A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
donley2 wrote:Hmm. How long can I continue to bite my tongue?
Until all people who may wish to do us harm have beaten their swords into ploughshares. It's better to build a weapon and never have to use it, than to need a weapon and not have it ready to use. The reality of war is like Murphy's Law, when you're least prepared is when it will come. I'm the most dovish ex-mil you'll ever meet, but even I know the value of constant vigilance and preparedness. Think of all the billions of dollars of nukes (and nuke R&D) that were made in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s that are now obsolete and unusable. MAD works though.
Yes, I'm sure all the poor grunts in Iraq who had to buy their own body armor or cobble together more for their Humvees will be glad to know that when Independence Day comes Will Smith will have something to fly that can beat off the aliens.
I'm certainly happy that the big hats in the Pentagon aren't emulating the French (having prepped for the Franco-Prussian war in 1914 and WWI in 1940), but being too far ahead, IMHO, is about as bad as being too far behind. The brass's love affair with toys at the expense of bodies on the ground has tilted too far.
I'm as hardcore a fan of military technology (particularly planes) as anybody, but the soldiers themselves should come first and they're not being served as well as they should.
At something like $150M per unit, the F-22 is a CEO-type luxury.
end of rant
Great point GH. While egg heads are spending billions on toys, our men on the ground need the best protection we can possible produce and they were not getting it.
Wow and people call ME naive. I assume you are one of those people who demand peace at any cost. When you've lost you're freedom, it's too late to consider the cost.
SQUACKEE wrote:Great point GH. While egg heads are spending billions on toys, our men on the ground need the best protection we can possible produce and they were not getting it.
You're not reading what I wrote.
It's a unique feeling to be The Hawk here. That's never happened to me before.
Marlow wrote:In 1986 (!!!) when the F-22 went into R&D we were still neck-deep in the Cold War (which the Soviet Union was 'winning' arms-wise)
Or not . . .
You know not of what you speak - it's just that simple. I know what the Soviet Union was capable of then. And I have never seen unclassified documents about it since. It's far scarier than what you can imagine.
Marlow wrote:In 1986 (!!!) when the F-22 went into R&D we were still neck-deep in the Cold War (which the Soviet Union was 'winning' arms-wise)
Or not . . .
You know not of what you speak - it's just that simple. I know what the Soviet Union was capable of then. And I have never seen unclassified documents about it since. It's far scarier than what you can imagine.
Tin foil hats are on, I see.
Look, I'm not saying that what the SU had wasn't plenty scary, but the US had (and has) more than our fair share of scary shit too.
Oh no, you're free to take it off now. Russia, China, who have you, are pale ghosts of the SU
bad hammy wrote:Look, I'm not saying that what the SU had wasn't plenty scary, but the US had (and has) more than our fair share of scary shit too.
Indeed we did, and ours was far more technologically advanced (smarter), but they had MORE and BIGGER sticks than we did - again, it's just that simple. As was oft repeated then: The USA - the world's second largest nuclear power.
On Saturday afternoon (Dec 6th), two F16's flew no more than 1000 ft over our house. They were coming from the Rose Bowl, where they were marking the kick-off of the UCLA-USC game. Pretty impressive sight.
There was also some fighter activity here in Pasadena yesterday, as well (I could hear it, but didn't see it). I assume it was for Pearl Harbor ceremonies.
Marlow wrote:One of their 100-megaton bombs, built and tested, airburst over NYC would kill 20-30 million in the first day and over 50 million in a week.
Note that the 100-Mt design was not aircraft deliverable (at least at the time in the early 1960s). The scaled-down 50-Mt version was, however it was too expensive for what it was.
A short lesson in nuclear bombs: the damage area of a nuclear weapons scales as the cube-root of the yield. So, a 1-megaton (1000 kt) weapon only has 10 times the damage radius of a 1-kt bomb. That means that bigger yield isn't better. The 100-Mt device would only have a blast radius about 4.5x that of a megaton weapon. It's thus far more "efficient" to cover an area with multiple smaller warheads than one large one.
