1121 replies to this topic

[Death_Pheonix]

four 4th gen aircraft id take, MiG 29ovt Rafael 3 or F 16. 5th gen id take the new PAK-FA t 50 that looks like it will be an interesting aircraft.


i really don't like Raptors i dunno why.

[Phoenix911]

Raptors are sweet.

[Death_Pheonix]

i have no problem with your personal opinion, though i think they are useless for the wars that the US is fighting.

why need a stealth jet, when you can outnumber the enemy's air force 10 to 1?

[Phoenix911]

Why spend billions of cash on aircrafts getting a 10-1 ratio when u can build half the amount and still be as deadly.
And why build a stealth fighter?
If u are seriosly ask thins question then i going to roll on the floor laughing now ok?

Aircrafts are picked up on radar radar = giving time to the enermy to know your coming from what direction and lets them scramble fighters to intercept, Having stealth fighters means they get in catch the enermy be supprize and get out before they can react, Also it makes locking them up with missiles harder to do.
Ie: more survivablity.

[Pendaelose]

i have no problem with your personal opinion, though i think they are useless for the wars that the US is fighting.

why need a stealth jet, when you can outnumber the enemy's air force 10 to 1?

The type of battle makes a big difference. If air superiority is ever in question it might be better to have 10 planes, but if you only need to send one plane why use 10 inferior ones.

[narboza22]

i have no problem with your personal opinion, though i think they are useless for the wars that the US is fighting.

why need a stealth jet, when you can outnumber the enemy's air force 10 to 1?

The type of battle makes a big difference. If air superiority is ever in question it might be better to have 10 planes, but if you only need to send one plane why use 10 inferior ones.

Except that if your one plane can shoot down the other guy's 10, then why waste resources putting up another 9 of you guys?

[Phoenix911]

Thats not true aswell pend, having a more superior plane in aircombat gives you an edge BUT Pilot skill will always be one of the main factors.
So 2 planes one being the wingman of the first with skilled pilots will have a bigger chanse of beating another 2 in a fight.

[Capt.Drake]

Air Combat is a combination of Training and Equipment.
That's why it takes so long to train Fighter Pilots
And you must spent sth on your equipment^^ I men missiles that you can fire over your shoulder are expensive
And guys guess about which Airforce it's said by most persons that it's the best?
The Israely Airforce, they combine excellent training and equipment^^

[Phoenix911]

I would not say there the best, training does not make a good pilot. It all comes down to pilot abilty, all pilots will have there limits and some are naturaly able to ajust to situations quickly and learn on the spot quickly.

All the training in the world wont make the pilot ready for combat when faced with air combat some pilot may freeze up or start to panic.
I would just say all countys have there goo pilots and there bad pilots..... Unless your french then its a joke.... lmao. sorry could not help myself

Edit: ok so i guessing most of u if not all has heard of the US friendly fire that happened 4 years ago when an a10 warthog fired on a 5 vehical convoy killing 1 english soldier and wounding 4 others.
Englandish medical exsaminor(sp?) finaly got there hands on the transcript recording between the pilots and a second a10.

What are your thoughts on this?

Personly i think everyone is attacking the 2 pilots out of anger when if u read the transprits they did everything by the book. They did multipal flybys checking the convoy, there was no markings saying they was english, all there was was orange markins ment to show friendlys that there allied.
From the air they looked like russian designed units witch the iraqs used and the orange looked like rust color.
Also multipal times they headquater asking if there was any friendly units in the area and each time they got the responce "negative no friendlys this far north" (might have been south can't remember) but anyways they was told over and over no friendlys in the area and they did everything they could to chek them out, they also was chatter talking about on one of the trucks it looked as if they had RPG's of sorts.
Basicly everything they could tell from the air made it look hostal and there command was saying no friendlys present.

