Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[Star Four One 10]

Will they? You speak from experience I gather?

Schadenfreude. Ignorance is pleasurable to me, reading your posts remind me of this:

A Weekly Standard front cover titled "Once more unto the breach" with the delicious ignorance not only shown by the front page showing an aircraft that has not and cannot be used in Libya but with a broken, uninformative, story written inside rather than a report on events in any way.

Star Four One, for you, objectivity is yet to be learned.

Aircraft become more expensive to maintain over time. The more types of aircraft you have the more spare parts, software technicians, mechanics, training staff, links with industry and other items/specialists you will have to pay for. Efficiency is gained by a multi-role aircraft being able to do multiple tasks, as aircraft have been able to do just as effectively as a separate specialist aircraft since the 80's. Only America, Russia and China have the capacity, along with willingness to do so will ever consider having specialist ground attack aircraft that does not offer additional flexibility.

Efficiency isn't gained by having a nice-in-theory/niche airframe like the F22 or A-10 taking large portions of expenditure and logistical 'capital' if they can only do one job and that job already has an adequate and comparably more efficient/effective suitor.

As for Indian pilots, my dad will be spending some time with the Indian airforce in an industrial and maintenance position in the near future, I'll ask him when he gets back, eh?

Yes I speak from first hand experience. That is all you will know. I could be the boom operator for all it matters. ;)

One thing about these forums is it's filled with speculators and people who generally think they know what they are talking about, objectivity? Or experiences? Two different facids to convey.

I should probably just say in the future "Good job bud, you know what your talking about".

It is agreed a/c attrition can be "summed" up in the last part of your post. However, you were all over the map. Do you realize the labour involved in running constant operations of a/c over a extended combat deployment?

Russia in Afganistan is a perfect example of low percentage sortie rates. Hell, take Iraq who had the second largest airforce at one point. It's all fair game if you have the will to kill.

Before we go offtopic anymore, lets jump back on.

S41

[Prydain 1]

It is agreed a/c attrition can be "summed" up in the last part of your post. However, you were all over the map. Do you realize the labour involved in running constant operations of a/c over a extended combat deployment?

I do not and thats why I have stuck to talking about things that can logically be discussed and argued on the back of available information.

Russia in Afganistan is a perfect example of low percentage sortie rates. Hell, take Iraq who had the second largest airforce at one point. It's all fair game if you have the will to kill.

I don't see the point of saying any of this. As for Iraq, they had a chocolate airforce: It melts, it broke and it got eaten very quickly by an American.

Before we go offtopic anymore, lets jump back on.

We are talking about aircraft procurement....

[Star Four One 10]

I do not and thats why I have stuck to talking about things that can logically be discussed and argued on the back of available information.

I don't see the point of saying any of this. As for Iraq, they had a chocolate airforce: It melts, it broke and it got eaten very quickly by an American.

We are talking about aircraft procurement....

Hello Prydain,

You cannot 'logically' discuss something you know nothing about. 99% sortie rates were achieved in the last two wars in Iraq throughout multiple squadrons. With jets running up to 14 hours straight a day.

The very first day of combat flying, prediction was less then half of the airframes participating in packages would be lost. Iraq was still a threatening airforce regardless of how you spin the card.

Sorry, I joined this discussion based upon the Raptor being obsolete to a "good" pilot.

Carry on if you would like to discuss this further..

S41

[Prydain 1]

You cannot 'logically' discuss something you know nothing about.

I'm glad we aren't discussing something that I know nothing about then.

Sorry, I joined this discussion based upon the Raptor being obsolete to a "good" pilot.

Carry on if you would like to discuss this further..

You started talking about Russia in Afghanistan and Iraq, it isn't me changing the points of discussion, your flailing around injecting random sentences.

I think you think I should readily default to your position based on what you have written but your hardly convincing or at a position of infallibility.

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Every single simulated engagement with Raptors without ROE restrict, have led to zero losses.

I have it on particularly good authority that this statement is bollocks. I suspect it's more likely that the results just didn't get posted.

[dm 9]

I like how this thread has gone from walkers naval-Typhoon wet dreams to star 41's "omg raptor iz best!!1!!1!11!" e-peen dick swinging.

Meanwhile, the JSF procurement continues to bimble on, with the RN/RAF still set to end up with JSFs and not Hornets (as the OP would suggest) or Typhoons (as walker seems to enjoy pedalling)

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Yeah I started the thread in response to an article I'd read... I now have regular nightmares about the monster that it is in danger of becoming.

[Daniel 0]

Another Milestone reached:

CBL-kSCr4e0

Check the bird at 0:06...

Edited April 10, 2011 by Daniel

[rksl-rock 1300]

Yeah I started the thread in response to an article I'd read... I now have regular nightmares about the monster that it is in danger of becoming.

