Article

2004-06-25 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 2004-06-25 11:56:28 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Can you say UCAV

Posted by Anonymous 2004-06-25 12:36:15 PM|| 2004-06-25 12:36:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 F-22, Crusader with wings.

The Air Force is missing the boat, er the train.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-06-25 12:39:07 PM|| 2004-06-25 12:39:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 it is time for another massive increase in procurements as we saw in the early 80's. the platforms being used currently date from this period and if we do not make an effort now 10 years from now our military will be in terrible shape.

Posted by Dan 2004-06-25 12:54:28 PM|| 2004-06-25 12:54:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Think we can thank a veracity challenged, recent book tour promoter for this situation?

Posted by Raj 2004-06-25 1:02:40 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-06-25 1:02:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 And good luck if Kerry gets elected. We'll be lucky to have an operational wing of biplanes.

Posted by Matt 2004-06-25 1:08:36 PM|| 2004-06-25 1:08:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Man I have only been out of the Air Force for five years and they already lost Air Supremacy! Don't make me hae to go back in and get this squared away! Fear not people they are always working on new planes and gadgets to put put us on top. FYI the F-16 is not altitude fighter, that is why we have the F-15. I have seen one swat a MiG-29 from the sky over Bosnia and the MiG pilot never knew what hit him. (High altitiude intercept)

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-06-25 1:09:48 PM|| 2004-06-25 1:09:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 If Kerry had his way we already would have given away air supremacy...

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-06-25 1:36:42 PM|| 2004-06-25 1:36:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 CrazyFool wrote: "If Kerry had his way we already would have given away air supremacy..."

No, we would just be asked to share it with our NATO and "fraudulaent coalition" allies rather than bear the burden of it ourselves.

Posted by Tibor 2004-06-25 1:42:03 PM|| 2004-06-25 1:42:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 USAF is great in Command and Control (Awacs with datalinks ) and in training. Machine wise isnt superior exept for radar quality, Russian missiles have more guidance options and russian planes are beter in some situations, technologically Russian and Rafale French planes have for exemple infra red anti air sensors ,US dont have, also helmet mounted sights in Russian planes would beat any US fighter in short range(exept the Israeli ones that have their HMS). The US military procurememnt is bloated with too much rules that seems a court case.

Posted by Anonymous5388 2004-06-25 2:29:49 PM|| 2004-06-25 2:29:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Bullsh**! Old model F-15 C's. ANG? Here are the weapons ranges I found:
Sparrow 30 nm
Amraam 17.4 nm
AA-10 38-65 nm

We don't have a comparable missle for the F-15. Bring in the Tomcats, though, and we'll see.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-06-25 2:42:05 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-06-25 2:42:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#11
I do not recall where I saw the article detailing the particulars of the Cope India exercise, but, it was something like 10 to 12 Indians against 4 American fighters at once.

I would hardly call the outcome balanced. Seems to me that in a real fight things might be different. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Nony

Posted by Nony 2004-06-25 2:53:47 PM|| 2004-06-25 2:53:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 The f-15 airframe when built in the 70's was 15 years ahead of anything else. The electronics it had and has been updated with was also years ahead. The missile systems were pretty far ahead also. Mixed with a awacs we had the best radar/jamming.

Now 15 years later the SU-30 have matched and surpassed the f-15 in performance (as the eurofighter is also supposed to). The electronics are still superiour but many customers are upgrading Russian planes with Western technology which in many cases matches our stuff. Missile technology has in some areas passed us (the aa-10 and the the Israeli missiles for example). Newer russian Anti-Aircraft systems are designed to shoot down Awacs now and other countries are starting to purchase Awacs style systems and foreign radars are getting better (pleny of opportunity to test again US equipment in the past few years).

It seems to me we do need the Raptor. It re-ups the performance gap (vectored thrust, super-cruise, etc), adds new electronics that are light years ahead of everything else available, and matches up new missile systems (like the aim-9x) to give us a advantage in those areas also. Plus reports seem to add that the raptor almost acts as its own Awacs plus is stealthy seems to give us exactly what we had in the 70's when we originally built the f-15, a plane that pushes 15 years ahead of everybody else. If I remember the original F-15 was extremely expensive at the time and the same "it is not needed" arguements were being made. The dang plane is done and lets start using it for goodness sakes. The enemy has shown many times the ability to catch up and in some cases pass us (the Mig-15 for example).

