N.Forsythe 0 Posted July 30, 2007 Well im still waiting for tangible evidence of their finished stealth projects tbh. The first Wikipedia article also mentions the use of plasma stealth which seems to be just a unworkable theory still from what ive read. it looks like the cross between a F/A-22 and a F/A-18 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) I think a design like the MiG-37B Ferret-E would have been a better choice, I think visual IFF will be a real problem with these things... Plus the Ferret looks better than both the MiG-1.42/1.44 and the Sukhoi PAK-FA... I sure hope the US makes the F/A-37 Talon a reality... I somehow feel that the F-14 and the F-15 are still the best things that flew from the US, the F-22 and F/A-18 have wet dreams over having the Tomcat's and Eagle's power... Edited July 30, 2007 by TX3RN0BILL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted July 30, 2007 I sure hope the US makes the F/A-37 Talon a reality... I somehow feel that the F-14 and the F-15 are still the best things that flew from the US, the F-22 and F/A-18 have wet dreams over having the Tomcat's and Eagle's power... Mmmm...no. FastCargo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted July 30, 2007 I think a design like the MiG-37B Ferret-E would have been a better choice, I think visual IFF will be a real problem with these things... Plus the Ferret looks better than both the MiG-1.42/1.44 and the Sukhoi PAK-FA... I sure hope the US makes the F/A-37 Talon a reality... I somehow feel that the F-14 and the F-15 are still the best things that flew from the US, the F-22 and F/A-18 have wet dreams over having the Tomcat's and Eagle's power... what brand are you smoking? I'm not sure of the source but the following is an interesting analysis and underscores why this aircraft is needed rather than reworked, old F-15C's. --------------------------------------------------------- A pilots' analysis of dog fighting an F-22. Sprey said his briefing focused on the time-tested factors that define an effective fighter plane: (1) See the enemy first; (2) outnumber the enemy; (3) outmaneuver the enemy to fire, and (4) kill the enemy quickly. Having spent two weeks fighting two raptors against 6-8 of our latest technology F-15Cs with datalink, AIM-9X, helmet mounted cueing system and the latest radar software, we 1) ... never acquired the raptor with our radars before our eyes. We occasionally saw it in the cons at 60+K, but by that time we were already dead. 2) ... outnumbered the raptors 3-1 or 4-1, and never even got a valid shot off on one. 3) ... found the only BFM setup even worth attempting against a raptor is a 6K offensive setup, and you're just trying to keep from going defensive. If you're at 3K approaching a gun wez, he will stop so fast you can't help but overshoot. If you're at 9K offensive, he turns around and shoots you before you get to his turn circle. No need to even talk about when he starts offensive. 4) ... knowing the above info, killing the raptor quickly wasn't an option, we couldn't kill even one! I was convinced. We were even fighting some of the initial lots of airplanes, before their data links were working correctly and they had older software. I haven't fought the newer lots flown at Tyndall or Langley, but I can assure you they are even more lethal. Sortie rates are on the rise, software stability is on the rise. All I can say to the critics is in 20 years when this airplane goes to war it will still dominate, just like the Eagle did when we employed it 18 years after fielding! - Leo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted July 30, 2007 Typhoid, Excellent post. Flying with guys who have either flown the F-22 or flown against the F-22...the story is the same from both sides. It's weird...usually new aircraft never live up to the hype. The F-22 seems to be exceeding expectations, a rarity. Maybe I should have gone to TPS after all... FastCargo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted July 30, 2007 You can't shoot what you can't see. And on the topic of next-gen military tech, It's a shame they cancelled the RAH-66 Comanche. Did they give any reasoning for that? And what is going on now with the XM-8/XM-25/XM-29 OICW program. Last I read it was on hold and they were re-evaluating the requirments and were going to hold a competition with other arms makers for the contract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted July 30, 2007 You can't shoot what you can't see. And on the topic of next-gen military tech, It's a shame they cancelled the RAH-66 Comanche. Did they give any reasoning for that? $$$$$$$$$ And what is going on now with the XM-8/XM-25/XM-29 OICW program. Last I read it was on hold and they were re-evaluating the requirments and were going to hold a competition with other arms makers for the contract. again - $$$$$$$$ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gocad 26 Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) To be blunt, the money from the Commanche program was needed elsewhere. GWOT and OIF have put a tremendous strain on the existing flying inventory. Besides, the RAH-66 concept was bascially a leftover from the Cold War...and is of little value on the contemporary battlefield. The XM-8 is dead. It got killed because the the military kept adding requirements, like less weight, share the majority of its parts with a LMG, etc. IMHO some of the demands were outright silly. But the M16 has reached such a mythical status that it becomes hard to develop a successor that would accepted by everyone. Edited July 31, 2007 by Gocad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted July 31, 2007 Funny though how the US cancels its new weapons programs due to money when Russia seems as happy as ever with their AKs, even though they are being perfectioned and rechambered and new weapons are added to the inventory, they're not so dissatisfied with the AKs as the US are with their M-16s... On the account of the F-22, unless there will be a navalised version of it, the Navy won't help but feel castrated in having the F/A-18 instead of the F-14, I think that plane didn't get to reach it's full potential... So, just like in the movie Stealth, I think at least the USN needs the Talon... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Russkie Raider 0 Posted July 31, 2007 Well im still waiting for tangible evidence of their finished stealth projects tbh. The first Wikipedia article also mentions the use of plasma stealth which seems to be just a unworkable theory still from what ive read. I wouldn't trust any plasma stealth technology. Ever heard of the USS Philidelphia experiment? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted July 31, 2007 The USN will be relying the F-35C for its stealth, and all indications are that it will be far better than anything they have now in that arena, albeit still behind the F-22. The NATF was cancelled over a decade ago because of the high costs. They decided to go with making the F/A-18E/F more stealthy than the C/D and let it replace the A-6E and F-14 at the same time. As for the Talon, no one has made a VG FSW design and I don't know if it's possible without some more breakthroughs in construction tech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted July 31, 2007 To be blunt, the money from the Commanche program was needed elsewhere. GWOT and OIF have put a tremendous strain on the existing flying inventory. Besides, the RAH-66 concept was bascially a leftover from the Cold War...and is of little value on the contemporary battlefield. The XM-8 is dead. It got killed because the the military kept adding requirements, like less weight, share the majority of its parts with a LMG, etc. IMHO some of the demands were outright silly. But the M16 has reached such a mythical status that it becomes hard to develop a successor that would accepted by everyone. the problem with the XM-8 boiled down to $$$$ for the delivered capabilty. At 10K per rifle, it was simply too expensive to buy and equip. They came up with variations for awhile that basically involved a family of components being issued to the various members of a squad with only 2 full up OICW's and everyone else carrying a carbine version that essentially was the same as the current M-4. At that point....... SOCOM is playing around with some ideas for a new rifle and the Army and Marines have gone back to the drawing board. The problem is to balance something modern, affordable in vast numbers and is better than the current rifles. That is a tough act. Having said that, new calibers are being played with and old M-14's have been put back in service in some of the Marine brigades to provide some extra power downrange. I've seen some different stuff tried out with a 6.4 (I think) caliber tried out in a special SOCOM experiment. Haven't heard the result but did hear some counter arguments on how effective it was expected to be. at any rate, there is a lot of effort going on right now to field a better family of weapons for our troops. At the same time, most of the other major countries in the world are fielding new rifles and MGs which for the most part are incremental improvements of their previous arms. We have to, the current family of M-16s is just that and the M-4 is very popular in the field. But we do need something better than the .223 with more reliability than the M-16 and M-4. but for cheap....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gocad 26 Posted August 1, 2007 at any rate, there is a lot of effort going on right now to field a better family of weapons for our troops. Crew-served weapons, perhaps. But rifles...nah, it's still the M4 soldiers will get, at least according to the plans of the Army, which wanted to buy another 100.000 without competition. Besides, the unit cost for an XM8 was never 10K. But it's true, one argument was that although it was an improvement over the M16, it was not enough to make it the successor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted August 1, 2007 But it's true, one argument was that although it was an improvement over the M16, it was not enough to make it the successor. This has killed more than a few weapons systems. Not that it wasn't better, but it wasn't better by enough, or that the overall cost of the infrastructure change to support the new system was not cost effective. The F-20 comes to mind...a better CONUS ADF aircraft in overall competition...but the F-16 could be adapted for far cheaper, and the logistics tail already exists. The T-46...great replacement aircraft for the T-37...but not by enough. Every time a T-38 successor has been designed, it's ended up being a slightly better T-38 at twice the price...again, not cost effective. FastCargo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 1, 2007 Crew-served weapons, perhaps. But rifles...nah, it's still the M4 soldiers will get, at least according to the plans of the Army, which wanted to buy another 100.000 without competition.Besides, the unit cost for an XM8 was never 10K. But it's true, one argument was that although it was an improvement over the M16, it was not enough to make it the successor. the 10k figure was referenced to the full-up OICW with computerized 20mm grenades and integrated laser range-finder/sight system. I think the XM8 was an attempt to field just a portion of that as a carbine-which essentially had the same capability as the current M-4. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gocad 26 Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) I think the XM8 was an attempt to field just a portion of that as a carbine-which essentially had the same capability as the current M-4. Sure, it had the same caliber, but it used a gas piston (more parts, but less fouling) and didn't had a zillion accessories attached to it. I think that the problem with introducing new weapon systems in general is that they are usually developed under conditions that no longer exist when the product is finished. Edited August 1, 2007 by Gocad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 1, 2007 Sure, it had the same caliber, but it used a gas piston (more parts, but less fouling) and didn't had a zillion accessories attached to it. dumb question but how is that different? I recall pulling out a gas piston in the M-16 and cleaning that filthy beast. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gocad 26 Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) dumb question but how is that different? I recall pulling out a gas piston in the M-16 and cleaning that filthy beast. The problem with the M16 is that the gas used to operate the bolt is pushed back into the breech. Thus it requires more maintenance than rifles that use other gas-operated systems. LINK:I think this Wikipedia article explains it quite well. The XM8 has the bascially the same short-stroke gas system used in the H&K G36. Edited August 1, 2007 by Gocad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted August 3, 2007 Damn, it looked like a significant improvement, especially in the weight department. The XM-8 was derived from the G36 family, so there are alot of similarities. At least H&K decided to continue with it as a private venture, hopefully someone makes use of it, quite a nice gun to go to waste. With regards to the talon, Northrop actually patented a FSW swing wing design that looks almost exactly the same. It may not have engines from the space shuttle or such a futuristic computer like the (lame) movie, but its something. That model mig-37 feret would never be used as an actual design. Even if it would fly well, they'd never make a real plane based off an american designed model airplane. It's a shame, when WWIII arrives, we're going to be left in the same unprepared state as we were for WWII. At least we have the F-22. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