Ah don't worry mate its providing entertainment and a platform for flag waving for quite a few people.

Its one of those threads that should be stickied as an example of "teh internetz dizchats". :p

[Star Four One 10]

I like how this thread has gone from walkers naval-Typhoon wet dreams to star 41's "omg raptor iz best!!1!!1!11!" e-peen dick swinging.

Meanwhile, the JSF procurement continues to bimble on, with the RN/RAF still set to end up with JSFs and not Hornets (as the OP would suggest) or Typhoons (as walker seems to enjoy pedalling)

I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents into a forum with false statements. Obviously a nice majority here live a pipe dream.

Oh DM, have some respect.

@Prydain

My comment about Afganistan and Iraq were in correlation to sortie rates.

@Techno

Raptors in unrestricted ROE's in DACT kill without losses. Now, thats not saying the oddball WVR kill occurs from a respawning red. Which to my knowledge has happened twice.

S41

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Raptors in unrestricted ROE's in DACT kill without losses.

Eh? Daventry town council operate Raptors now? I knew that they were cracking down on the wheelie bin thing but that's ridiculous.

I have to admit that I only have the information 2nd hand and my source is currently unavailable for comment as he's probably somewhere over Libya at the moment but that's how these things are...

[Baff1 0]

Baff, you obviously have nill knowledge on not only the Raptor, but air combat in it's complete entity.

Regardless of numbers, if you recieve heavy losses in a/c without knowing where, or who shot at you; chances are you will not press the target.

Ask someone who has participated in DACT with a couple of Raptors, psychologically your feeling sick before you get off the ground. After the 15th kill call, you feel bummed out.

This isn't Falcon 4.0 Baff.

S41

How well they score in Tom Clancy's Hawks isn't real a big intrest for me.

I know this about air combat, if you have a 4:1 numerical superiority you are ready to attack.

So if you want to give F22 away free.... we will take all you have to offer, but if you are intending to sell them for 8 times the price of the competion, I'll take 8 of the competitions instead please.

Raptors?

They aren't even going to get off the ground. They would provoke an attack on us simply by being too few in number to defend our borders.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

You cannot engage something you cannot see.

When your package is recieving rippling losses without any noticable threat, chances; and I mean probable outcome is to RTB.

Actually, you can.

The most intresting capability of the F22 is not it's stealth, it is it's top speed. Supercruise.

If the enemy outnumbers you, you simply fly off. If you outnumber the enemy you engage.

Supercruise is what denied the allies air domination over Kosovo. The Serb had Foxbats. They had the speed advantage. So at the end of the war, they still had all their Foxbats.

Unfortunately they didn't have enough of them to control the skies. They were consistently outnumbered by inferior airframes.

---------- Post added at 11:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

Aircraft become more expensive to maintain over time. The more types of aircraft you have the more spare parts, software technicians, mechanics, training staff, links with industry and other items/specialists you will have to pay for. Efficiency is gained by a multi-role aircraft being able to do multiple tasks, as aircraft have been able to do just as effectively as a separate specialist aircraft since the 80's. Only America, Russia and China have the capacity, along with willingness to do so will ever consider having specialist ground attack aircraft that does not offer additional flexibility.

Efficiency isn't gained by having a nice-in-theory/niche airframe like the F22 or A-10 taking large portions of expenditure and logistical 'capital' if they can only do one job and that job already has an adequate and comparably more efficient/effective suitor.

[/size]

Intresting read. Thanks.

While I agree with this, you can capitalise on this by using cross over airframes. Where the "multi-role" is military and domestic. Hence my example of Cessna. A model for which spare parts are commonly accessable and training is also commonly accessable.

Also the simplicity of these kinds of designs greatly limits the amout of training or support they require in the first place.

It is easier and cheaper to maintain a Cessna than it is a Eurofighter. Much easier. Much Cheaper.

Smaller ground crew. Smaller runway. Smaller hangar. Smaller training program. Smaller fuel bill. Smaller spare parts bill.

Lets face it, air cadets currently do this. It can be done pretty damn cheap.

The use of "training aircraft" as military frames also. Also capitalises on support and training costs.

As a point of history, we maintained specialist ground attack aircraft until very recently. The Harrier. (That of course is only the fixed wing variety we also field Apache's.)

If the price is right we will do so again.

Close air support is a military capability we place value on.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Baff1

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Sorry to bust your bubble, like some many do to you on the TWI forums, Baff, but the MiG 25 doesn't have supercruise.

[rangerpl 13]

Not to mention the fact that the F-117 is old-generation stealth technology, it handles like a pig and is subsonic. When it opens the bomb bay, it has a radar cross section bigger than the freaking Empire State Building.

At the time of the shoot-down the F-117's technology was 25 years old. The Serbs shot down the F-117 by operating their radar on very long wavelengths, being able to see it for a brief moment and target it with a SAM. Additionally, they claim they saw it open its bomb bay.

