1972- gunner unknown 2. MiG-21 NVAF December 18, 1972- SSgt. Samuel Turner 3. MiG-21 NVAF December 24, 1972- A1C Albert Moore I'm not saying that fighter escort isn't necessary, but, apparently, the Buff was able to defend itself on a few occasions with its .50s in the tail. Um, I hardly call that "lethal." Sure, it can defend itself, but that stinger on its tail definitely does not make the BUFF lethal ;)
Guest IguanaKing Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 As I said, it was responsible for downing at least 3 enemy fighters over 30 years ago. That's all I said. ;) These days though, it no longer has that capability, as the M61A1 was removed from the tails of all B-52Hs in the early 90's. ...and yes, I DO know that they were originally quad Ma Deuces. :D The old girl is still capable of making strikes in fairly heavily defended areas though, provided that the air threat has been eliminated.
markriley Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 just an update for fun. Not long before announcement of operational status of the F-22, there were three rounds of simulated combat at/around Nellis AVB. Comming straigt from one of the F-22 pilots, to my relative, to me, now to you. Four F-22's against a mix of 20 (twenty) F-15's and F-16's. All three rounds ended up 20-0 in favor of the Raptors. The 15 & 16 pilots were some of the best, and they all reported the same thing, "we never even knew they were there". As far a sams go, the same pilot said "we get them evey time, they never get a lock on us" ( j-dam ) The weapon release system "throws" the bomb or missle out of the wepons bay so the doors can close again very quickly to reduce radar sig. The raptor does what it is designed to do better than anything else on the planet at this time. I wouldnt want to be in the air or around a sam site on the enemy side. Edwards AFB airshow is at the end of October each year if you want to see the Raptor in action. They start the show with a sonic boom. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] system specs: AMD 1100T X6, Asus Crosshair 4 Formula Mobo, 16 Gigs GSkill DDR3, XFX R9-290X 4GB 512-Bit, X-52 flight stick set, Samsung 2560x1440, Win7 64
markriley Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 just an update for fun. Not long before announcement of operational status of the F-22, there were three rounds of simulated combat at/around Nellis AVB. Comming straigt from one of the F-22 pilots, to my relative, to me, now to you. Four F-22's against a mix 20 (twenty) F-15's and F-16's. All three rounds ended up 20-0 in favor of the Raptors. The 15 & 16 pilots were some of the best, and they all reported the same thing, "we never even knew they were there". As far a sams go, the same pilot said "we get them evey time, they never get a lock on us" ( j-dam ) The weapon release system "throws" the bomb or missle out of the wepons bay so the doors can close again very quickly to reduce radar sig. The raptor does what it is designed to do better than anything else on the planet at this time. I wouldnt want to be in the air or around a sam site on the enemy side. Edwards AFB airshow is at the end of October each year if you want to see the Raptor in action. They start the show with a sonic boom. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] system specs: AMD 1100T X6, Asus Crosshair 4 Formula Mobo, 16 Gigs GSkill DDR3, XFX R9-290X 4GB 512-Bit, X-52 flight stick set, Samsung 2560x1440, Win7 64
Guest IguanaKing Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Which aircraft did they use at the ED airshow this year? When I was there in 1989, the boom was from an F-15A piloted by none other than General Charles E. Yeager. It was impressive but not much of what I would call a "sound". It felt pretty much like I had quickly shoved my fingers in both ears, and quickly yanked them back out. The booms from the shuttle landings there though...THOSE were enough to wake you up in the morning. It sounded like someone dropped two huge bricks on the ceiling above you. :icon_supe
Guest IguanaKing Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 F/A-22 squadrons are still not ready to take a country like Iran. If they were ready then they would be already in the region. I'm not sure if they are or aren't ready for combat deployment, but I seriously doubt such a secret aircraft would be forward-deployed to these regions at the moment. For years, all B-2 missions were flown right from Whiteman AFB in Missouri...no matter how far away the target package was. B-2 crews often took a folding, lawn chair-style, lounger with them on these missions so they could set that up on the flight deck for the AC or FO to get some sleep during those long flights. I realize it won't be the same with an aircraft like the F-22A, but I wouldn't be so quick to deem it "not ready" just because it isn't deployed in theatre. ;)
kdittyr Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 The booms from the shuttle landings there though...THOSE were enough to wake you up in the morning. It sounded like someone dropped two huge bricks on the ceiling above you. :icon_supe You live in Florida? I live in Orlando and I can attest to the boom (or both of them actually) For those who don't know there are two booms: one from the nose, and one from the leading edge of the wing. I have been shaken awake many times. Actually in the middle of the day once I thought a car hit my house, I'm not kidding. Anyway, I can't wait for the next Daytona Fly-in, I have never been and want to so badly that I can taste it (won't describe it, though). __________________ kdittyr
TucksonSonny Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 I'm not sure if they are or aren't ready for combat deployment, but I seriously doubt such a secret aircraft would be forward-deployed to these regions at the moment. For years, all B-2 missions were flown right from Whiteman AFB in Missouri...no matter how far away the target package was. B-2 crews often took a folding, lawn chair-style, lounger with them on these missions so they could set that up on the flight deck for the AC or FO to get some sleep during those long flights. I realize it won't be the same with an aircraft like the F-22A, but I wouldn't be so quick to deem it "not ready" just because it isn't deployed in theatre. ;) Anyway they (Iran) have an attracted fighter mix. 25x F-14 Tomcat 25x F-7 (China J-7) 25x Mig-29A/UB 25x Mirage F-1 60x F-5E/F Tiger II 65x F4D/E / RF-4E Phantom Imagine if this fleet would be supported by S-300/S-400 AAA. BTW, this time things are different: Europe is supporting actions. I could already imagine an allied air force with 100 eurofighters supported by 25 F/A-22’s. All this thinking is of course from a hypothetic view for 2008. DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |
Guest IguanaKing Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 You live in Florida? I live in Orlando and I can attest to the boom (or both of them actually) For those who don't know there are two booms: one from the nose, and one from the leading edge of the wing. I have been shaken awake many times. Actually in the middle of the day once I thought a car hit my house, I'm not kidding. Anyway, I can't wait for the next Daytona Fly-in, I have never been and want to so badly that I can taste it (won't describe it, though). Nope...that was California I lived in back then. I lived right in between Edwards AFB and USAF Plant 42. There was all kinds of cool stuff going on there back then. Sometimes I saw as many as 5 or 6 SR-71s over the course of a week. It was cool to see them, but the reason so many of them were flying over wasn't...they were making their final landings at Plant 42 to be decommissioned.:( The shuttle made regular landings at Edwards and I also got to see the first flight of the B-2.