That's why strategic arsenals never really exceeded the 20-Mt range, with the average size being about a megaton (and most tactical nukes being in the 100-500 kt range).
JRM wrote:It's thus far more "efficient" to cover an area with multiple smaller warheads than one large one..
Which is why their MIRV (Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) capabilities were so fearsome. I tracked Delta submarines that housed 16 silos for them babies and if the balloon had ever gone up, I was supposed to sink that mutha before it launched. [not a snowball's chance in a thermonuclear blast that I could have done it in time! ]
JRM wrote:A short lesson in nuclear bombs: the damage area of a nuclear weapons scales as the cube-root of the yield. So, a 1-megaton (1000 kt) weapon only has 10 times the damage radius of a 1-kt bomb. That means that bigger yield isn't better. The 100-Mt device would only have a blast radius about 4.5x that of a megaton weapon. It's thus far more "efficient" to cover an area with multiple smaller warheads than one large one.
My gawd. Look how we have migrated from a simple sonic boom to the ultimat big nuclear boom. Poor Marlow has been painted as a peaceful highschool teacher and track coach with a secret warmongering past.
Lets get back to the sonic boom. Bring back the great old Lockheed F-104 at mach 1.1 right over the Rose Bowl during the New Years game. That should shake em up!
Now we've gone from sonic booms, to nuclear booms, back to sonic booms, to a football game to free shirts to kneecapping. I guess "stay the course" has a new meaning in the USA,............now it means, wander all over. scheesch.
The B-2 stealth bomber did a fly-over of the Rose Parade this morning, which was somewhat impressive (it was an hour late!). But, the absolutely MORE impressive sight was following the fly-over of the game. Our house is about 2 miles directly south of the Rose Bowl. The B-2 banked directly over my front lawn, at what had to be no more than 600 ft altitude. Simply incredible sight (and bone-rattling sound)! That's a New Year's tradition I always look forward to!
gh wrote:Speaking of the F-22 boondoggle, this was in my paper this morning:
<<....Gates also dared challenge the military-industrial complex over egregious military spending on projects such as the $65 billion F-22 stealth fighter plane that was designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses that were never built and has yet to fly a combat sortie in either the Afghanistan or Iraq wars....>>
Sure looks pretty though, eh?
This a multi-generation e-mailing that I got from a Marine pilot buddy:
Subject: F22 Briefing
Just a little more data on the greatest flying machine going. Except, maybe the F-35.
AWESOME MACHINE.
F-22 Briefing - Dallas 2008
We were briefed on operations with the F-22 by two pilots of the 90th Fighter Squadron, presently in Alaska at Elmendorf. They were unassuming young jocks who looked remarkably like we did 40 years ago. While they tried to keep the briefing low key it was obvious they felt superior in capabilities to anyone else in the world. I agree with that assessment.
PERFORMANCE
They didn’t talk much about the performance of the 22 but most of us had seen demo flights. I include an Energy Maneuverability chart below for comparison to the F-15, the predominate fighter of the day before the F-22 came into service.
Redefining the meaning of high performance,
This chart shows the ability of the F-22 to MAINTAIN 5 G’s at max power. The 22 can sustain a 5 G turn in max power up to 54,000 feet at about .95 mach. At mach 1.8 he can sustain a 5 G turn at 62,000 feet.
The F-15 can maintain a 5 G turn in full power up to about 30,000 feet. I estimate that an F-4 could maintain a 5 G turn at max power below around 5,000 feet. I don’t believe an F-100 could MAINTAIN a 5 G turn at any altitude. By this I mean that in an F-100 you could go as fast as you want on the deck in full burner, enter a 5 G turn and you would begin to lose energy, eventually falling below 5 G’s.
I compared the Dash one E-M charts for the F-4E and it cannot even MAINTAIN LEVEL FLIGHT at max power at the upper levels of the F-22 5 G range. Incredible!
