F-22 problems
07-12-2009, 07:54 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
Another interesting slide presentation / brief on the F-22 by Sprey
Interesting points... curious if the fighter guys agree or disagree with these:
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Stevenson%20F-22%20Brief.pdf
Interesting points... curious if the fighter guys agree or disagree with these:
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Stevenson%20F-22%20Brief.pdf
07-13-2009, 09:16 AM
#43
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 36
07-14-2009, 08:39 AM
#44
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 33
This is a great discussion!
That Sprey editorial was brutal. I thought this part was particularly shocking:
Does this mean stealth really doesn't work? If "ordinary ground radars" can see stealth planes, I imagine SAM radars must be able to lock on to them with no problem. The Wikipedia entry for the MIM-104 Patriot system implies as much:
That Sprey editorial was brutal. I thought this part was particularly shocking:
It is near delusional to ignore that all our stealth aircraft since the SR-71 have been routinely detected by ordinary ground radars around the world...
I'm not in the military and never have been. The closest I get to fighter planes is the Military Channel. Perhaps that's why I was shocked to learn that "all our stealth aircraft [are] routinely detected by ordinary ground radars around the world."Does this mean stealth really doesn't work? If "ordinary ground radars" can see stealth planes, I imagine SAM radars must be able to lock on to them with no problem. The Wikipedia entry for the MIM-104 Patriot system implies as much:
The beam created by the Patriot's flat phased array radar is comparatively narrow and highly agile compared to a moving dish. This gives the radar an unmatched ability to detect small, fast targets like ballistic missiles, or low radar cross section targets such as stealth aircraft or cruise missiles.
Is stealth a boondoggle? Have the taxpayers spent billions for a technology that makes airplanes more expensive, difficult to repair, reduces readiness and fundamentally doesn't work?
07-14-2009, 09:09 AM
#45
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Phil1111
More cuts proposed: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...ef=global-home
07-15-2009, 06:40 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Originally Posted by radmanly
Is stealth a boondoggle? Have the taxpayers spent billions for a technology that makes airplanes more expensive, difficult to repair, reduces readiness and fundamentally doesn't work?
07-15-2009, 06:43 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by LivingInMEM
Stealth does not mean invisible, it just means a smaller RCS vs traditional radars. Unfortunately, every military technology eventually has a counter-technology and/or tactic. Military advances including stealth are like patents, you pay a lot of money in R&D but should only expect to have the resulting advantage for a certain amount of time (especially when our own gov't/military/manufacturers brag on every advance we make).
07-20-2009, 09:11 AM
#49
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
radio show
Diane Rehm of National Public Radio is hosting a call-in show on the cancellation of the F-22 program around 10am CDT tomorrow (Tuesday 7/21). Check her website for the time and whether your local NPR station will carry it. Rehm is known for hard hitting questions and she is slightly left of center politically but not by much. She will have a guest host subbing for her that day it says.
07-20-2009, 09:41 AM
#50
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 33
Secretary of Defense Gates recently gave an interesting speech on strategy and procurement. Some highlights:
"It simply will not do to base our strategy solely on continuing to design and buy as we have for the last 60 years only the most technologically advanced versions of weapons to keep up with or stay ahead of another superpower adversary especially one that imploded nearly a generation ago."
"If the Department of Defense cant figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships and planes."
"The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program."
"Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs."
"Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security."
"If the Department of Defense cant figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships and planes."
"The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program."
"Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs."
"Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
