Premier US Jet has major shortcomings

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flying is easier that driving, there are no obstacles to go around in the air, that's why we have auto-pilot, but no auto-driver. Also, if we keep plowing money into ineffective/defective programs like F-22 instead of AI research, we'll be stuck with 25 year old technology, and give our enemies an opportunity to catch up to us on the cheap using modern technologies. Look at space shuttle, we plowed so much money into it and maintenance of it that we had nothing left for other space vehicles, and now often have to hitch a ride on Soyuz to get to the ISS.

Bad analogy. Flying is not easier than driving; the sparsity of terrain obstacles and reduced traffic are offset by the need to maintain three dimensional surveillance of airspace, the attention requirements of avionics equipment (communications, navigation, weather reporting, etc.), and the necessity of maintaining attitude control. When's the last time you had to worry about holding a specific altitude in your car while trying to spot another automobile that might be descending into your path? Autopilots reduce the pilot workload, freeing him to concentrate on more than just keeping the aircraft straight and level and they reduce the physical fatigue of flight, they don't fly the plane.

I disagree with your assessment that it's not easier than driving from AI point of view. But even if it was harder, I'd rather take my chances with Moore's law, which says that in the years it took to develop F-22 the computational ability increased several orders of magnitude, instead of plowing most of my budget into a program that is going to take decades and may or may not be relevant when completed. Put even a fraction of the amount of money spent on F-22 into AI research instead of spreading it to politically favored contractors, and you are going to be better off with drones than F-22 in a much shorter time.

You do realize an autopilot contains no AI? You set your parameters and it simply follows what you tell it to do. The best the auto pilot can do is an approach. Which is nothing more than following an imaginary line in the sky. It doesnt "think" what it is doing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flying is easier that driving, there are no obstacles to go around in the air, that's why we have auto-pilot, but no auto-driver. Also, if we keep plowing money into ineffective/defective programs like F-22 instead of AI research, we'll be stuck with 25 year old technology, and give our enemies an opportunity to catch up to us on the cheap using modern technologies. Look at space shuttle, we plowed so much money into it and maintenance of it that we had nothing left for other space vehicles, and now often have to hitch a ride on Soyuz to get to the ISS.

/facepalm

Go try to fly a jet and get back to us on which is easier to do.

Flight sims do not count.

Even a RC aircraft is difficult for the first dozen hours.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: senseamp
Flying is easier that driving, there are no obstacles to go around in the air, that's why we have auto-pilot, but no auto-driver. Also, if we keep plowing money into ineffective/defective programs like F-22 instead of AI research, we'll be stuck with 25 year old technology, and give our enemies an opportunity to catch up to us on the cheap using modern technologies. Look at space shuttle, we plowed so much money into it and maintenance of it that we had nothing left for other space vehicles, and now often have to hitch a ride on Soyuz to get to the ISS.

Bad analogy. Flying is not easier than driving; the sparsity of terrain obstacles and reduced traffic are offset by the need to maintain three dimensional surveillance of airspace, the attention requirements of avionics equipment (communications, navigation, weather reporting, etc.), and the necessity of maintaining attitude control. When's the last time you had to worry about holding a specific altitude in your car while trying to spot another automobile that might be descending into your path? Autopilots reduce the pilot workload, freeing him to concentrate on more than just keeping the aircraft straight and level and they reduce the physical fatigue of flight, they don't fly the plane.

I disagree with your assessment that it's not easier than driving from AI point of view. But even if it was harder, I'd rather take my chances with Moore's law, which says that in the years it took to develop F-22 the computational ability increased several orders of magnitude, instead of plowing most of my budget into a program that is going to take decades and may or may not be relevant when completed. Put even a fraction of the amount of money spent on F-22 into AI research instead of spreading it to politically favored contractors, and you are going to be better off with drones than F-22 in a much shorter time.

You do realize an autopilot contains no AI? You set your parameters and it simply follows what you tell it to do. The best the auto pilot can do is an approach. Which is nothing more than following an imaginary line in the sky. It doesnt "think" what it is doing.

And if those parameters are set incorrectly - KAL007

 

[Albatross]

http://www.theonion.com/conten...pentagon_plan_to_build

another major project to be cancelled

 

[Genx87]

I love The Onion.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Genx87

...