COMBAT CAPABILITY
We were given an unclassified briefing that was nonetheless eye watering. Conversation with ET Murphy had given me an Eagle’s eye view of the Raptor but this was from the other side. When I mentioned these tests at Eglin, the Raptor guy said that it didn’t matter how many were against the Raptor. Kills were only limited by numbers of weapons carried.
First of all the F-22 cannot be seen by the enemy. It does not use active radar like other fighters. Yet it has a complete 360 degree threat awareness capability, seeing everything above it, below it, from in front and behind. This includes all aircraft in the area and all missiles on the ground around it.
The F-22 is tied into all others in his flight and sees everything that all F-22’s in his flight sees, and everything (that he wants) that an AWACS sees, if one is around. He sees this in an easy to read, all purpose scope that has user friendly displays. For example, friendly aircraft are displayed as green blips on his scope, enemies are red. They say, “If you're red, you're dead.”
The can engage multiple enemy targets with their fire-and-forget, all aspect missiles (the latest AIM-9’s, AMRAMS and Sparrows). They have multiple communication options including scrambled audio that can be used within their own flight only, if they so desire. They can coordinate information through a system they call “High Fiddle” which is High Frequency Data Link, tieing them together with Data Link.
They have sensors that let them look through the floor of the cockpit, so to speak electronically and see missile sites on the ground, displayed on the scope with SAM rings depending in size on the type of missile detected. They practice coordination with F-15s/16’s and can guide the latter to avoid having them flying into the SAM rings while the F-22’s can move through them without worry.
The F-22 radar keeps track of all targets by shooting out pencil beam radar signals, lasting fractions of a second that gives them heading, speed, and type aircraft information. And it does this automatically, keeping track of all aircraft in the area. The radar, on its own sends these signals out periodically to keep track of the targets around without giving away its own position.
All weapons (including JDAMS if needed) are carried internal. When they fire a missile, the bay doors snap open, the missile fires and the doors close immediately. Only in the second or so that the doors are open is there any radar reflection area to be detected.
They have variable nozzles for the engines which allows them to appear to defy the laws of physics while maneuvering. These nozzles move left, right and up and down, allowing the aircraft to move laterally and to engage in any attitude. In other words a fighter could be chasing an F-22, assuming he could see it, and the 22 could turn laterally and fire its all-aspect missiles from any position or attitude.
I asked one of the pilots how they used the nozzles. He told me that they just used normal controls and the computer does the rest.
At one point in the briefing on of those attending, talking about fighting F-15’s, said something like, “I guess you can fly circles around the F-15’s.” One of the young Raptor drivers spoke, almost under his breath, saying “That’s basically what we do.” I was close enough to hear him. Not everyone did
While they tried to keep the briefing low key it was obvious they felt superior in capabilities to anyone else in the world. I agree with that assessment.
Whoever thinks the F22 is a boondoggle just needs to picture himself in their flight boots. What machine do you want strapped to your butt when the whistle blows? And we all know it will - hopefully constrained to a tactical strike - but I for one am glad we have them.
gh wrote:It's still a ludicrous boondoggle. Nothing will ever convince me of anything otherwise, particularly at a time when money is so tight.
To be cheesy and melodramatic, the cost of freedom is priceless. The exorbitant cost of the F-22 is mostly the R&D involved, not just how much it is to build one. The R&D started decades again, when we did not know what our priorities would be. I agree that the F-22 and the number ordered LOOKS like a waste of money we don't really have, but that is not something we could have determined before the fact, nor do we know what the world will look like in 5 years, when we might actually NEED these aircraft. This is the same dance we go through when the DoD wants a new $mega-billion submarine or aircraft carrier. The cynics say they are unnecessary, too costly, and will be obsolete by the time they are built, but even here in the 21st Century, we still need them.
National Defense cannot be second-guessed. That's one of the great lessons of history.
Marlow wrote:National Defense cannot be second-guessed. That's one of the great lessons of history.
