Eurofighter just as good as F-22 if not better !

[+Gepard 11,295]

The coming enemy will be the states of the "arabellion", when they are taken over by the islamic forces. We will need a plane to hold down their human waves. I cant see how we could do it with the F-22.

[MigBuster 2,884]

The coming enemy will be the states of the "arabellion", when they are taken over by the islamic forces. We will need a plane to hold down their human waves. I cant see how we could do it with the F-22.

 

 

Well um......what do you suggest a scaled up super A-10 the size of a Jumbo?

[warthog64 92]

Or maybe they're into that whole "Whose invisible d*ck is the logest?" game. Last time I checked, stealth wasn't a major game-changer in actual wars.

The chances of Russia, China and the US engageing in a major clash are relatively slim, thanks to their nuclear forces.

 

If there's a semi-hot war between those powers (as in numerous clashes during the Cold War), stealth is not gonna change much, as few third-world countries can afford stealth-technology.

 

 

So far, the Eurocanards are far more useable in actually-fought wars, than those high-tech "Don't deploy me anywhere because I'm so prescious!" stealth a/c.

 

 

Stealth has been a major game changer!

 

If you're referring to a conflict such as the US war in Afghanistan, or the Conflict in the Balkans in the 1990's then yes stealth was not a major factor because the defending sides could not wage a real "strategic" or "high tech" Air or Electronics war in return. In a situation like these wars an F-16, A-10 or Harrier is good enough to wage a limited air war. The Serbians did have SA-2's and SA-6's, ZSU-23's, etc. but the capability of these weapons, and their numbers were very poor. Sure the US, France, and the UK lost several aircraft to Serbian fire over the coures of 5 years but this was in no way a losing attrition rate.

 

In the 1991 Gulf War, and to a lesser extent the 2003 invasion of Iraq, stealth played a huge role in the outcome of both conflicts, the F-117 was able to destroy Iraq's ability to communicate, and destroyed the very centrally controlled Iraqi air defences in the opening hours of the war. Yes many equipment and radars remained operating, but the capability of Saddam to wage an effective defense was gone! Stealth was a huge morale dropper as well, and the Iraqi military already had very low morale in 1991! In 2003 the Iraqi air defences were still capable, but no where near the level that they were in 1991. Obviously once the Strategic air campaign was over in 2003, stealth did not matter as it shouldn't anyways in a war against insugents but to achieve the strategic victory over Iraq Stealth was once again was a deciding factor.

 

There has not been an aerial conflict with these circumstances in which stealth has been involved with since 1991, and the Stealth capabilities of the F-22 far exceed the F-117 and B-2.

 

There are alot of factors to consider when determining what technologies and tactics will achieve victory. When it comes to a "real" war with both sides possesing advanced and capable equipment stealth will always make a difference.

Edited August 2, 2012 by warthog64

[Toryu 156]

Given the advance of drone-technology and advanced stand-off capability of missiles, stealth isn't neccessary anymore in order to destroy the other country's air-defence.

 

Stealth - a yesterday's technology

[JediMaster 451]

The coming enemy will be the states of the "arabellion", when they are taken over by the islamic forces. We will need a plane to hold down their human waves. I cant see how we could do it with the F-22.

 

People with AKs, RPGs, and IEDs are no threat to airplanes. Unless you believe they will magically conjure masses of MiGs from thin air to oppose them?

[Toryu 156]

That's exactly Gepard's point.

 

There's no use in a stealth-fighter, when the major job consists of dropping bombs on infantry. Pretty much any aircaft is "stealthy" in that mission. When carrying a huge amount of (needed) extra gas and extra payload, supposed-to-be stealthy aircraft actually aren't.

What you're left off with is an onderperforming aircraft that can't benefit of it's main "advantage" that compromised it's performance.

 

 

I wonder if there will be any F-35B put in harm's way (remember the mortar-attacks on Da Nang and Chu-Lai?) on a forwarded base with the Marines.

[RogerSmith 72]

I think d*ck swinging over jets made for allied countries is dumb, I think the only thing that matters is what the ENEMY has.

[JediMaster 451]

That's exactly Gepard's point.

 

There's no use in a stealth-fighter, when the major job consists of dropping bombs on infantry. Pretty much any aircaft is "stealthy" in that mission. When carrying a huge amount of (needed) extra gas and extra payload, supposed-to-be stealthy aircraft actually aren't.

What you're left off with is an onderperforming aircraft that can't benefit of it's main "advantage" that compromised it's performance.

 

 

I wonder if there will be any F-35B put in harm's way (remember the mortar-attacks on Da Nang and Chu-Lai?) on a forwarded base with the Marines.

 

I thought he was referring to too few F-22s to stop massed hordes of enemy jets.

 

Again, the F-22's performance against other fighters is largely irrelevant. What matters is the F-22 can escort friendly bombers, shoot down enemy fighters/bombers/cruise missiles, and drop bombs on enemy ground targets inside denied airspace. That doesn't mean "thick enemy fighters" it means "thick enemy SAMs and AAA." These countries have crap for air forces. Their anti-air forces, however, are formidable. We lost no F-117s or B-2s against Iraq. We DID lose some of everything else pretty much. Not to enemy fighters, to enemy SAMs and AAA. Other potential adversaries have equally crappy air forces to Iraq but equally good or better ground defenses.

 

If I'm to protect Marines on the ground from enemy bombers, I'd prefer it to be in a plane the enemy can't track and has trouble seeing when they try and fire SAMs and AAA at me. I'm not that worried about a few fighters, those are easy for AWACS to see and warn me about. A SAM site, on the other hand, can be moved in under cover giving no warning of its existence till it broadcasts and fires in quick succession.

Edited August 5, 2012 by JediMaster

[Toryu 156]

You do have a point there which I recognize and partially agree with.