The technology utilized on the F-22 is far more sophisticated than that on the F-117, there's a reason the F-22 doesn't have so many angles. It relies almost completely on RAM and not the funky design.

Supercruise is what denied the allies air domination over Kosovo. The Serb had Foxbats. They had the speed advantage. So at the end of the war, they still had all their Foxbats.

Unfortunately they didn't have enough of them to control the skies. They were consistently outnumbered by inferior airframes.

This literally made me LOL.

The part about "speed advantage" is complete bull. MiG-25 engines begin to tear themselves apart at Mach 2.8. The Foxbat can't even compare to a modern fighter, its radar uses vacuum tubes for Christ's sake.

Oh, and Yugoslavia or its successor states did not operate a SINGLE MiG-25 at ANY point during its existence.

Star Four One isn't entirely right either, but his information is not even half as ridiculous as yours. He is right about this though:

Baff, you obviously have nill knowledge on not only the Raptor, but air combat in it's complete entity.

America produced a fighter superior to all existing Chinese, Russian and European designs. Deal with it.

Edited April 13, 2011 by RangerPL

[rksl-rock 1300]

...Supercruise is what denied the allies air domination over Kosovo. The Serb had Foxbats. They had the speed advantage. So at the end of the war, they still had all their Foxbats.

Unfortunately they didn't have enough of them to control the skies. They were consistently outnumbered by inferior airframes...

Erm since when did Serbia have any Mig-25s? ever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Air_Force_and_Air_Defence

The best bit of kit they had was the Mig-29A. It did have an very good radar but it didnt have the kind of radar/AWACS support the coallition had.

@ Star Four One

re your claim to the F-22's prowess. Like others have already said, the claims of its absolute capability is just come across as unsubstantiated nationalistic crap.

I know quite a few people in the US and UK defence industries that know first hand of several losses to "clearly inferior aircraft". Both in restricted and unrestricted DACT and both officially sanctioned and unofficial dogfights. I've even talked directly with Typhoon air crew that have flown in some of these exercises. Most are complementary but all say the same, "It's not a super weapon that the US USAF PR machine claims it is."

There are also lots of stories about the excuses for the losses too: "we left radar augmenters on", "the aircraft was outside the exercise area", "the Raptor team discontinued the exercise for safety reasons (they forgot to tell the opfor though)" etc. There are also claims that Raptors cheated in recent Flag exercises. Leaving the area and returning from another vector. And the BS..erm...PR machine rumbles loudly on...

To be honest, its all impossible to prove at this stage. I seriously doubt the USAF will ever admit to owning US$240 million flying lemons any way. Without real actual facts all our posts are just hearsay, blind patriotic flag waving and egos. So why don't we just stay on topic and stick with published facts and leave the e-pissing contest alone.

Edited April 13, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
typo

[BasileyOne 10]

at the end GB AF decided to buy F35A, instead both AV8 or F35B.

[jagheterjan 10]

Hate to burst your bubble, but the MoD chose the Charlie F35, not the Alpha. And wtf is this nonsense about the AV8? RAF and RN just phased out the Harrier.

[BasileyOne 10]

Hate to burst your bubble, but the MoD chose the Charlie F35, not the Alpha. And wtf is this nonsense about the AV8? RAF and RN just phased out the Harrier.

C's isnt come out soon, so, to fulfill units, few F35A's was odered.

[jagheterjan 10]

According to the 2010 SDSR, the MoD changed their JSF orders from the originally contracted 150 Bravo birds to from about 50 to a maximum of 135 Charlie birds and pushed EIS dates. There was never ever the option to go with Alpha birds. I'm curious to learn about your sources.

[rksl-rock 1300]

C's isnt come out soon, so, to fulfill units, few F35A's was odered.

Erm... no they havent. The A would be utterly pointless in the currently planned 20 years defence strategy.

The F-35C will be operatred much like the Harrier was for Joint Force Harrier. So if its not carrier capable it isnt any use to anyone.

EDIT - Failcakes beat me to it.

Edited April 13, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[Prydain 1]

People like wtfisMIAwhichASAPisKIA shouldn't be allowed to vote. I mean wtf.

[rksl-rock 1300]

People like wtfisMIAwhichASAPisKIA shouldn't be allowed to vote. I mean wtf.

Looking at his post history: New account with all 64 posts made in less than a day on varied topics I think we have a baby-troll in the making :D

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Looking at his post history: New account with all 64 posts made in less than a day on varied topics I think we have a baby-troll in the making :D

Yeah, I just read his thing about GAA... I tried at least, my brain hurt after 10 seconds and then my eyes started bleeding. As for buying AV8s I don't think that even our government is daft enough to phase out the Harrier only to buy an Americanised version. Fail... If it was a trolling attempt then even more fail.