I agree and with Iran most likely buying some "super jets" from Russia in the near future it is important we have a jet that can fly circles around it.
gh wrote:It's still a ludicrous boondoggle. Nothing will ever convince me of anything otherwise, particularly at a time when money is so tight.
To be cheesy and melodramatic, the cost of freedom is priceless. The exorbitant cost of the F-22 is mostly the R&D involved, not just how much it is to build one. The R&D started decades again, when we did not know what our priorities would be. I agree that the F-22 and the number ordered LOOKS like a waste of money we don't really have, but that is not something we could have determined before the fact, nor do we know what the world will look like in 5 years, when we might actually NEED these aircraft. This is the same dance we go through when the DoD wants a new $mega-billion submarine or aircraft carrier. The cynics say they are unnecessary, too costly, and will be obsolete by the time they are built, but even here in the 21st Century, we still need them.
National Defense cannot be second-guessed. That's one of the great lessons of history.
I'm with Marlow. Despite his deplorable political leanings and eclectic taste in movies (not that that is a bad thing) he is right on this one.
gh wrote:If the F22 is so essential to our national defense, how come it has yet to fly its first combat mission? (that is the case, isn't it?) I'm not remotely agin military spending; I'm agin spending it on the wrong tools, and this is as wrong as it gets.
The F-22 is NOT essential to our national defense . . . right now . . . but neither I, nor anyone else, can predict whether it might not be VITALLY essential to our national defense in just a few short years. We have never used ANY of our nuclear arsenal in the last 60 years, so there's $Billions in R&D AND production that was deployed and then discarded, totally unused . . . but they were still 'essential'.
Marlow wrote:The F-22 is NOT essential to our national defense . . . right now . . . but neither I, nor anyone else, can predict whether it might not be VITALLY essential to our national defense in just a few short years.
Seems like this line of reasoning can be used to justify the development of absolutely any weapon system, regardless of cost or practicality.
gh wrote:This a multi-generation e-mailing that I got from a Marine pilot buddy:
Subject: F22 Briefing
Just a little more data on the greatest flying machine going. Except, maybe the F-35.
Marlow wrote:The F-22 is NOT essential to our national defense . . . right now . . . but neither I, nor anyone else, can predict whether it might not be VITALLY essential to our national defense in just a few short years.
Seems like this line of reasoning can be used to justify the development of absolutely any weapon system, regardless of cost or practicality.
gh wrote:This a multi-generation e-mailing that I got from a Marine pilot buddy:
Subject: F22 Briefing
Just a little more data on the greatest flying machine going. Except, maybe the F-35.
...
So if the F-22 is a boondoggle, what's the F-35?
And what's the $750 billion banking, Insurance, Automaker, Wall street, etc. etc. hand out?
The F-22 is a 'nice' enough aircraft, but the designers at Lockheed Martin put all their eggs into one basket - namely stealth.
As an example, the aircraft I am involved in designing pulls 9g subsonic and 7g supersonic and will maintain 6g all day long (rather than 5g of the F-22). It can supercruise as well as the F-22 (i.e. fly supersonically without the use of afterburner) and has inherent aerodynamic instability (i.e. centre of gravity positioned behind the centre of lift), which gives superior manoeuvrability.
The main problem with the F-22 (apart from it being a bit pricey) is that it relies entirely on Radar warfare to win the fight - its electronically scanned APG-77 Radar and internal AMRAAM carriage rely on not being seen, prior to launching a missile ("First look, first shot, first kill" mentality).
But the weapons bay doors take significantly longer than 1 second to open and close (= detection possible by an enemy fighter) and what about IRST (Infra-Red Search & Track)?? Unless your fighter has the ability to shroud its engine exhausts (like the F-117) in order to reduce IR from the jet pipe (which it doesn't, since this technique is geometrically incompatible with afterburning engines) or to cool its wing leading edges so that it blends in with the -56°C outside air temperature at 30,000 ft (which it doesn't, as it would require too much power), then the F-22 is vulnerable to sensitive infra-red attack sensors that are being fitted to other contemporary jet fighters. The F-22 itself is not fitted with such a sensor...