It was only AFTER there attack did there command suddenly call them saying there is friendlys in 2 grid coordiantes, thats when they suddenly released what they done.
Imo it seems to be meny errors here, miss info given to the pilots and a fuck up at command, u could even say english may have messed up.
If the english did not tell the us where there forces are deployed then it can spell problems, this being said the english may have told them but the US messed up in relaying info.

Regaurdless the 2 pilots made a mistake and killed a man and are gonna have to live with this for the rest of there lifes it was not intentional and they did everything by the book.
So why is everyone bitching at the pilots? Personly there looking for scapegoats or someone to blaim.


and i am ramberling so this may or maynot make sence...

Edited by Phoenix911, 08 February 2007 - 12:58 AM.

[Ubermedic]

Edit: ok so i guessing most of u if not all has heard of the US friendly fire that happened 4 years ago when an a10 warthog fired on a 5 vehical convoy killing 1 english soldier and wounding 4 others.
Englandish medical exsaminor(sp?) finaly got there hands on the transcript recording between the pilots and a second a10.

What are your thoughts on this?

This happened more often than publicized.
Just most times it didn't result in casualties.
They would fire on (most) any convoy without proper markings
And if they're command doesn't tell them so.

Also about pilot training.
If you play Ace Combat 5 it says something about pilot training.
I.E. Kei gets in battle the first time she freezes up and doesn't shoot.
also you can fly A10s in that game.
Plus it's a damn good game. although it's a bit too easy.
(I beat it on Ace without dying and getting top marks in every mission)

[Death_Pheonix]

No. First stealth plane had been invented by Americans in 1986. It was F-117 fighter-bomber. It was stealth during 5 years. In 1991 USSR rearmed its army with new radars that can detect stealth units. Nowadays stealth is only advertisement trick. All modern radars (American, Russian and European) can detect stealth.

well creator did say this a while back, im not sure if i believe him but eventually this will happen.


and to pend why send 10 instead of 1?

http://www.aviapedia...istake-20060522

if you send 4 raptors against 12 enemy planes, chances are that you might loose one. if you send 40 against that 12 you might loose 2 or 3 but the cost would be less than loosing 1 raptor
and also there is no point building the aircraft because all the wars that the US fight don't require that much air-superiority, they can achieve that with F 15's and a Raptor can cost up to 300 million (with all upgrades)

and "God Forbid" if they loose one (its possible a f117 was shot down over Serbia, using old radars) it would cost them a lot less if they lost a F-15, this is why i think the JSF is more practical, lower cost. might not be as good as the raptor but you can produce them in large numbers.

i think the Us would be better of economically if the used the JSF for all the roles, and give F 22 to like their elite Squadrons

Edited by Death_Pheonix, 08 February 2007 - 04:56 AM.

[Capt.Drake]

Stealth as far as I know works on long Ranges, so in close range Radar will detect Stealth Aircraft but in the critical Range nower days Stealth should help you, and combined with Fire and Forget Wepons this really gives you air surpurity.
An AIM-120 AMRAM can be shoot at the enemy and you turn around and fly away, normally the enemy shouldn't recognize you and your missile unitl the AMRAM radar goes hot and it's too late. That's the deal.

[Ubermedic]

JSF was canceled (or postponed) when america would no longer share the information with UK.
Hence the name JOINT strike fighter.
It was a joint effort until we decided to muck it up.

[Death_Pheonix]

maybe postponed, but the F 35 lighting II made its first flight recently

[Capt.Drake]

Wht ever the JSF Program resaulted in the F-35 Lightning 2 which will be fielded in the USA the UK and some other states

[Pendaelose]

as a group, you keep talking about Air-to-Air as the defining value of an aircraft, but theres much more to it. The specs of an aircraft and the overall strategy of egagment MUST fit your operational requirements.