[Baff1 0]

Sorry to bust your bubble, like some many do to you on the TWI forums, Baff, but the MiG 25 doesn't have supercruise.

Wow a cross forum troll!

Grats.

I hope you will be a little more intrested in discussing the topic and a little less intrested in Pwning Noobs than the average TWI participant. That community is in every way comparable with the CS kiddies.

Which is a shame.

I have yet to feel that I have had my bubble burst on the TWI forums.

It doesn't matter how forcefully you explain to me that I like STEAM, when I say I don't, I mean it.

It doesn't matter to me how much of a dickhead you think I am because I do not.

I've managed to learn the odd thing there, but mostly it's just over-confrontational types trying to mark their turf.

In this thread I hope that you will find people genuinely intrested in the subject matter and respect felt for those people with experiences relating to it that they are willing to share.

The MIG 25 has superfast high altitude capabilities. (Perhaps less impressive today than in it's hayday). This gives it the ability to close with it's targets and also to evade it's threats. That for me is the essence of supercruise.

The tactical advantage it offers in my eyes.

If the Russians don't call it "supercruise" but have some Russian word for it instead... so be it. What's in a name?

I do however stand corrected on the Mig 25's use by the Serbian airforce.

I'd been reading story about how the Serbian airforce has survived the entire Kosovo war and had found this quite surprising. I don't know where I read that and I will be hunting it down to go back and read it more carefully.

Thanks to all for the correction.

@Ranger.

I'm not intrested in whether or not the Raptor is the best fighter evar.

The Tiger tank was better than the T34.

But the T34 still won the war.

(You can substitute the word "Sherman" for T34 if that it makes it an easier pill to swallow).

The F22, no matter how uber, is not a intresting purchase for the RAF because it is too expensive.

Deal with it.

If you are giving them away we want as many as you have on offer.

If you are selling them... no thanks, we have other options.

Please don't feel that this undermines our estimation of the F22's capability in any way. Only it's ability to meet our needs. Price is the critical component in this equation.

If you were to contest that one Raptor is more effective than the comparably priced 8 Mig 35's I could buy instead... I would be laughing at you.

So for my money the Raptor would not only have to be the worlds best fighter... but it would have to be the worlds best fighter for the money. And that.... it is not.

Ultimately this is a no brainer decision. We have just bought a shed load of new fighters to fulfill the same role as the F22 offers. Clearly we aren't in the market to replace them after only their first week of operations. What we have already will do nicely thanks.

With regards to Stealth, it is my opinion that a greatly reduced radar profile is still a detectable radar profile.

As we saw with the F-117, once that radar profile had been learnt, it could be tracked and locked onto.

I think a realistic timeframe for that stealth radar image to be discovered and distributed by rival radar operators is one war.

So in Gulf War one, the F117 operated with impunity, but over Kosovo a couple of them got shot up.

While this clearly still provides an advantage on the aircrafts second deployment... it doesn't make the plane undefeatable.

I would also suggest to you that it's reduced radar image does not reduce it's detection range to inside of typical air to air missile range.

So while it may gain a manouvre advantage from it's stealth, I don't expect it to gain any particular dogfighting advantage from it.

Instead I feel it's greatest manouvre advantage comes from it's speed although I think they both compliment each other for this.

That is to be explicit, the ability to close into weapons range of an enemy and shoot at it. Or the ability to stay out of weapons range of a superior force and evade combat with it.

The ability to pick which fights it wishes to participate in, rather than how it performs in the fights in which it is engaged. (I don't have any real concept of modern day dogfighting... I expect it's got a lot more to do with the missile deployed than the platform it launches from or the pilot who thumbs the trigger).

I'm not sure what the advancements ot stealth have been in the last 20-30 years, but I expect them to be refinements rather than advancements. In fact I expect the F22 to have a greater radar proifile than the F117, but that for less of a sacrifice to it's performance. I think the refinements have gone in the direction of less stealth and more performance.

Thinner lighter polymers, more absorbant paints... that sort of thing.

I obviously wouldn't know eitherway, but that would be my guess.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Baff1

[Baff1 0]

Erm since when did Serbia have any Mig-25s? ever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Air_Force_and_Air_Defence

The best bit of kit they had was the Mig-29A. It did have an very good radar but it didnt have the kind of radar/AWACS support the coallition had.

I watched a nice show about some NATO training execise in Canada.

The key to their simulation seemed to me to be the hunting down and destroying of the AWACs.

To this end they were all manouvering and afterburning and planning their fuel to get the enemy fighters out of position so they could get in range to attack it unopposed.

It was this show that leads me to value the importance of speed in a fighter. The ability to exploit any gap.

When it came down to the dogfight results... regardless of airframe, those armed with AMRAM consistently defeated those armed with Sidewinder. The missile was the only apparent decider.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Baff1