Well F-22s wont fly solo. In the trials a pair of F-22s took out 8 F-15s before the F-15s even knew they were in the area. A flight of 4 could theoretically kill 16. I guess what I am saying is what does it matter if this thing is so dominant the worlds best is destroyed before it even knows it is there? At that rate the only thing holding the F-22 back is its weapon load.

Realize that the F22 had AWACS & ground control support.
The Raptors did not have to activate their radar until time to fire.

The Eagles had to rely on their own radar to find the Raptors and were unable to because of the stealth characteristics and lack of radar use for radiance detection.

The engagement was rigged in favor of the F22 to demonstrate how well it could work with the AWACS.

That is correct. It was a realistic war fighting test in that our most likely potential adversaries do not have a similar AWACs capability. So essentially, our side is shooting blind mice.

That is also identical if we had swapped the planes. The F22 is not a full stealth aircraft, and it would be found by US Navy radar or AWACS if the roles were reversed in the test. F15 with AWACS & Ground Control/Radar, F22 with nothing.

Cooked-up test FTL.

There's no such thing as a "full stealth" aircraft. Stealth REDUCES the aircraft signature thereby REDUCING the detection range of adversary sensors. The key is to reduce the capability of adversary sensors to either enable the stealth aircraft to bypass the defensive system (for ground based) or to get within the range of the stealth aircraft's offensive systems to launch outside of the shooting envelope of the adversary.

Furthermore, even if the stealth aircraft is detected, the reduced signature may prevent the adversaries weapons systems from acquiring or maintaining a lock, preventing a successful shot. That's a success, too. So, obviously USN radar (Hawkeye or Aegis), AWACS, or GCI could detect the F-22 eventually, but cueing does not equal successful engagement. The F-22 could still defeat the radars of the fighter aircraft and also still has a speed advantage with longer legs.

Might the results be different with an adversary AWACS-equivalent? Possibly. However, it's unlikely that those aircraft will be allowed to live very long in a real contingency.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
...

Might the results be different with an adversary AWACS-equivalent? Possibly. However, it's unlikely that those aircraft will be allowed to live very long in a real contingency.

AWACS are a juicy target. Big, fat and slow - that is why they are kept well away from the front (100-300nm) and also have a CAP with them at all times.

Strategic planning scenarios (Red and Blue) have any AWACS as a primary target. Removes the force multiplier from the equation.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: AndrewR
...

Might the results be different with an adversary AWACS-equivalent? Possibly. However, it's unlikely that those aircraft will be allowed to live very long in a real contingency.

AWACS are a juicy target. Big, fat and slow - that is why they are kept well away from the front (100-300nm) and also have a CAP with them at all times.

Strategic planning scenarios (Red and Blue) have any AWACS as a primary target. Removes the force multiplier from the equation.

The acronym you're looking for is "High Value Airborne Asset", HVAA.

Ours will be defended by F-22s, and the enemy will be attacking it outside of the protection of their EW aircraft, which is exactly the scenario you described from Red Flag, right?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Around here, technical terms are easily lost.

Simple explanations go over best.


Alternate Scenario that is palyed out at Red flag at times:
If an AWACs starts to get agressive/careless, then the opponent may launch a suicide weeds strike against them. Radar homing missles by the opponent could cause the AWACs to shutdown; (I do not think that they use jammers on the E3s.) Now with the AWCs offline, you have a CAP of 4 F22s and possibly 10-12 hostiles chasing the bait. AWACs runs and F22 play escort. AWACs off the field - playing field is more even.

That happened in VN alot. The radars were at the edge of the limits while safe, so they would sneak in closer to get the extra view of that cruical 50-100nm to support strikes.
MIGs would start to chase down the AWACs

 

[senseamp]

How does S-400 mobile SAM factor into the AWACS picture, since it has 250mi range, on par with that of AWACS radar?
Realistically, the type of conflicts where establishing air superiority would require something like an F-22 are limited to Chinese and Russian periphery.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: senseamp
How does S-400 mobile SAM factor into the AWACS picture, since it has 250mi range, on par with that of AWACS radar?
Realistically, the type of conflicts where establishing air superiority would require something like an F-22 are limited to Chinese and Russian periphery.

Long range SAMs do factor in, but keep in mind that if the SAM is near the of its range, it will be easier for electronic warfare assets to defeat it. AWACS will likely operate with EW support if it's near any sort of danger like that.