In the post Cold-War era, the US has NEVER been engaged in a combat situation inwhich Air Superiority was challenged. Air-to-Air, for the US, is a secondary role. In every conflict thus far we start the engagement with airsuperiority, it remains unchallenged. It would be foolish to invest in a strategy geared toward siezing Air superiority. The primary Air operations for the US are strikes. All of the new jets are multi-role capable, so they can maintain air superiority if challenged, but the primary purpose is to quickly and effeciently engage ground targets. More planes IS NOT the answer in this situation. More planes means expsoing more pilots to ground fire when only ONE PLANE is actualy engaging the target. More planes is a huge mistake in a precision strike. The safest, most cost effective solution is a single (or pair) of the best planes available to get in, strike, and withdraw. This is not a dog fight. There are no enemy aircraft to outnumber, this is a strike. Even in ZH, if you are engaging a single target you are best off sending the least number of the best planes required to attack it. If the target is a single Gattling Tank, 1 aurora is the best possible strike craft. 10 Stealth fighters or even 100 Raptors will not do the job any better, BUT you would be exposing that many more planes to enemy fire... THIS is the functional focus of US Air operations.

Air-To-Air is an entirely different type of combat. Most importantly, even during an offensive operation, the primary role of Air-to-Air is defensive in nature. Dedicated Interceptors are only dangerous to other aircraft. The purpose of Air-to-Air is to secure the skies and provide safty for your strike operations. Air-Strikes destroy enemy positions and destroy the enemies operational redieness, Air to Air defends your Air-Strikes OR protects you from Air strikes, both roles are defensive. You can't win a war with Air-to-Air... it simply enables you to use the weapons that do win wars. (ocupations and wars are two different things). And, what everyone has said about 10 ok planes being better than one grat plane is TRUE.... ONLY about Air-to-Air.

So, WHY does the US not invest more in its Air-To-Air capabilities.... because we don't need to. For the last 25 years there has not been a single significant Air-To-Air engagment for the US. We do have the capability, but it is not the primary spending. US Air operations are primarly offensive in nature, this means Air-Strikes. Now, WHY do other nations, such as Russia, China and India invest so much in Air-To-Air capabilities... To defend themselves from Air-Strikes. No nation (including the US), for better or worse, is an angel. We blatantly use strong arm negotiations with any enemy that cannot defend themselves from Air-Strikes. If any nation LACKS the ability to defend themselves they are forced to bow to will of nations that DO have the ability to strike them. For any nation to stand as a equal among his peers, he must be able to repel Air-Strikes. For world leaders, this specificly means they must have the ability to repel US Air-Strikes. We don't threaten nations like Russia, China, and India because they can defend themselves. On an international playing field, respect is earned by the abiltiy to defend your own.

Now, Defense is always cheaper than offence, on the ground and in the air alike. 10 OK interceptors will easily engage a great strike plane, and they cost less. So, it may be cheaper to defend, but defense doesn't play favorites... you are only an equal to anyone you can defend yourself from. Its no secret the US has by far the worlds largets military budget. China might be close (they've ramped up the last few years) but even with thier economy growing rapidly they have less than half the GDP of the US. SO... PROPORTIONALY other nations will spend more on Air-To-Air abilities because thier defence budget must be capable of protecting them from a potential US strike funded by a much larger budget. Also, because protecting Air-Superiority in thier own airspace is a top priority, the defensive nature of Air-to-Air combat is the best, most cost effective defense... HOWEVER... The best Air-to-Air in the world does not, in any way, translate to offensive capabilities. Interceptors are not strike craft. Powerful multi-role fighters can do both, but they cost as much as 10 interceptors. This is the reason in the first place that so many nations build good interceptors... And it is the reason the US builds such expensive multi-role aircraft. For the US, maintaining its position (for better or worse) means it must maintain the abailty to not only defend itself, but also must maintain offensive capabilities. Interceptors are great, but they don't contrbute to that offensive strength. And, in the Situations the US as been faced with for the last two decades, we typically have more super-multi-role fighters than the enemy has total aircraft.

