F-22 is suck

[SONYFX]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: SONYFX
JSF is suck too.

-------------------------------

JSF's first flight pushed back

By Bob Cox

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

blah...

yeah like you know anything.

the jsf will be even better than the Harrier Jump Jet, which is cheap, local, maneuverable, kicks developing country butt, and is very reliable. we won 3 wars with it, one by ourselves against french mirage fighter jets.

 

[SONYFX]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: SONYFX
JSF is suck too.

-------------------------------

JSF's first flight pushed back

By Bob Cox

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

blah...

yeah like you know anything.

the jsf will be even better than the Harrier Jump Jet, which is cheap, local, maneuverable, kicks developing country butt, and is very reliable. we won 3 wars with it, one by ourselves against french mirage fighter jets.

JSF has shorter range, small loads, heavy weight, and not so stealth.

What's so good about it?

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: SONYFX

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: SONYFX
JSF is suck too.

-------------------------------

JSF's first flight pushed back

By Bob Cox

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

blah...

yeah like you know anything.

the jsf will be even better than the Harrier Jump Jet, which is cheap, local, maneuverable, kicks developing country butt, and is very reliable. we won 3 wars with it, one by ourselves against french mirage fighter jets.

JSF has shorter range, small loads, heavy weight, and not so stealth.

What's so good about it?

shorter range - well its not a b-2 is it?


small loads - how many guerillas and platoons does it need to wipe out each run?


heavy weight - well it only have to dodge surface fired handhelds.


no stealth - well the troops and tanks would hear a stealth bomber


benefits:


close up take off and landing on non-runways. - its more like close up arty for special and elite forces and has more punch than a chopper. of course loitering b-2s can be good as well, but the close distance to refuel and rearm for vert take off and land is a real blessing. esp for jungle where pinpointing is essential for your squad's success.


only needs smaller aircraft carriers - means your can spend less on a big ticket item, and get the same results when combined with more spending on drones.


is exportable - of course with worse avionics.

isnt a good heavy bomber/ fighter - well we have the typhoon for that, which will take care of anyone we will have to fight without the americans with us. with the americans, sure the typhoon is a compromise bird, but we dont have the means for more.


at the end of the day if the jsf ever has to go up against a good mig, its by accident, and presumeably there will be patrolling fighters in the area anyway.


at the end of the day the typhoon/ jsf/ apache combo is a killer for any enemy we will face, until drones are upto speed on the combat front.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison
It is a terribly complex system. I am not surprised that it still has issues. That being said, once the kinks get worked out, nothing will be able to match it.

For $153M, you can get 5 Su-30MKI's, which will more than match a singe F-22.

Ignorance must be bliss because you're full of it.

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Good read on the capaiblies of the f-22 vs an upgraded f-15x. F-15x will not cost much less than the f-22 and will still have higher logistical footprint and reduced capabilities.

Good find and interesting read. Of course the one remaining option would be to soldier on with the F-15, but I don't see how that's realistic.

It's an academy student's research paper. Not saying it's valid or not, but it presents a very one sided arguement.

Perhaps. However, if you're going to make the claim that this paper is one-sided, I would expect that you could provide some factual basis to back that up. Something akin to: the threat analysis is wrong because ... , the combat simulations comparing modern fighters are wrong because ... , etc ...

 

[MadRat]

The USAF would not adopt the F-18E/F even with a remix of P&W F119's or GE F120's. Adding them to the F-15E would not make much sense as it would require a substantial redesign of the entire rear section due to space restrictions. Maybe they could fit on the F-14's without major tail redesigns. Supercruise would be very beneficial, but thats besides the point. The brass want the big toys, not patchworks on old toys.

The F-18 is just cursed never to be a real option for the USAF. For one, the USAF brass wll never adopt an idea by the USN brass. It goes back to the time we had lightweight fighter programs and all sorts of competitions to justify buying a low-cost front-line fighter other than the F-15, as a replacement for losing huge numbers of F-4's. The F-17, which later evolved into the F-18, was the superior option as far as flexibility to missions, and roughly identical to the F-4 in alot of performance categories. (Nobody is ever going to defend the F-18's real-world performance against the F-16, but the competition rules clearly favoured the former until the LWF rules wrote them out of contention.) The F-20A was another superior option when it came to meeting the competition goals and when talking strictly about maintenance.

