more here
Posted on 11/07/2006 5:04:59 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Not to mention the zillions of Wal-Mart dollars.
Wal-Mart is a huge part of the reason China is not the threat it could be.
China's economy is dependant upon our own. Indeed, all it's savings are in U.S. Treasuries.
A serious attack on us would not only cripple their economy, it would piss away all they have saved.
Agreed. But they wanted the pilots to feel good about the plane...and to keep esprit de corps up, since it was an elite aircraft...just not a fighter...
Which should never be put at risk in conventional situations, as far as I'm concerned. These are the ace-in-the hole, last-ditch retaliatory means against nuclear attack. They shouldn't be squandered in that way. Nor should their operational capability be compromised by too frequent an opportunity for the enemy defenses to have to be tested and fine-tuned against such.
The F-117 was not intended to be the heavy bomber. It was always the first in to soften up the defenses. Once the fleet of F-117 s amd those "two-bombs" apiece did their thing...opening a clear path...then we can send in the "trucks".
You know that. And to decommission the F-117s with trouble brewing in Big China...is the precisely Wrong Thing to be doing.
As I said before. We need Numbers.
See above. Numbers count. And as far as the F-35, it is too short-ranged. So back to that again. It is way shorter distance range than the F-22. Particularly carrying heavy ordnance.
The Naval UCAS will be coming along,
Says you. It won't provide the air superiority. Nor will the F-35. The supersonic ship-attack missiles will be launched outside their range. Hence, we need the navalized F-22. This was the capability that the F-14/Phoenix gave us before...that is now retired without any replacement capability as the Threat Gathers.
and the AF will have the option of picking a few up.
Sigh. Dream on. The engineers at Boeing and Lockheed say flat out...don't bank on the UCAVs. They aren't supersonic. They aren't reliable in all weather. They aren't autonomous. They can be neutralized by a determined enemy with numbers of low-tech fighters, willing to use EMP devices. The UCAVs on CAP will drop like flies. And BEFORE you put up the argument that the F-22 is equally vulnerable to such a drastic attack...it has a couple more things going for it. It can be safely out of range of tactical EMP devices...and with supercruise swoop in on enemy bogies or supersonic cruise missiles. And unlike the UCAVs, after exhaustion of the payload bay of missiles, it can field its gun against the swarm of low-tech fighters that might follow in waves after the precursor attack...
The UCAVs..even with a gun pod... would be too slow to engage at the speeds typical of a Mig 21...let alone the Su-33s and Mig 29s.
And the next generation, is to water the eyes...
There is no next generation since we aren't even willing to fund the generation that we should be having right now. And btw, you go to war with what you have now. Not pie in the sky. This was the major mistakes of both Cheney and Rumsfeld. The Perfect becoming the enemy of the Good.
We also need to put back into practice the sage observations of President Thomas Jefferson, who said:
We confide in our strength without boasting of it; and we respect that of our enemies without fearing it.
Thomas Jefferson, 1793.
The attached incident should also prove a somber reminder of the perils of our smugness...and not just generally...but to wit, China:
Chinese Submarine Successfully Stalks U.S. Carrier Force Undetected
Navalized F-22 won't hunt. Too big for the carrier deck.
There is a 30 character equation on aircraft spotting factor. F-18c counts as "1.0". F-22 is about 2.4 on that scale.
bookmark
the F-14 managed to fly off carriers for decades, and it was massive.
Actually, its about the same weight as the F-14...
Guess it will hunt just fine.
Uh, spotting is a visual term. Visual size for a "stealth" aircraft are not the key factor.
Spotting factor is a technical term that concerns how much space on a carrier deck is consumed.
2.4 would mean that you give up 24 F-18s for 10 F-22s.
Someone needs to do some homework.
Do you know what the range of the F-117 is/was?
Gosh, do a little homework....
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-885JFall-2004/1ABA501E-4F31-4EEE-AEEB-123274492635/0/flight_controls_1.pdf
Look down to page 9.
To help your education.
Getting better, still not in our weight class. Note in the article this is presented as a pure domestic product, when actually it is final assembly of parts many key ones still supplied by Russia. Also note the comment in the article about the engine - Chinese has not yet fielded any modern jet engine produced domestically. This will be a first if it is. It is significant for that reason - it catches them up to Russian c 1980s or us c 1970s.
Democrats are currently selling the plans to the raptor no doubt.. or they will be in a few months..
No argument there. And it would be a good trade.
Someone needs to do some homework.
Flush the attitude. Your point is not pertinent to the issues at stake.
And btw, we nearly didn't even get Rumsfeld to sign off on the F-18 E/F...which is a mere "plug the gap" filler until a real air superiority option comes along. He was all set to have NO new carrier fighters at all.
someone signed off on f-18e/f. We are in full production here.
Most air forces: 95% hamburger, 5% dangerous.
US, NATO, Austrailia, Japan, and Israel are unusual, in that 80% and up are dangerous.
South Korea, Taiwan, and India are, in my uninformed estimation, in the second tier. Say 50% dangerous.
the rest: see first line.
North Vietnam had one fellow who was darned dangerous. The above isn't to say that those guys aren't there. It is to say that there are not very many of them.
And it takes a lot more time to get a trained air force than a trained pilot. Knowing how to use those pilots can only start after you have them.
In WWII it took 3 years for the US to figure out targeting. It took 7 years in Vietnam.
More attitude. Sigh. So you think we should never have deployed it? Get real. Neither should we be prematurely retiring any superior capabilities when numbers may be vital.
Anyrate here are the stats:
F-117A Combat range: 1112 km with max load
P.S. ...the F-35 is, currently, for all practical purposes, a non-existent aircraft. The maiden voyage of F-35 hasn't begun, so it should be impossible to know the "real" performance or combat radius.
So, considering the touted "on paper" projected ranges for it we see:
The performance or strike radius of JSF family should be just the "minimal requirement" from USAF (600 NM+ for F-35A), USN (700 NM+ for F-35C), and Marine (450 NM, for F-35B) not the actual one ~
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.