F/A-22 Ups and Downs; the Tacair Debate; [Brian's Military Ping List]

Air Force Association ^ | May 2004

[Tommyjo]

"Can you point me in the direction of any documentation regarding this? I'm fairly certain this is incorrect, but I'm willing to learn." YF-12A was the designation for the Blackbird interceptor. The missiles used and tested was not the Phoenix, but the AIM-47A Falcon. Some of the technology in the Falcon was put into the later developed AIM-54 Phoenix. The project was not put into service and NASA was the last operators of the airframes

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/yf12.htm

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f12.html

http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/srspec.html

AIM-47:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falim47a.htm

[Tommyjo]

Sorry about the links - just copy and paste them!

[VaBthang4]

What has taken up the jamming slack?

[VaBthang4]

The Sukhoi SU35 or 37. I am unsure of the designation. It burns down and outfights the 15, 16 & 18. Tracks I believe 10-15 targets and engages at least 2 simultaniously.

The 15 could probably go vertical and withdraw from the engagement but that implies a dogfight has begun...from what I've gleaned, there wont be a dogfight.

Again, not to dismiss our infSys and overall air combat strategy [the Sukhoi'd prolly never get a shot off] but in a straight up fight with pilots of matching skill and experience...the Sukhoi apparently wins [right now].

Could be alot of disinformation scare tactics on the part of the F-22 supporters but I'd rather be safe than sorry at this point.

Go ahead and run the 22. Kill the 35. The navy can either buy 22s or maybe the NG23 version of the ATF. The Marine Corps can sit on it...their fixation with VSTOL is outdated [this from a former Marine].

[Gunrunner2]

You are too kind.

Thanks for the compliment.

I find FR has some of the world's best informed and most knowledgeable people, on any number of subjects. . . and all with a great sense of humor as well.

[VaBthang4]

"Boy Nip, you need to get in touch with the Marine Corps. They are the acknowledged CAS experts. Funny thing is, all their CAS aircraft are "high speed, single seat fighter platforms."

The attrition rate for the Harrier is rediculous. It gets shot down by any arab hillbilly with a cheap russian heatseeker. The 18 is alright but the A-10 would so-so-so much better.

We [Marine Corps] should keep the 18s for air-to-air and buy A-10s for ground support.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Boy Nip, you need to get in touch with the Marine Corps. They are the acknowledged CAS experts.<<

Ahhhh. . .pardon me, the USAF (A-10's especially) are experts in this area too. Just thought I'd butt in.

[Gunrunner2]

The other ugly jet. . .E/A-6.

[Southack]

"Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that we need to be looking into the aeroSPACE theater. And we are. But Rutan's aircraft has no relevance to what is required to build a sub-orbital combat craft."

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to say that Rutan's craft is actually, literally a fighter.

What I'm saying is that his civilian craft (speed, payload, altitude, etc.) proves a concept. His current Space exploits show that we have already entered into the Space Age for the masses.

He's a civilian. He's flying a civilian craft today that is faster and that flies higher than the F-22. This civilian can go where the military F-22 can't go, into Space...And he's doing it for a measley $10 million...while carrying a 750 pound payload.

Well, *other* $10 million spacecraft are likewise possible. It's safe to say that other militaries around the world would love to have a $10 million craft that goes Mach 6, sub-orbital, with a 750 pound payload. Those other militaries are probably going to do more with that payload than just carry passengers, too.

Thus, Rutan has demonstrated a proof of concept. That civilians, yes, civilians are going cheaply into Space in 2004 should be sounding extra-loud alarm bells amongst military procurement specialists worldwide.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we haven't seen *civilian* technology in militarily useful matters be ahead of military procurement since the civilian Wright brothers had the ability to overfly our forts, troops, and ships before our military caught up with them. Now Rutan has leapfrogged military abilities again. His SpaceShipOne flies substantially faster and substantially higher than the F-22...for substantially less money.

It doesn't take a genius to see that components of Rutan's work will soon find their way into various militaries around the world.

The question, of course, is which military will be the first to field a sub-orbital fighter now that Rutan has shown that it can be done on the cheap.

[Tommyjo]

The EA-6B Prowler. The USAF have crews on the Navy birds. Many of the EF-111A guys moved onto the Prowler. The USMC also operate the Prowlers.

[Pukin Dog]

Thank you both for your comments. However, ol' Pukin has decided from re-reading this thread, that drinking and posting do not mix well. I got ahead of myself on a few of my comments, and did not make a lot of sense with respect to the JDAM and F-117. Apparently, booze causes my biases to come out, and that's not good for an intelligent discussion.

Helpful to have guys like Rokke and Gunrunner2 around when I get out of control. It's been too long since I was turnin and burnin in the Cat, and I think it is starting to show. Anyone offended has my apology.

[Tommyjo]

The concept that intrigues the military is a sub-orbital bomber, not a fighter. The Germans were researching into this type of sub-orbital bomber during WW2 for bombing stikes on North America and the US military has declared that it is interested in developing such a bomber.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/hitler_plan_bomb_newyork/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1463172.stm

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm

copy and paste links. I'm having problems even thought html auto-detect is highlighted 'on'.

[GBA]

I see Rutan's space ship as being a modern version of the Me-163 Komet. From what I've read, it wasn't all the effect against the bombers and quite vulnerable heading back to base. And unlike the WWII Messerschmitt, Rutan's plane needs a ride up.

If you want a space plane that needs a ride up and can glide back down, call NASA. They've been doing that for quite a few years. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they carry more than 750 lbs of payload.

[GBA]

"We [Marine Corps] should keep the 18s for air-to-air and buy A-10s for ground support."

Since the A-10 has proven itself to be very useful, buying more would make a lot of sense. I could never understand why the AF was so quick to kill it off. Why not make it better? I'm sure it could be improved somehow.

[Rokke]

I think you greatly overestimate the technological leap of Rutan's aircraft. Yeah, it's neat that a civilian is building it, but his aircraft doesn't represent any new technology or even concept. We are more than capable of building what is essentially a ballistic profile powered glider. But it has no military application outside of a ballistic missile. If his technology has significant military application, we'd happily adapt. The military has had contracts with Rutan before. But until he can demonstrate the ability to place a maneuverable aircraft in sustained, sub-orbital flight with the capability to actually put a weapon on target, I don't think anyone in the Pentagon is going to start rewriting OPPlans.

[Southack]

If China and Russia field 1,000 sub-orbital fighters, bombers, recon, and special ops aircraft based upon Rutan's proven civilian technology, will you still be comfortable that the Pentagon has no fighters that can climb up and speed up fast enough to meet, intercept, and escort them?

[Rokke]

Considering Rutan's proven technology is a glider, I'm not sure the threat is any worse than the thousands of MIRV's already targetted at our mainland.

[Southack]

"Considering Rutan's proven technology is a glider, I'm not sure the threat is any worse than the thousands of MIRV's already targetted at our mainland."

I agree, but I want missile defense against MIRV's and I want Space defenses against sub-orbital fighters/bombers and I want to have our own orbital and sub-orbital fighters/bombers.

The F-22 gives us none of the above.

[VaBthang4]

Okay, thanks.

[VaBthang4]

I wasn't offended. I wished you could've stayed longer.