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

Air Force Association ^ | May 2004

[Southack]

"I like the way you think. If Rhutan can build one for $10M, what do you think the per-unit cost would be for a production run of a thousand? $5M? $1M?"

The numbers for changing SpaceShipOne into a fighter and then mass-producing them are so low that to print them only invites idle laughter.

What can't be denied is that even hand-building them from scratch is cheap...that they go higher than anything that anyone has...and that they are faster.

Not bad for civilians.

In the meantime, pork projects like the F-22 and F-35 divert our attentions and resources away from going sub-orbital.

Civilians can go sub-orbital but our military can't. We haven't seen this sort of technological discrepancy since the Wright brothers had the ability to fly over forts before our military could duplicate the feat.

[Gunrunner2]

Well, they have fielded 4 jets at Tyndall and training sims are on-line as well. More jets each few months. (Tyndall is the training base, Langley will be the first operational base.)

[JasonC]

We've had this discussion before, and you haven't convince me the least tiny little bit. You are preaching vaporware. As for what isn't made obsolete by F-15s, the answer is all the modern MiGs and Sus, which the Chicoms are buying, etc. There is a world of difference between countering anything the enemy can do, and just having an equivalent plane to theirs. (Yes Virginia, modern Sus and MiGs are fully equal to the F-15 et al. Unsurprising, since the latter are 30 year old technology).

[lt.america]

Bingo! I did not read the entire story, but I saw the part when it was talking about dogfights with the F-15. When was the last time we were in a dogfight? The bigger question is CAS, and from what I have seen this is not the most ideal fighter for this mission.

[Rokke]

"Also, you do realize that Rutan has *already* gone sub-orbital this year, yes?!"

The V-2 went sub-orbital. But it is a long way from the Space Shuttle. The magic of the F-22 isn't the airframe. The magic is in its avionics. Orange County Choppers could probably build a 9g fighter. It takes the finest minds in American industry to incorporate an Air Force's worth of electronics into a single aircraft.

[Southack]

"The F-22 can't make toast either. In fact, to my knowledge, no current US fighter aircraft can, so I guess we might as well just give up on them. SpaceShipOne is designed for a completely different purpose than a fighter aircraft, it has no attack or defense capabilities of any kind, nor could they easily be added."

And yet, if I described a Russian fighter that could outrun our fighters and go sub-orbital, you'd scream that we were behind the Russians in aviation technology (and in that scenario, you'd be correct).

I've said it before on this thread and I'll say it again: Rutan's SpaceShipOne is important to illustrate that a technological milestone has been crossed. Civilian aircraft are now flying at Mach 6 and going sub-orbital.

If you think that the entire military world is going to miss the importance of this new paradigm shift then you are in the wrong line of analysis.

[VaBthang4]

I understand what you are saying about sub-orbital.
I can only [find comfort] assume the Air Force's RD types have considered the very same concepts.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Maximum Ceiling for the F117? Is that knowable outside of a security clearance?<<

Yes. . .unclass sources like Janes and FAS have this data. We release unclassified data but never the true stuff. And if someone guesses correct we never confirm so they never know.

True operational and service ceiling, as well as employment ceiling and tactics are classified and not discussed.

[Gunrunner2]

Not really aware of this space system you are talking about. What sort of weapons does it have and what's it's corner velocity and rate/radius for max G turn? What sort of targeting radar does it have?

[Shryke]

Civilians can go sub-orbital but our military can't.

I must assume that you know this is a preposterous statement (and WHY do you keep comparing a rocket to jets?). Let's get past that: why is it you believe a sub-orbital, hyper-velocity weapons platform would suit our needs? Wasn't the Aurora built with those parameters?

[VaBthang4]

Thanks again.

Hey y'all Gunrunner2 rocks! Check him out! Go'head boy!

Haha... :o)

[Terabitten]

Would be way too costly to open that line again. . .especially when you can justify spending big bucks on a multi-role stealth jet rather than try and defend spending big bucks on a single mission non-stealthy jet.

Okay, I'm gonna show my ignorance here, so please educate me. Can all these gee-whizbang fighters *really* do as good a job supporting the grunts as a Warthog? Hell, I'd be in favor of bringing back the old Spad (Skyraider, not snoopy's) to support the infantry.

[Gunrunner2]

Goodness. . .there you go again. . .blowing my cover as a quiet and shy guy. . .

[GBA]

When the MiG-29 first came out, it could do almost anything the F-18 could do that was with hydrolic controls, no fly-by-wire. The Sukois look easy radar targets, but I imagine they can put their nose on almost anything in our inventory in almost any situation. Big assed bird with lots of motor and by the looks of things, lots of room for radar. Add the right missle and it's a decent match for what we're flying...even if it did take them a while to catch up. So there you are...now it's time for us to move the ball. And regardless of how many more g's the plane can take vs the pilot, UAVs aren't ready for prime time. That means giving the pilot stealth, supercruise, and payload along with agility and range. I like pilots. I want our country to pay them retirement benefits. Sounds like the F-22 to me.

And if you're thinking Rutan's little plane is the next generation...well, you're ahead of even Rutan himself. Yes, I know that they're ahead of schedule and will likely win the competition they're in. Don't think the Canadian rocket has much of a chance. But you've had a few too many if you think Rutan's little rocket is our next air superiority fighter. I really did like his close air support concept, though. And if I ever have enough money, I'd like to go for a ride. Probably would be even more fun than the GlassAir III acrobatic ride I took at Sun 'n' Fun a few years ago.

[Rockpile]

GET MORE WARTHOGS!

I agree with you but it isn't likely to happen. Besides, I will hazard a guess that the tooling, etc. for the A 10s is long gone.

Actually, the post World War II laws need to be changed and the Army ought to have it's own fixed wing Tactical Air branch but that ain't ever going to happen.

[VaBthang4]

I figured you'd appreciate my 'reality recognition' in post #30.

:o)

[Gunrunner2]

Quick answer---NO.

Honestly, the A-10 is the best for the CAS role.

The A-10 can hang around the AOR to affect the battle, whereas most other jets can't. Altitude has nothing to do with CAS, but time-on-tgt and multiple weapons passes does. The Gun is versatile and effective and gives the guys on the ground all sorts of support. A couple of PGM's or a 5-min play-time isn't gonna help much. But, to be honest, ANY air support is better than none.

[been_lurking]

What we don't have is a fighter that can fly higher or faster than a civilian named Rutan.

I'm going to assume that you are fairly intelligent on air doctrine. Given that assumption, I will also have to concede that you are fully aware of the practical limitations of sub-orbital, Mach 6+ flight vis-a-vis modern air doctrine.

So... just what the heck are you going on about?

[Terabitten]

Quick answer---NO.

So, once again, the grunts get screwed so we can have bigger faster more expensive toys.

Great.

[Southack]

" The magic of the F-22 isn't the airframe. The magic is in its avionics."

Then the Pentagon bureaucrats who want to save the F22 should tout the electronics. Instead they harp on the F-22's stealth airframe and its high speed (never forgetting to mention the miraculous "supercruising" capability). Yawn.

Even the F-22's avionics are in question, as this article mentions that the F-22's radar needs to be upgraded already to something to fit its new mission profile of plinking at ground targets.

Frankly, we can put avionics on just about any modern fighter. So I'm unpersuaded that avionics are the key F-22 breakthrough.

Heck, lets just say it: I'm unpersuaded about the entire F-22. Sure, it's the best fighter ever made...but its closest competition was the F-18. We're paying to beat ourselves in a race that has already been lost to civilians who are now going sub-orbital at Mach 6.