The F-16 won because it was equipped with an AF engine and made by traditional AF contractors. The F-20A was looked upon as a waste of time and effort even though it was ten years ahead of the F-16 when it came to maintenance and mission-specific performance - plus it was semi-stealth! This competion was to replace F-4's, not F-15's, and to supplement F-15's so its a wonder why they ever chose a single-engine design. The F-16 was and still is a high time- and money-consuming option that roughly costs as much as an F-15 to keep flying. Nevermind the fact that the F-16 peters out at 8k hours of flight time whereas the original A-models of F-15s often got almost 20k! Nevermind the fact that the USAF is a giant organization that once had thirteen separate fighter jet models under its logistical tentacles and how three different fighter models in service at once will not break the bank.

Imagine what kind of force they'd of had for front-line service opposite of the Soviets if they had kept a mix. The F-15's, F-14's, and F-18's could have been the "A" class of fighters. The F-16's could have been left out of the chain, offered for export orders, and the F-20A's would have been the sole "B" class of fighters. There is no doubt in my mind that the F-20A would have matched the Soviet response in both performance and numbers sufficient to justify buying them. The fuel consumption would have been 50% less per airframe, and there would have been more planes available to use. Plus there has not been a single military action since the 1980's that the F-16's participated in that could not have been done equally well by a mix of F-18's or F-20A's, either being a cheaper airframe to maintain.

 

[CaptnKirk]

A) F-4 was designed for the Navy - then the Air Force found out that at the time they had no vehicle that would perform as well as that which the Navy already had. There was no time for the Air Force to propose, bid, and secure a new aircraft that would meet the mission capability that the Navy's F-4 offered.
So biting their collective tounges over a fine meal of crow, the Air Force secured a minor redesign to save face, and purchased hundreds of F-4's - until they could get the F-15 into production.

2) The refusal to purchase the Northrop F-20 was a continuation of punishment against Jack Northrop for his old debt - that where he refused to sell his company to the 'Approved' Pentagon Contractor of the day, (General Dynamics - Convair) which was the preferred source for the Flying Wing that Northrops company had designed, built, and flown. When Jack refused to sell out to the designated competitor, the Pentagon ordered all of the Flying Wings cut-up for scrap, and no further prime aircraft contracts were offered to Northrop until said generals at the top who made that decision had died.
Only when Jack Northrop himself was in his last days, and the Pentagon Generals who had held the gruge were gone did the contract for the development of 'Shamu' go forward and the ensuing design and development of what was to become trhe B-2 Spirit Bomber materalize.
Sad - huh ?

 

[MadRat]

The F-4 may have started USN but it finished stronger in the USAF.

I didn't ever hear about a Northrop debt. To think they sold 5000 F-5's and over 1000 T-38's since the B-35's it makes me wonder how valid is that claim. Maybe it was only a grudge against his bombers?

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: SONYFX

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: SONYFX
JSF is suck too.

-------------------------------

JSF's first flight pushed back

By Bob Cox

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

blah...

yeah like you know anything.

the jsf will be even better than the Harrier Jump Jet, which is cheap, local, maneuverable, kicks developing country butt, and is very reliable. we won 3 wars with it, one by ourselves against french mirage fighter jets.

JSF has shorter range, small loads, heavy weight, and not so stealth.