Posted by Patrick 2004-06-25 2:55:05 PM|| 2004-06-25 2:55:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Being here in Atlanta (home of Lockheed Martin and the building of the F-22), there was an article in the Atlanta paper on May 30 about the F-22 and "cost overruns" and how much the plane was eating up in R&D costs. However, the Pentagon has gone to asking the pilots who've actually flown it to start politicking for the $ to buy some. To a man, each guy says this plane beats the S*it out of anything else WE have, much less what the Ruskies/Frenchies have! Wish I could link to the article, but couldn't find it. Anyways, here's a clip I'm typing from it:

""This airplane kicks the crap out of everything we've got right now," says Lt. Col. Mike Stapleton, an F-15 Eagle pilot and F/A-22 flight instructor. "I don't think any [adversary] is going to get close enough to see us for the next 10, 20 or 30 years.".....""When we go out and fly against F-15s, it's a complete mismatch," Stapleton says of the top fighter for the past 30 years. "The first thing the F-15 pilots hear is 'Fight's on.' The next thing they hear is, 'You're all dead.' "The F/A-22 isn't the kind of plane that's going to win 51 to 49. It's going to be 100 to nothing. The last thing in the world we want is a fair fight."

The article goes on to say "In one recent war game, a lone Raptor was pitted against five front-line F-15s. The Raptor was invisible to the F-15 pilots and their powerful radar. But the F-15s were easy prey for the Raptor, and it quickly aimed missiles at all of them without the F-15 pilots knowing they were being hunted. 'It was all over in three minutes,' says Stapleton....The feat is especially impressive since F-15s have a perfect record in actual combat since they went into service in the 1970s." According to the article, the first squadron of F/A-22s is supposed to go into service in Dec. 2005. The jets can fly higher, faster and further than other fighters.

Posted by BA 2004-06-25 3:01:21 PM|| 2004-06-25 3:01:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Do you realize that the main flight computer of an F15-E Strike Eagle is a computer comparable to an 8086? My brother is a WSO on one. They are finally starting to upgrade, to a 386-equivalent processor. Also, I've asked him about the Raptor. He's been on the receiving end of a butt whooping courtesy of the F22. They will own the sky.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-06-25 3:09:37 PM|| 2004-06-25 3:09:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Most of these air-to-air exercises are dominated by rules of engagement set to insure safety and to maximize training. There is a story, probably apocryphal, about RED FLAG out at Nellis. Some ANG F-106s were being matched against F-15s. In strict dogfighting terms, this is no contest since the 106 was designed to intercept Russian bombers and the F-15 for air-to-air combat. However, one of the F-106 pilots, tired of being beat up on a daily basis, got the instrumentation guys to load his plane with its normal complement of weapons. The F-106 carried two AIR-2 Genie air to air rockets with 1.5 kiloton nuke warheads so they could sweep the skies clean of formations of Russian bombers. At the beginning of the next days training, the F-15s are coming in from the North looking for their afternoon sport and expecting to embarass the less maneuverable 106's. Over the radio is heard the dauntless 106 pilot saying "Fox 1" followed shortly thereafter by the exercise controller saying, "All aircraft north of line X are destroyed. Exercise terminated. Return to base." This was followed by a period of intense sputtering and disbelief from the Eagle jock and a very professional silence from the interceptor pilots. The moral of the story is that in real combat the winners set the ROE.

Posted by RWV 2004-06-25 3:10:31 PM|| 2004-06-25 3:10:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The F-106 carried two AIR-2 Genie air to air rockets with 1.5 kiloton nuke warheads so they could sweep the skies clean of formations of Russian bombers. At the beginning of the next days training, the F-15s are coming in from the North looking for their afternoon sport and expecting to embarass the less maneuverable 106's. Over the radio is heard the dauntless 106 pilot saying "Fox 1" followed shortly thereafter by the exercise controller saying, "All aircraft north of line X are destroyed. Exercise terminated

Yes! By heavens that's a tale to listen to on about 6 levels!
But remember our adversaries would never think to do such a thing!