My point, however, is that many of those missions can be taken-over by drones. Another point of mine is, that those air-forces/ R&D with which the F-22's capability competes (Russia and China), are also capable of designing stealthy aircraft or anti-stealth technology (China more so than Russia, given the defense-budgets). Being "stealthy" or not, is merely a matter of which portion of the electromagnetic band you're looking at.

Somebody providing a number of airplanes that are stealthy by today's standards doesn't mean, they're stealthy tomorrow. IRST is already paying off a big deal - so is data-link.

There are basicly two ways to go from here:

 

The first way is to engage in a tech-race in which the US is undoubtly gonna have (and propably sustains) an edge of 5-10 years. The issue here is that the other side manages to develop counter-stealth technology and tactics. This leads to a spiral of ever-more costly systems. If you want to go to war with China, Russia (which you won't because of their nuclear capabilites) or Iran (a lot more likely, but still not quite realistic, given russian and chinese backing of Iran), that approach certainly is gonna help you.

But the price to pay is fewer airplanes, a lower readyness-state (dispatch-reliability) and quite a lot of restrictions as to what to show anybody about your airplanes (including allies).

 

The second way is to limit the amount of cost and trying to keep the aiplanes relatively straightforward - similar to the Superbug or the Eurocanards. You may still have a strategical, stealthy bomber-fleet, but fewer high-priced tactical aircraft. High-risk missions may be flown with stand-off weapons or by drones altogether. A stealth drone is a lot cheaper and easier to build than a fighter, that has other missions on it's portfolio as well.

 

Your approach is the first one, mine is the second one.

At the end, I'd say that my approach can do 90-95% of the missions your approach can do, but with much lower costs.

You'll say it pays off, I'll say it doesn't. We'll propably have to disagree at this point.

[JediMaster 451]

The costs idea is relative. So far, UAVs have an appalling amount of attrition. Outside combat losses, which aren't all that different so far, they're being lost on t/o, landing, and to general technical issues (like the one over Iran) that manned planes don't suffer from.

 

What good will it be if the UAVs cost half as much but we lose 3 times as many? The Global Hawk Blk 30 was canned because of 2 reasons: it wasn't better than the U-2, and in fact was possibly inferior; and it cost a LOT more than it was supposed to.

 

Stealthy UAVs will always be expensive because stealth is, and I don't think they're good enough at keeping themselves intact yet. Sure you can make swarms of the cheap ones, and in fact they are, but they have their own limitations. They don't go as far, they can't do as much, and you're always losing them in droves so you never stop building them. Also, there's no secret. We send a few dozen Predators into Iran and there's no hiding it.

 

UAVs have their place, but I don't think we're even close to their place being "totally replacing manned aircraft". The software is not good enough yet, not by half.

[Toryu 156]

In the 1950s and 60s, we also lost an appaling amount of airplanes - they were new and we didn't know how to handle them yet. As experience grew, the accident-rates went down, downer and downest. You'll have to give them some time.

 

The cost-calculation doesn't factor-in the money spent for pilot-training and pilot-recurrency, that will be lost, when a plane goes down over enemy-territory. You'll also not have to get a pilot out. There's also no political games as with Mr. Powers in the 1960s. This also brings us to the U-2 vs. GH. Block 30 thing.

It's pretty hard to better an aircraft that was built in the times of higher-faster-farther. Flying around at 80000ft isn't a good way to having a long career either. Leaving the pilot behind may be expensive in the short-run, but it'll pay off in the long-run. Then again, everything costs more than it was supposed to today. That's because budgets are made based on stuff that has already been developed. If you develop something groundbreakingly new, issues will come up. Then, some politician might have an "idea" and the whole programm gets changed altogether...

 

There are limitations about UAVs, just as there are with manned airplanes. I haven't seen a fighter, that can stay aloft for 48 hours, bomb a target and fly back to the racetrack. That scenario is entirely possible with UAVs - it merely takes some effort and time to get there.

 

I don't think UAVs will replace manned fighters. They'll be able to take over those high-risk missions or long-duration mission that pilots just can't do, though.

[MAKO69 186]

I love the "Brain Washed Thoughts" of some people. Whats cool about the F-22 is once there is air superiority you can hang sh!t off the wings to move mud. Not that you would have to because there are plenty of other platforms to do so once the F-22 did its job.

Edited August 21, 2012 by MAKO69

[+SkateZilla 49]

it dont matter, we'll have Tie Fighters and X Wing Fighters soon. Along with Jaffa Death Gliders and F302s..

[Slartibartfast 153]

I'll take an X-Wing please...

[JediMaster 451]

it dont matter, we'll have Tie Fighters and X Wing Fighters soon. Along with Jaffa Death Gliders and F302s..

 

Jaffa, CREE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+Gepard 11,295]

I prefer the USS Defiant.

[+SkateZilla 49]

tough little ship.

[FastCargo 412]

Little?!?

[JediMaster 451]

*raised eyebrow, tilted head, smirk*

[+SkateZilla 49]

[macelena 1,070]

Naboo N-1 FTW...Kirk is a fag (runs away)

[JediMaster 451]

*Kirk trips you with a move that would never REALLY work, but always works for him*

[+SkateZilla 49]

no, he creates a sub routine that trips him, which allows him to beat you.

[macelena 1,070]

Crap... I just got kobayashi marued

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

X-wings? Tie Fighters?? Jesus Ch-- Jaffa Death Gliders?!?! Seriously, Death Gliders? You've gotta be taking the p*ss with such a crappy list of feeble vehicles.

 

This is all you need:

 

 

Kills everything between the ground and orbit and then becomes the boots on the ground you need to hold your objective. Case closed.

 

Death gliders indeed... Bahahahahahaha!

Edited August 30, 2012 by SayWhatt