And when PAK-FA comes along (whether it be in the hands of the Russians or anyone else they've sold it to for hard currency) your gung-ho pilots who always think they're better than anyone else, will need to be very careful indeed.
Rob wrote:The F-22 is a 'nice' enough aircraft, but the designers at Lockheed Martin put all their eggs into one basket - namely stealth.
As an example, the aircraft I am involved in designing pulls 9g subsonic and 7g supersonic and will maintain 6g all day long (rather than 5g of the F-22). It can supercruise as well as the F-22 (i.e. fly supersonically without the use of afterburner) and has inherent aerodynamic instability (i.e. centre of gravity positioned behind the centre of lift), which gives superior manoeuvrability.
The main problem with the F-22 (apart from it being a bit pricey) is that it relies entirely on Radar warfare to win the fight - its electronically scanned APG-77 Radar and internal AMRAAM carriage rely on not being seen, prior to launching a missile ("First look, first shot, first kill" mentality).
But the weapons bay doors take significantly longer than 1 second to open and close (= detection possible by an enemy fighter) and what about IRST (Infra-Red Search & Track)?? Unless your fighter has the ability to shroud its engine exhausts (like the F-117) in order to reduce IR from the jet pipe (which it doesn't, since this technique is geometrically incompatible with afterburning engines) or to cool its wing leading edges so that it blends in with the -56°C outside air temperature at 30,000 ft (which it doesn't, as it would require too much power), then the F-22 is vulnerable to sensitive infra-red attack sensors that are being fitted to other contemporary jet fighters. The F-22 itself is not fitted with such a sensor...
And when PAK-FA comes along (whether it be in the hands of the Russians or anyone else they've sold it to for hard currency) your gung-ho pilots who always think they're better than anyone else, will need to be very careful indeed.
Nice plane, not cheap either. Whoever flies one better hope a F-22 isn't over the horizon because the 9gs they will be pulling are going to be straight down.
Not sure if it was clear, but the aircraft I was describing in most of my previous post is not the PAK-FA (which has yet to fly and is the product of Sukhoi), but the Eurofighter Typhoon.
The F-22's achilles heel is IR vulnerability - which of course used to mean within-visual-range combat (like the ubiquitous Sidewinder missile), but things have moved on. The infra-red technology now available in Germany can track a 15 ton piece of metal (which is all the F-22 is, physically speaking) through standard atmosphere at ranges similar to the F-22's Radar. And it has no defence against such sensors. Long range missiles such as Meteor, which have a greater range than the latest version of AMRAAM (AIM-120D) due to their ramjet engines that continue to operate once the rocket motor has burned out, flying passively and updated periodically by high speed datalink from the fighter's IRST, prior to going active in the terminal phase, are going to give an F-22 pilot all he can handle - and more.
But as long as you are happy to believe the propaganda coming out of the Pentagon (which obviously wants to protect the programme), then I guess you can be content that your dollars are being wisely invested.
And perhaps you can inform us why the USAF banned the use of IRST sensors on the Eurofighters that competed recently in the Red Flag exercise at Nellis AFB? No doubt it was for all the 'right' reasons??
Anyway, a couple of other, more pragmatic, issues to consider:
Even if your Radar manages to detect and track a target at the ranges claimed, limitations with the IFF (Interrogator Friend or Foe) preclude accurate target identification at such ranges, which then prevents a shot being taken (under NATO rules of engagement).
Secondly, an F-22 is unlikely ever to face a Eurofighter in real combat, so don't get too excited by the claims and counter claims.
In conclusion, the USAF needs the F-22 but you should not underestimate the threat from Sukhoi (Su-35BM and the later PAK-FA) - this threat is real and getting more serious to deal with - for both of us.
]