Excellent post.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-25 4:10:29 PM|| 2004-06-25 4:10:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 F-22 is supposed to have short legs.

Heck, I'm a Tomcat fan. And I love battleships. Get my wheelchair ready.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-06-25 4:10:45 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-06-25 4:10:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 "I don't think any [adversary] is going to get close enough to see us for the next 10, 20 or 30 years."

So the Russians and Indians or Chinese will not be able to make a low cost, highvolume UCAV that is equal to the F-22 in every dimension until 2035? I wouldn't be my country's security on that. I'd like to understand why, if the choice is getting to the next generation 10 years sooner or the F-22, we shouldn't get to the future ASAP and let the F-35 bridge the gap. The Russians are cleaning their act up and when they start to joint venture with the Indians or Chinese, we'll see real competition in volume.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-06-25 4:34:26 PM|| 2004-06-25 4:34:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I'm all for getting new planes and all, but even if the Russians created FireFox and started selling it, few countries could afford them, and fewer still could afford (or even take seriously) the amount of training required to have a first rate airforce. The only countries that would be a risk are either allies, or China. China, even with crappy old planes, is a problem no matter what.

Am I missing something? Does anyone expect us to get into a shooting war with our allies, France, Russia or India? Does anyone expect some third world country will suddenly start respecting the concepts of maintainance and training?

Posted by Ruprecht 2004-06-25 4:37:05 PM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-06-25 4:37:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Do you really want to assume that Russia, China and India will remain so far behind economically that they can't afford an Air Force? I'd rather see them go German, so rich they don't mind letting us defend them cuz it isn't worth the cost to catch up. This means truly high tech weaponry like UCAVs.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-06-25 4:44:03 PM|| 2004-06-25 4:44:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 hell, I'd sell 'em the tech....with some..er...backdoors

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-25 4:50:16 PM|| 2004-06-25 4:50:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Do you honestly think Russia, and India could catch up economically, build a scary airforce and become enemies, and then catch us by surprise in doing so? Do you really think the US would simply wait until we had a confirmed and obvious enemy before building up our own air force again?

I'm all for purchasing newer and advanced planes, but this scare tactic of losing air superiority is unreal. This lose air supiority seems to indicate the US will be deaf dumb and blind until one day we wake up to find Russia, China or India is wealthy, has bought up advanced planes and trained thousands of pilots, and then become an overt enemy. Then we suddenly wake up and go wow, we blew it? Not likely.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-06-25 5:14:36 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-06-25 5:14:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Ruprech:

How do you become good at basketball? By playing lots of basketball...

I'm sceptical in these areas, when someone says - well if our adversaries ever gets around to building such and such, then we'll pull our expertise out of mothballing and go and whip up a vastly superior answer. Best to play to win - keep ahead and stay there...

Posted by Mark O 2004-06-25 6:04:18 PM|| 2004-06-25 6:04:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 me grunt.
me say war on ground. me say trying to prop up russia or china as near or peer competitor wrong. me say 200-300 million price tag per plane to much. me say recapitalize the a-10 fleet, expand AC-130's, UCAVs etc. me say expand into near space dominance and strike. me say fighter jock need more porn....getting rocks at mach 2 to expensive now.
me say winning fight in "non-intergrating gap" more important than imagining peer competitor.
me want up armored hummvees.
me want RFI set.
me want gun shields.
me want US industrial base focused on grunt on ground. not air marshalls in pentagon.
me tired from thinking to much.
me say hooah!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Anonymous5189 2004-06-25 6:04:58 PM|| 2004-06-25 6:04:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 At this point in time, the most advanced fighters in China's air force are counter-balanced by the F-16 variants and derivatives in Tawain's air force; and I doubt that India is going be a formal enemy any time in the foreseeable future. Russia will take a couple of decades to even get what planes they now have up to snuff. That makes the F-22 expensive but tolerable; however the JSF needs to die, white elephant and black hole for money at this point in time.

Posted by Anonymous5348 2004-06-25 6:07:29 PM|| 2004-06-25 6:07:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 As far as #24's points go, I disagree with an up-armoured Jeep : M113 Galvin with 4 pindle points and gun shields for M240 LMG is a much better patrolling choice. Make sure that the Galvin is an -A3 or -A4 with the German-style external fuel tanks, the "rubber band" urban track replacements, and the Israeli-style fixed overhead cover on the body - replacing the old top hatch - and the Galvin is a much safer and deadly urban patrol vehicle. Plus, with the Commando turret for the Vehicle Commander, it has the necessary reach : 20mm main gun with dual feed, .50 cal aux gun, and M240 hatch gun. It is also much more resistant to IEDs.