If anyone looks at the MASSIVE Chinese military build-up and doesn't think that confrontation is a possibility, then they are truly deluded. Even if confrontation is unlikely, we damn well better ensure that if anything happens, unintentional or otherwise, we have the superior equipment. I, for one, never want to see our fighter pilots enter into combat outclassed technologically because some nimrods in the Pentagon thought it would be "OK" if we just soldiered on with 35+ year old fighter aircraft.

We should open up exports of the F-22 to Japan and use the extra savings to buy 2-3 more squadrons than currently planned.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Link

Senate pulls plug on funding extra units.

 

[rudder]

hmmm I saw an Osprey flying around the outer banks last week. A plane the marine corp did not want but now flies. As with anything dealing with the government... you buy off enough senators then you can push anything through.

 

[rchiu]

F-22 is a serious waste of money. It is a very cool toy, no doubt about it. But it is only useful against conventional army with jet fighters and advance radar system.

But which conventional army is gonna mess with the US and its 5500 nuclear warheads?

US will be fighting terrorist and their road side bombs for years to come. Money will be better invested in training intelligence personnel, covert operations, guerrilla warfare type of amored vehicle, gunships.

Sure you can spent money on cool but useless toy when you got unlimited budgets. But let's not forget our historical 1.8 TRILLION budget deficit this year alone alright?

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: rudder
hmmm I saw an Osprey flying around the outer banks last week. A plane the marine corp did not want but now flies. As with anything dealing with the government... you buy off enough senators then you can push anything through.

I'm pretty sure the Marines always wanted the Osprey. The Army and Navy backed out a long time ago and the USAF is buying a smaller number than originally planned.

What does everyone think about the latest blow to additional F-22s? Japan apparently really wants the aircraft, and many in the defense establishment want more for additionally flexibility in deployments. And to ensure enough are combat ready if the aircraft keeps having maintenance problems.

Is the US now facing a greater threat from a next generation Chinese fighter jet? Are we leaving Japan out in the wind? It is now being argued that F-22s could help avoid an arms race in Asia, because it would provide a strong deterrent capability to Japan. Without F-22s, Japan may loose qualitative air superiority to Chinese aircraft and resort to ballistic missile and nuclear deterrents. Not to mention, the F-22 would be suited for a stealth strike on North Korean facilities. Without this ability, Japan may be tempted to build ballistic missiles or nukes to counter North Korea, if it feels its ABM system is insufficient.

Washington Times Editorial

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: rchiu
F-22 is a serious waste of money. It is a very cool toy, no doubt about it. But it is only useful against conventional army with jet fighters and advance radar system.

But which conventional army is gonna mess with the US and its 5500 nuclear warheads?

US will be fighting terrorist and their road side bombs for years to come. Money will be better invested in training intelligence personnel, covert operations, guerrilla warfare type of amored vehicle, gunships.

Sure you can spent money on cool but useless toy when you got unlimited budgets. But let's not forget our historical 1.8 TRILLION budget deficit this year alone alright?

But I suppose China is warranted in building a fleet of stealth fighters....

 

[Carmen813]

The F-22 would be an incredibly stupid choice for attacking North Korea. The B-2 is the way to go if we ever need to do that.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The F-22 would be an incredibly stupid choice for attacking North Korea. The B-2 is the way to go if we ever need to do that.

Why do you say that?

 

[Gothgar]

it looks badass though

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The F-22 would be an incredibly stupid choice for attacking North Korea. The B-2 is the way to go if we ever need to do that.

Why do you say that?

Because the F-22 is an air superiority stealth fighter with limited armament for ground attack. The B-2 is a stealth, heavy bomber that can carry many times the bombs that an F-22 could.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The F-22 would be an incredibly stupid choice for attacking North Korea. The B-2 is the way to go if we ever need to do that.

Why do you say that?

Because the F-22 is an air superiority stealth fighter with limited armament for ground attack. The B-2 is a stealth, heavy bomber that can carry many times the bombs that an F-22 could.

There are a little over one dozen combat ready B-2s. There are dozens of combat ready F-22s. The F-22 is multi-role and can use its radar for ground mapping and ground moving target tracking. It can carry GPS guided bombs. The F-117 was hastily retired and its mission handed over to the F-22. I think any strike on North Korea would make use of F-22s in the ground attack role.