GGTharos Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Anyway they (Iran) have an attracted fighter mix. 25x F-14 Tomcat 25x F-7 (China J-7) 25x Mig-29A/UB 25x Mirage F-1 60x F-5E/F Tiger II 65x F4D/E / RF-4E Phantom Most of which probably don't work -and- they're all out-dated. Imagine if this fleet would be supported by S-300/S-400 AAA. Doesn't matter, it didn't sound like Iran had a significant presence of such SAMs - just one or two, maybe, which turns them into nothing but speed-bumps to be taken out by volleys or AGM-88's and cruise missiles. I just don't really think Iran is able to significantly resist a moden air force, be it the US or Russia. BTW, this time things are different: Europe is supporting actions. I could already imagine an allied air force with 100 eurofighters supported by 25 F/A-22’s. All this thinking is of course from a hypothetic view for 2008. Heh, it would be like a feeding frenzy for those aircraft :P [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Yes ... but in asymmetric warfare? B-2s/F-117s/F-22As/Eurofighters etc V's a wave of suicide bombers unleashed on the world armed with manpads/chemical weapons/semtex etc ... hmmm ... who do you think would win?
GGTharos Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 That's a little ridiculous - naturally you send troops against them ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
markriley Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Which aircraft did they use at the ED airshow this year? When I was there in 1989, the boom was from an F-15A piloted by none other than General Charles E. Yeager. It was impressive but not much of what I would call a "sound". It felt pretty much like I had quickly shoved my fingers in both ears, and quickly yanked them back out. The booms from the shuttle landings there though...THOSE were enough to wake you up in the morning. It sounded like someone dropped two huge bricks on the ceiling above you. :icon_supe Didn't get to go this year. My "relative" that works there was inside when they did the sonic boom so not sure what type of plane they used. He also made similar comments about the shuttle re-entry double boom. He works with the F-22, but then comes all the stuff he cant talk about. He just says "maybe one day, when its not top secret any more" when I ask him stuff. I dont guess I would do it any different. Somehow made a double post when i edited my last post. Sorry [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] system specs: AMD 1100T X6, Asus Crosshair 4 Formula Mobo, 16 Gigs GSkill DDR3, XFX R9-290X 4GB 512-Bit, X-52 flight stick set, Samsung 2560x1440, Win7 64
Guest IguanaKing Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 He still might not have known the aircraft type, even if he had been outside. The supersonic flyby is usually done at high altitude. In 1989, when General Yeager did his boom to open the show, all I saw of his aircraft was a distant contrail. If the announcer hadn't told us all that it was an F-15A, I would never have known...he was WAY too high. :D
Weta43 Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Airstrikes against Iran or send it the troops ? Bremner now says that to get the job done propperly in Iraq there should have been 300,000 troops for the occupation to ensure law, order & stop the rise of insurgents ( & that he asked Rumsfeld for more, but was ignored). Iran has 3x the land mass & 3x the population. Who has another 300,000 x 3 - that's nearly a million troops - spare ('cause the ones in Iraq aren't finished yet) to occupy the country after the 450,000 troops you would need to invade the place have finished. Or is the suggestion that there be a strike on the nuclear facilities & then the western world should just wait to see if Iran & the populations of all the other Islamic nations were irritated enough to do anything about it. Cheers.
Guest IguanaKing Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 There is a great deal of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on right now about that subject, and it all seems logical. It especially makes sense when there are a lot of people with their political reputations on the line, things aren't going as predicted, and those same people are now trying to cover their collective rear-ends by saying "I told them so...but they wouldn't listen to me." The truth is though...nobody knows for sure if increased numbers would have an overall desirable effect. With more troops and weapons in the area, the risk of civilian casualties and other collateral damage go even higher. Some even say that coalition forces moved too quickly and attacked in numbers so large as to overwhelm the enemy and send him into hiding, only to regroup and come back as an insurgent force. I don't want to get too political here, but the US military wields an unbelievable potential for destruction...but somebody needs to decide how much is enough and how much is too much. Attacks on general populations, which would solve the problem, are not as acceptable as they once were, so the situation and how to approach it is very complex.
Recommended Posts