Posted by Anonymous5348 2004-06-25 6:18:55 PM|| 2004-06-25 6:18:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Strategy page has article on exercise(mis-called F-15s as F-14s in title-bad editor,bad.)Gave equal performance to US and Russian AAMs that prob not realistic.F-22 is needed.

I have repeatedly dissed F-35.I think it needs to be killed.Here is some info you can draw your own conclusions from:

1)Two project managers just fired.

2)F-16 and F-35 share same engine.Empty F-16 under 20,000lbs.Empty USAF F-35(proposed at 22,500lbs.)now has target empty weight of 27,400lbs.,but is coming in at 1400 lbs. over that.This means F-35 is 50% heavier than F-16 w/same power,giving far inferior performance in air combat manuevering.

3)Australian Aviation did comparison of F-22 and F-35 for Australian needs.Pointed out F-35 wing is optimized for strike mission,not ACM.F-35 nose smaller,so not able to carry as large a radar.Finally,the F-35 was not designed to be as stealthy as F-22.

4)Who knows when it will fly.Already production pushed back to 2007,w/USAF hinting it might wait til 2010 for F-35s.Contributing to delay,weight problem so severe,they are redesigning interior of a/c,so not sure when design finalized.

5)Cost.For an inexpensive fighter,this program is g**awful costly.Latest program estimates of $245billion for full buy of 3,000 F-35s=$80+mil/aircraft.(Includes r$d,not cost rise if program delays continue.)The UK is looking at up to $1.77billion for 150 F-35s(better than $100mil/aircraft-Bulldog,think you all will go for that?)

Posted by Stephen 2004-06-25 7:25:46 PM|| 2004-06-25 7:25:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 This exercise has the hallmarks of a sandbag to get publicity for the F22 whose program is in political trouble. From http://www.defensetech.org/:

Now, granted, the Indians had the Americans outnumbered: usually 10 or 12 to 4,

USAF pilots were flying "Red Air" -- meaning they were simulating the (presumably worse) tactics and (presumably lower) capabilities of enemy flyers.

That said, I still think the F22 is needed now since the Sukhois are better airframes, can be very formidable with avionics upgrades, and seem to be sold to anyone with the cash.

Posted by ed 2004-06-25 7:29:45 PM|| 2004-06-25 7:29:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Ima not think Thag needs body armor.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-25 8:04:26 PM|| 2004-06-25 8:04:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 In the mid-80s I was program manager for software we exported to Israel for the Lavi fighter program. Think: updated F16, more maneuverable, updated avionics and fly-by-wire systems.

The Lavi was cancelled when Congress got seriously annoyed that the Israelis wanted to export it despite the agreement that they got our technology for their use only.

Guess what Israel sold to China last December?

Posted by rkb 2004-06-26 11:32:21 AM|| 2004-06-26 11:32:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Correction, the sale to China was in Dec 2002.

Don't get complacent about the ability of China or Russia to rearm, or to field a smaller force that could make things hard for us in a crisis.

OTOH, I can indeed spell UCAV and think that's where a lot of money will go. The general quoted does sound like he's doing care and feeding of his pet rock (Raptor) ... and that's not a bad thing. We need advocates for a variety of systems to make their cases.

Posted by rkb 2004-06-26 11:37:22 AM|| 2004-06-26 11:37:22 AM|| Front Page Top

09:24 Anonymous5417
11:43 Raptor
11:37 rkb
11:32 rkb
11:23 too true
10:16 Edward Yee
10:02 Edward Yee
10:01 Edward Yee
09:29 Rafael
02:52 Quana
02:49 Super Hose
02:45 Super Hose
00:28 Lucky
00:26 George
00:23 Anonymous2U
00:04 smn
00:00 gromky
23:54 Silentbrick
23:49 smn
23:38 RWV
23:37 smn
23:33 A Jackson
23:30 SteveS
23:30 Barbara Skolaut