What's so good about it?

shorter range - well its not a b-2 is it?


small loads - how many guerillas and platoons does it need to wipe out each run?


heavy weight - well it only have to dodge surface fired handhelds.


no stealth - well the troops and tanks would hear a stealth bomber


benefits:


close up take off and landing on non-runways. - its more like close up arty for special and elite forces and has more punch than a chopper. of course loitering b-2s can be good as well, but the close distance to refuel and rearm for vert take off and land is a real blessing. esp for jungle where pinpointing is essential for your squad's success.


only needs smaller aircraft carriers - means your can spend less on a big ticket item, and get the same results when combined with more spending on drones.


is exportable - of course with worse avionics.

isnt a good heavy bomber/ fighter - well we have the typhoon for that, which will take care of anyone we will have to fight without the americans with us. with the americans, sure the typhoon is a compromise bird, but we dont have the means for more.


at the end of the day if the jsf ever has to go up against a good mig, its by accident, and presumeably there will be patrolling fighters in the area anyway.


at the end of the day the typhoon/ jsf/ apache combo is a killer for any enemy we will face, until drones are upto speed on the combat front.

well i must be right as ive been ignored by the resident experts.

 

[MadRat]

Did you say something?

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Did you say something?

do you lack cognition?

 

[MadRat]

What did you mean to say?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: zillafurby
didnt the indians kick butt recently in training?
]/q]

This was reported, however, I have not been privy to the debriefings. It may have something to do with the home field advantage. Also, a kill requires a launch vehicle and weapon.

India has not been testing the actual weapons on their A/C in combat. Our weapons have been.

IT will be interesting if the Indians come to a Red Flag and/or have an exercise against the IAF.

Originally posted by: zillafurby
also their kill ratio against alqaida flown boeings isnt so good is it?

This statement is pure troll. Plenty of discussion and evaluation has been done regarding the ability and responsibily of reaction.

 

[OffTopic1]

more like 4 or less, considering pilots/maintenance/fuel costs would go way up having so many.

Purchasing 2 SU & put the cash into developing better pilots, that surely would out gun a poorly train F-22 pilot.

I would put my money on 2 F-15e with more than twice the armaments than one F-22.

As for air superiors, we don?t really need them because most if not all missions are air-to-ground or bombing runs, not air-to-air combat. And, The F-15 certainly can do those jobs, or a combination of F-15, B1, B4, B-52, and my favorite A-10.

And at $153 millions you could get one F-15e & ten A10s, that surely would have more than enought armament to take out an F-22.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: MadRat
What did you mean to say?

sorry ratty its a difficult word, it means the ability to know and understand, ie cant you understand what i put?

from dictionary.com;

cog·ni·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kg-nshn)
n.
The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.

 

[MadRat]

Offtopic-

Whats a B4?

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Offtopic-

Whats a B4?

Sorry my bad, I was thinking about the B2.

 

[CaptnKirk]

B-4 - That would be the Biplane version of the B-2 where they are stacked one on top of the other like
the WWI Spads and the Beech Stagerwings of the 30's were. It is an evolution of the way the Space
Shuttle transport was done on the NASA 747. Not very functional, but it looks really impressive.

Oh, by the way - you don't know how big the F-35 (JSF) really is, it's a bigger package than you think.
It dwarfs the F-16 when they are side by side.

 

[MadRat]

Its not that big, under 50 feet long and only like 35 feet wide. Its footprint is roughly that of an F-16 except the XF-35 has about 7-10K more pounds of thrust for the conventional version. Someone mentioned earlier about its vertical takeoff ability - well only the British and USMC planes will be VTOL. The conventional form is not even STOL, plus it has a high landing velocity just like other high performance fighters, making it impractical for improvised runways.

Thats the problem with the ATF derivatives like the XF-35 and F-22, they really require deployment to bases that have the lap of luxury. The F-22 will be good, and its kinks are less worrisome then they'd have you believe, but its also an expensive machine. Not quite what you want to hear about the super warrior deployment that the Pentagon would have you believe. Rough and tumble runways and foul weather will deteriorate their bodies very quickly, which is one of the reasons the F-22 will be a strategically deployed fighter. Deployment of the F-22 is basically the "check mate", not the "exchange of pawns" that people seem to want to imply. Once the F-22 is deployed the base and its surrounding area best have long since won its battle for position else its as vulnerable as any other plane on the ground. Once in the air its going to be tough to corner since it can supercruise out of trouble and stay safely out of reach until the intruder turns home and it becomes the now vulnerable. With its performance comes a hefty price in fuel and maintenance, hence the base may only sustain operations if its supply lines are not mortally threatened.