Aditionaly, there are other factors, as Creator mentioned once, a single Cutting edge super fighter may not perform in AA as spectacualy as 10 OK intercetors for the same cost, but it does keep the most advanced Aircraft factories working on new technology, and it keeps them open and working, so that in a situation where they may be needed to build 10 times as many aircraft, they will be open and ready, with the bonus of experience in the most advanced systems.

[Capt.Drake]

Pend what you said is true but to stay with the Raptor! This Plane is not a Strike Craft and it's not an interceptor! It's an Air Supurity Fighter, not even an Interceptor! It's there to gain and hold Airsupurity over your Land and the Battlefield, but it's beeing converted to a fast Strike Craft in some aspects.
The F-35 on the other hand is a Multirole Strike Craft like the F-16, so it's there to primarely engage Ground Targets.
And Pend you know what one of the Best Strike Crafts in US inventory is? The B-1B it can do the Job of 16 F-16. Combined with Air and Anti-Radar Cover it's best. But nobody wants Heavy Bombers anymore!
But since everything today is beeing built for Multi Role useag problems come up that some Planes simply don't fit the Role they should do! Or can anybody explain me how the F-35 should do the dirty job of an A-10?
For me that's a no go, it carries not enough payload and it's orverall not fitting, but the Thing with the payload is interesting, since everything "needs" to be stealthed you can't carry "enough" weapons cause all that shit has to be carried on the inside
But yeah you can't win a war by simply shooting down enemy aircraft and don't do anything else with the Airplanes, we proved it^^

[Pendaelose]

Pend what you said is true but to stay with the Raptor! This Plane is not a Strike Craft and it's not an interceptor! It's an Air Supurity Fighter, not even an Interceptor! It's there to gain and hold Airsupurity over your Land and the Battlefield, but it's beeing converted to a fast Strike Craft in some aspects.
The F-35 on the other hand is a Multirole Strike Craft like the F-16, so it's there to primarely engage Ground Targets.
And Pend you know what one of the Best Strike Crafts in US inventory is? The B-1B it can do the Job of 16 F-16. Combined with Air and Anti-Radar Cover it's best. But nobody wants Heavy Bombers anymore!
But since everything today is beeing built for Multi Role useag problems come up that some Planes simply don't fit the Role they should do! Or can anybody explain me how the F-35 should do the dirty job of an A-10?
For me that's a no go, it carries not enough payload and it's orverall not fitting, but the Thing with the payload is interesting, since everything "needs" to be stealthed you can't carry "enough" weapons cause all that shit has to be carried on the inside
But yeah you can't win a war by simply shooting down enemy aircraft and don't do anything else with the Airplanes, we proved it^^

The Raptor I think is less about making a fighter, and more about keeping up the ability to make fighters. High tech factories need to keep making high tech fighters or the ability is lost. Also, I think it is geared toward future wars not current. As we move on, all countries will become more modernized and the Raptor is designed to ensure the US maintains the Air-Superiority as other nations (such as Iran) are able to invest in more/superior AA capabilities.

As for the A-10... it will never be replaced by a multi-role fighter. Sometimes a specialty aircraft is needed. When you need increadible payload you send a bomber. When you need increadible stealth you send a Raptor, when you need increadible survielence you send an AWACS, when you need increadible staying power you send an A10. Theres no attempt at stealth... the A10 is not a first strike aircraft. Its a mop-up machine. When the AA is broken you send in the A10s to finish the job. Its heavily armored to take light ground fire, and it carries an increadible payload (for a non-bomber), so it can stay and stay and just keep on shooting... Only when another plane can make the same claims will it be replaced.

[Capt.Drake]

But Pend that's it today Politicians want the Egg laying wol produching pig^^, so one Plane for everything, cause that's cheaper^^

[Pendaelose]

But Pend that's it today Politicians want the Egg laying wol produching pig^^, so one Plane for everything, cause that's cheaper^^

But they will never have it. Politicians do sometimes get thier way, but there are also times that the needs of the military come first.