Article

2005-05-11 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-05-11 9:21:48 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I prefer that we have a huge (and unshared) advantage over any eurofighters, inasmuch as China will likely be flying them against us in the next big confrontation. Thanks for nuthin', french assholes

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-11 10:26|| 2005-05-11 10:26|| Front Page Top

#2 I've read a lot on the F-22 and have been watching closely since it won the contract. From everything I've seen, it is the most advanced and best fighter out there. The Stealth aspect will be viable for at least 15-20 years from now, while the Rafale and the Eurofighter are almost obsolete when it comes to stealth. I've also read reports from the pilots and mechanics of the Eurofighter that claim it is a huge piece of crap. Prone to breakdowns, hard to work on, shortage of parts (including sensor and jamming equipment that should have been installed on the plane), and not real user friendly (what do you expect from a commitee design?). The shortage of parts will be fixed when more aircraft will be brought online, but the other problems will remain. The Rafale, aside from its stealth, is no more advanced than the Mirage 2000, and the F-15 blew them out of the sky without difficulty during the Iraqi wars. I have also read rumors that the F-22 has a highly advanced infared scope which can detect targets up to 15 nautical miles (don't know if it is true or not). This capability, along with real time feads from JSTARS would allow the F-22 to track and fire at targets without ever turning on its own, highly advanced radar system. The AIM-120 anti-air missle has its own software to receive JSTAR information and launch and stear itself to the last know location of the enemy plane. The AIM-120 also has its own onboard radar tracking that it turns on 5 miles away from the last know position of the enemy plane for a final correction to target. All that tech put together spells real danger for any enemy who is foolish enough to send aircraft against the F-22, which is why the Air Force is so thrilled with the plane.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-05-11 12:30|| 2005-05-11 12:30|| Front Page Top

#3 good - don't let NATO have one. Jacques and Dominique will have their Chinese friends scouring it within 24 hrs

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-11 12:39|| 2005-05-11 12:39|| Front Page Top

#4 FrankG -
Hopefully the US doesn't sell the F-22 to ANYBODY. We have already given enough high tech weapons to other countries, some of the countries are not are allies either. The F-16 and F-15 can and will still defeat any other aircraft out there except for the F-22, so sell other countries the older stuff.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-05-11 13:02|| 2005-05-11 13:02|| Front Page Top

#5 good - don't let NATO have one.

Exactly. The F-22 is for the USAF, and the USAF only.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-05-11 13:02|| 2005-05-11 13:02|| Front Page Top

#6 Australia? Japan? Israel? The UK?

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-11 13:27|| 2005-05-11 13:27|| Front Page Top

#7 [T]he F-22 carries its weapons internally, while all three of the European fighters carry the weapons externally. ... This means that the Rafale and Eurofighter will still be at a huge disadvantage.

And the UK version of the Eurofighter doesn't even have an internal gun. Our Government, in its wisdom, saved the country a whopping Â£2m by eliminating the gun from our version of the aircraft. It's costing Â£87.5m to install a non-functioning gun, the functioning version of which would be Â£90m. It makes one proud.

Posted by Bulldog ">Bulldog 2005-05-11 14:40|| 2005-05-11 14:40|| Front Page Top

#8 No one,, shipman. Remember all the technology the Japanese companies sold to the USSR? I'd probably trust the Brits in isolation, but as they get further sucked into the EU, I'll trust them less and less, as they are less British and more European. Sorry, Bulldog; I'd trust you but not Gordon Brown.
I'd probably trust the Aussies, but could they afford the F-22?

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-05-11 14:51|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-05-11 14:51|| Front Page Top

#9 Wrong there wasnt any Mirage 2000 in Iraq air force only Mirage F1s a 70's design; The US superiority in Iraq is more atributable to Comand and Control with Electronic Inteligence technology and assets= Awacs, Link16 sharing data , Elint Comint aircrafts etc.

Posted by Hupomoque Spoluter7949 2005-05-11 14:57|| 2005-05-11 14:57|| Front Page Top

#10 Japan's flying F-15Js now.... they were more advanced in their time than the F-22. I just figure the more build the more the USAF can afford. Besides, we keep some of the good stuff :)

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-11 16:58|| 2005-05-11 16:58|| Front Page Top

#11 Aussies OK and Brits (if they put Galloway's head on a pike, eject the worst of the Islamists, and bar the EU from getting near one). No canucks (out of spite at the gov't and elites, more than anything), although they don't have a need.....

OK, that's my list

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-11 17:26|| 2005-05-11 17:26|| Front Page Top

#12 F-22 is slower than the F-15, and its missles don't have enough range when compared to Russians and to the Sparrow. It can't outrun a MIG-29 or a MIG-31. We've gone slower and with less reach in order to get stealth. I'm not convinced it's a good trade.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2005-05-11 20:38|| http://blog.simmins.org]">[http://blog.simmins.org] 2005-05-11 20:38|| Front Page Top

#13 Mr. Simmins:
Stealth may be worth the trade-offs. After all, our subs are slower and cannot dive as deeply as those of the Russians, but are far quieter and have better sensors. Submarines are not aircraft (really!), but I'd bet there are similarities.

Think of the advantages of being so difficult to find. Plus, if you restrict yourself to using an RWR to find him, and an AIM-9X rather than an AIM-120C, they don't even see it coming. There are a lot of advantages to be purely passive, especially if you have ground radars or an AWACS (or UAVs) to do the active stuff.
Will those advantages overcome the aerodynamic and cost penalties? I have no idea.

Posted by jackal">jackal 2005-05-11 22:28|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-05-11 22:28|| Front Page Top

#14 CS: F-22 is slower than the F-15, and its missles don't have enough range when compared to Russians and to the Sparrow.

Actually, I believe the F-22 and the F-15 have top speeds of 2462.4 mph and 1600 mph respectively. What's more important is that the F-22 can cruise at 1100 mph, which the F-15 requires turning on the (gas-guzzling) afterburners to do. Bottom line is that the F-22 can go further and faster - pretty much what an air superiority fighter is all about.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-11 23:03|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-11 23:03|| Front Page Top

#15 Your info is wrong and/or out of date Chuck. The Air Force does not use the sparrow anymore. The AAMRAM AIM-120 missle is used now and has greater range and kill ration than the sparrow. It is nicknamed the "slammer", since it has never missed in air-to-air combat. Last count I am aware of is that it was fired 9 times and resulted in 9 kills. Better than the 20% kill rate of the sparrow. The F-22 also is MUCH faster than the F-15. It can go supersonic without afterburners and with the gas punched on reaches past mach 2.5 (real top speed is classified).

Posted by mmurray821 2005-05-12 00:03|| 2005-05-12 00:03|| Front Page Top

16:02 juriseqs
15:49 juriseqs
08:31 juriseqs
08:31 juriseqs
00:03 mmurray821
00:00 trailing wife
23:58 mmurray821
23:56 trailing wife
23:51 trailing wife
23:51 3dc
23:51 RIchard Aubrey
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:41 trailing wife
23:35 3dc
23:35 trailing wife
23:31 trailing wife
23:03 Zhang Fei
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:56 Mike Kozlowski
22:35 Raj
22:35 phil_b
22:34 twobyfour
22:33 phil_b
22:32 Sobiesky