Not to mention, its excellent capabilities of detecting enemy air defense systems, and striking those with the GPS guided bombs.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: rchiu
F-22 is a serious waste of money. It is a very cool toy, no doubt about it. But it is only useful against conventional army with jet fighters and advance radar system.

But which conventional army is gonna mess with the US and its 5500 nuclear warheads?

US will be fighting terrorist and their road side bombs for years to come. Money will be better invested in training intelligence personnel, covert operations, guerrilla warfare type of amored vehicle, gunships.

Sure you can spent money on cool but useless toy when you got unlimited budgets. But let's not forget our historical 1.8 TRILLION budget deficit this year alone alright?

But I suppose China is warranted in building a fleet of stealth fighters....

Why, you want to conquer china or you seriuosly believe China will attack US? Don't forget the billions of trade that's currently going between US and China. What exactly will the US and China be fighting over? Taiwan? Tibet? Really? US will have the conviction to get into those conflicts when it's already fighting Muslim extremist in multiple countries?

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: rchiu
F-22 is a serious waste of money. It is a very cool toy, no doubt about it. But it is only useful against conventional army with jet fighters and advance radar system.

But which conventional army is gonna mess with the US and its 5500 nuclear warheads?

US will be fighting terrorist and their road side bombs for years to come. Money will be better invested in training intelligence personnel, covert operations, guerrilla warfare type of amored vehicle, gunships.

Sure you can spent money on cool but useless toy when you got unlimited budgets. But let's not forget our historical 1.8 TRILLION budget deficit this year alone alright?

But I suppose China is warranted in building a fleet of stealth fighters....

Why, you want to conquer china or you seriuosly believe China will attack US? Don't forget the billions of trade that's currently going between US and China. What exactly will the US and China be fighting over? Taiwan? Tibet? Really? US will have the conviction to get into those conflicts when it's already fighting Muslim extremist in multiple countries?

I'm certain the official policy of the US is not to "conquer China."

But that really wasn't my question. Does China need stealth fighters?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The F-22 would be an incredibly stupid choice for attacking North Korea. The B-2 is the way to go if we ever need to do that.

Why do you say that?

Because the F-22 is an air superiority stealth fighter with limited armament for ground attack. The B-2 is a stealth, heavy bomber that can carry many times the bombs that an F-22 could.

There are a little over one dozen combat ready B-2s. There are dozens of combat ready F-22s. The F-22 is multi-role and can use its radar for ground mapping and ground moving target tracking. It can carry GPS guided bombs. The F-117 was hastily retired and its mission handed over to the F-22. I think any strike on North Korea would make use of F-22s in the ground attack role.

Not to mention, its excellent capabilities of detecting enemy air defense systems, and striking those with the GPS guided bombs.

the F22 is primarily an air superiority fighter. its multi-purpose role is limited, hence the existence of the FA-18 and JSF (F35).

you think an F22 can carry as many bombs as a B2? :laugh:

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: rchiu
F-22 is a serious waste of money. It is a very cool toy, no doubt about it. But it is only useful against conventional army with jet fighters and advance radar system.

But which conventional army is gonna mess with the US and its 5500 nuclear warheads?

US will be fighting terrorist and their road side bombs for years to come. Money will be better invested in training intelligence personnel, covert operations, guerrilla warfare type of amored vehicle, gunships.

Sure you can spent money on cool but useless toy when you got unlimited budgets. But let's not forget our historical 1.8 TRILLION budget deficit this year alone alright?

But I suppose China is warranted in building a fleet of stealth fighters....

Why, you want to conquer china or you seriuosly believe China will attack US? Don't forget the billions of trade that's currently going between US and China. What exactly will the US and China be fighting over? Taiwan? Tibet? Really? US will have the conviction to get into those conflicts when it's already fighting Muslim extremist in multiple countries?

I'm certain the official policy of the US is not to "conquer China."

But that really wasn't my question. Does China need stealth fighters?

China has more external threat than the US. They have Japan, who actually invaded China and caused tremendous damage back in WW2, and Taiwan who may attempt to go independant. Both with pretty advanced airforce. They are also geographically connected to countries like vietname, India who they contiue to have border dispute with.

Again I wanna ask, which country with serious airforce is US currently having direct confrontation with?

Plus China spent 70Billion a year on military. Why does US have to spend 700+billion on all these program. Can't the US have a good enough military with maybe just 2~3 times the spending of China, the second biggest millitary spender in the world? (unless you count EU which is 27 countries)