Posted on 01/31/2008 9:02:42 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Yep....their paper only motivates a parakeet !
“But it’s equally ridiculous to decree that we no longer need an air-superiority fighter when there is still a China, a Russia, an Iran, out there. I don’t care what the qualifications of the authors are, that’s just stupid.”
I agree with that. Is an enormously expensive F-22 the only answer though?
Bump to read later
I bet they would make quick work of Hugo Chavez’s new Russian fighters, if that ever came up.
No-it was just that para was at the end of the article-I didn’t notice it while posting.
This must be why our allies want to buy it, regardless of cost or restrictions.
Having been a former supporter of the Raptor, I agree with every point in this article. Read up on the Reaper, big brother to the Predator. Capable of carrying slightly less payload than the A-10 and costing around the same amount while incorporating the same stealth technology the Raptor employs. And here’s the best part, it’s a UCAV. No live’s put in danger, and we can blow up way more sh*t. Sounds like a much better deal to me.
Sorry, I misunderstood....got it.
Huh?
The A-10 was designed to fight the horde of Soviet tanks that would have cruised right into Western Europe, if that particular steaming pile had hit the oscillating blades.
Scuse the intrusion, but if this UCAV is big, that is a full size fighter, what kinda Gs do you think it could pull off if needed to dodge an incoming?
“The Air Force has failed to reach a point in F-22 production where it can be bought more efficiently.”
This usually doesn’t happen until the production is cancelled. They get cheaper after that.
I’m not qualified to comment on the accuracy of this, but it is based, quite a bit, on hypotheticals. Given that, I’d rely on the Pentagon’s hypotheticals before I’d rely on yours.
I think the F-22 has it’s place. It’s an amazing aircraft.
OTOH, as a ground troop, having “been there, done that”, I’d much rather look up and see an A-10 than an F-22. LOL
U.S. carrier help? (Admiral offers help to China)
Adm. Tim Keating, the U.S. Pacific Command leader, told reporters during his visit to China last month that while building and operating a carrier battle group is complex, the United States is willing to help.
"We would, if they choose to develop [an aircraft-carrier program], help them to the degree that they seek and the degree that we're capable, in developing their programs," Adm. Keating said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1845931/posts
U.S. may share missile info with China
WASHINGTON, June 4 (UPI) -- The United States would "seriously" consider sharing technology and missile warning intelligence with China, (Secretary of Defense Gates) the U.S. defense chief said Sunday.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846099/posts
Some China firms avoid U.S. technology transfer licenses
WASHINGTON: Six months ago, the U.S. government quietly eased some restrictions on the export of sensitive technologies to China. The new approach was intended to help U.S. companies increase sales of high-technology equipment to China despite tight curbs on sharing technology that might have military applications.
But now the administration is facing questions from weapons experts about whether some equipment - newly authorized for export to Chinese companies deemed trustworthy by Washington - could instead end up helping China modernize its military. Equally worrisome, the weapons experts say, is the possibility that China could share the technology with Iran or Syria.
The technologies include advanced aircraft engine parts, navigation systems, telecommunications equipment and sophisticated composite materials.
Does the reaper fill the same mission as the raptor? The authors compare a10 and raptor air-to-ground capability, but that’s not the 22’s primary role.
From GlobalAircraft:
The A-10 was designed for close support in low intensity conflicts during the Vietnam War, yet it came to be seen as a dedicated anti-armor platform by the early 1970s. Early before the A-10 came into production, however, the USAF held a flyoff between the Northrop YA-9 and the Fairchild Republic A-10. The A-10 was chosen and 707 A-10A’s went into production. The Warthog, as it came to be known, was designed for high-survivability with a large-area wing, rear-mounted engines, and redundant and armored flight controls. A titanium covering surrounds both the cockpit and ammunition tank. As A-10’s entered service in the USAF around 1977, and as vulnerability of the A-10 was questioned it was slowly withdrawn in favor of the F-16. Although the A-10 was never exported, it was redesignated OA-10 for the Forward Air Control role. The only difference between the A-10 and OA-10 is that the OA-10 only carries smoke rockets and AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs for self-defense.
From the Wiki:
In 1969, the Secretary of the Air Force asked Pierre Sprey to write the detailed specifications for the proposed A-X project. However, his initial involvement was kept secret due to Sprey’s earlier controversial involvement in the F-X project.[3] Sprey’s discussions with A-1 Skyraider pilots operating in Vietnam indicated they wanted an aircraft that had long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability.[3] Based upon this information Sprey felt the need to build an aircraft similar to the best elements of the Ilyushin Il-2, Henschel Hs 129 and A-1 Skyraider.
From Smallwarsjournal (a site worth your time)
US Air Force ( USAF) Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley has told Jane’s he is considering the creation of a new counterinsurgency (COIN) squadron of A-10A Thunderbolt II aircraft for the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC).
I was working at Nellis during the OT&E for the A-10 (yes, I am that old, thank you) a dream for the CAS team, the A10 has gotten creamed every time it has gone up against fixed site defenses.
COIN is it. And the A-10 a *very good* choice.
For for going 1 v 1 on the Su-29/30 - I’m thinking the F-22 is the better deal.
Right mission for the right airframe. Can’t wait for the genX UAV/UAS to have the covers removed and come ut into the light...
I know the Reaper is around half the size of a “normal” fighter. However, I’m not 100% sure of its manueverability. Half the size of such “normal” fighter is the cockpit and extra fuel capacity to carry the pilot. Take all that away and you get the Reaper. I’m sure that the Reaper probably can’t out manuever an F-22 or an SU-37, but air to air combat is won by pilot skill more than aircraft ability. I’m 23 and grew up playing all sorts of air combat simulators. Flying a Reaper is just like that. It turns air warfare into a video game. No pilots will be lost and overall war casualties will be dramatically reduced, which is what we are after in the first place.
Geez, who needs Hillary; the commander of the Pacific fleet is advocating HELPING the ChiComs build their carrier fleet?
Why does that guy still have his stars?
Just what the Hell is going on!?
If I’m not mistaken, the Reaper was developed to be the unmanned version of the Raptor. I’m unsure if the Reaper has the same manueverability as a Raptor, but I believe it was developed to take on both air-to-air and air-to-ground sorties.
I think it’s more of an endurance rig vs evading a surface to air or air to air threat........no super ability to handle extreme G’s with that wing design IMO.
On the other hand I think a UCAV version of the F22 could pull G’s that would squash a rock.....:o)
I like the UCAV’s for the missions they currently serve. making the islamaazis turn into pink mist 24/7 !
Stay Safe SR !!!
Because every one of yours and their points are wrong. They (and you) don't have a clue as to the F-22's full suite of capabilities, and they are addressing it as if it were going to fight the wars of the 1970s, the last time Spey was current with anything.
Cost in war is always too much, unless it's your butt on the line. Where did you and the Spey clowns ever get the idea that it's not deployable? It is capable of all missions beyond air superiority, including some of which you can not imagine a fighter doing, and it is not designed for Iraq and Afghanistan, which it can do, but for the wars awaiting us from China and once again, Russia, and their clients.
Your logic (and Spey's) is not new - we heard it in the late 30's when we tried to fight Zeros and Messerschmidts with obsolete P40s, and in the early 50's when our new F86s faced a Mig that could outclimb and outturn it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.