|
Oh boy F-22 chat, can't wait for grover to come with his totally well researched opinion 
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
I don't even know why it took this long for them to be grounded. The DoD hasn't let them get within a thousand miles of a combat zone. I guess they have a full air show schedule this year.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
Load-bearing drywall
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Are F-22s in such need that they can't be grounded until they put an O2 system in them that works? Short answer, yes. Restrictions like this (which basically prevent the dudes up here from doing anything other than local area flying) are eventually going to reduce the combat readiness of the pilots due to lack of training/currency, not to mention the fact that they very well might prevent the jet from doing things like the TSP in the Pacific (there's a reason PACOM has a standing requirement for a squadron of F-22s to be forward deployed somewhere in the western portion of its AOR). The ACC/CC wasn't blowing smoke the other day when he said that people around the world pay attention when Raptors are deployed in their backyard. VikingSkull posted:I don't even know why it took this long for them to be grounded. The DoD hasn't let them get within a thousand miles of a combat zone. Look at what "air combat" consists of in the war(s) we are currently fighting. That is nowhere near the full spectrum of what the USAF is supposed to be responsible for executing (and would frankly be a gross waste of time and money to use anything close to the F-22's capability in), so "hasn't flown in combat" is a pretty bullshit reason for slamming the jet. The point of the F-22 (and other high end of the spectrum systems...AEGIS, B-2s, fast attack subs, etc.) is so we have to use them in combat as little as possible. I swear we go through this every loving time someone mentions that jet in this thread. One of these days I'll just have a copy+paste teed up for it.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
I always thought the Raptor was cool. Then again my taste in planes is 100% based off of how cool it looks.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I swear we go through this every loving time someone mentions that jet in this thread. One of these days I'll just have a copy+paste teed up for it. And of course you'd go through all that effort only to see a reply three posts later that consists of some variant of "F-22 can't fly when it rains  ".
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:And of course you'd go through all that effort only to see a reply three posts later that consists of some variant of "F-22 can't fly when it rains Haha, I'd probably include that in the copy+paste. The only problem is that it would seriously be like 40 pages long...I dunno if you saw the novel I wrote about the mishap in the F-22 thread in GiP but it'd at least end up being 3-4 times as long as that.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Gray Stormy posted:I always thought the Raptor was cool. This is the Ace Combat style of plane appreciation and it's basically the best way. I'm with you on this. YF-23 is cooler by this rule, however. Stupid Air Force. Time to start a smear campaign: YF-23 WOULDN'T HAVE OBOGS PROBLEMS: JACK NORTHROP WAS RIGHT, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:not to mention the fact that they very well might prevent the jet from doing things like the TSP in the Pacific (there's a reason PACOM has a standing requirement for a squadron of F-22s to be forward deployed somewhere in the western portion of its AOR)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Look at what "air combat" consists of in the war(s) we are currently fighting. That is nowhere near the full spectrum of what the USAF is supposed to be responsible for executing (and would frankly be a gross waste of time and money to use anything close to the F-22's capability in), so "hasn't flown in combat" is a pretty bullshit reason for slamming the jet. The point of the F-22 (and other high end of the spectrum systems...AEGIS, B-2s, fast attack subs, etc.) is so we have to use them in combat as little as possible. I know exactly why they haven't been used, that's my point. They aren't needed at the moment, so there's no excuse for them not being grounded until the problem was fixed when this originally started occurring.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Psion posted:This is the Ace Combat style of plane appreciation and it's basically the best way. I'm with you on this. So by this logic, the Su-47 is the best plane of all time? 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Gonna need an acronym breakdown on TSP. Google isn't being very useful for me on the matter either since I doubt the F-22 delivers "Thift Savings Plan". Oh, it does...just for LockMart shareholders.  TSP stands for Theater Security Package. It's the name for that standing PACOM requirement I mentioned before. Basically a squadron of F-22s deploys to a U.S. airbase in the western portion of PACOM's AOR (Andersen on Guam, Kadena on Okinawa, etc.) and maintains a presence in the region. The phrase is also used in relation to the deployment of a squadron-ish of F-16s to Kunsan AB in Korea (in addition to the two squadrons that are permanently stationed there). While we're talking standing requirements, there's also the Continuous Bomber Presence on Guam, which is a PACOM driven requirement just like the others (that article is well worth reading). Stuff like this is what I'm talking about when I try to make my point that there is a lot more to what the military (particularly the AF and Navy) does than a binary choice between "fight wars in the Middle East" and "conduct training that isn't really all that important." In case you couldn't read between the lines in those articles (particularly the last one), it's not like these folks are going to these places and then just boring holes in the sky above whatever airfield they are operating out of...this is stuff that the top leadership, both uniformed and civilian, feels is very important. VikingSkull posted:I know exactly why they haven't been used, that's my point. They aren't needed at the moment, so there's no excuse for them not being grounded until the problem was fixed when this originally started occurring. Fair enough, but as I've said above "not being used in combat" != "not needed at the moment." iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 04:25 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 04:23
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Oh, it does...just for LockMart shareholders. So, why couldn't this be done by an F-18 squadron?
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification.Armyman25 posted:So, why couldn't this be done by an F-18 squadron? *not all of this is factual
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Well, they're going to park the Enterprise soon, doesn't that mean a bunch of planes with out a home?
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
The USS Gerald R Ford is coming in 2015! Looks pretty cool, electromagnetic catapults!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So, why couldn't this be done by an F-18 squadron? Hornets and Raptors aren't even in the same ballpark. I'll quote Godholio from another thread: Godholio posted:The other key component is the surface-to-air threat. What most people don't think about is that air superiority is a 3D environment. You're not just looking out for other airplanes, there are things on the ground trying to shoot our guys down too, directly under the contested airspace. The F-22 is designed to void those threats in ways F-15s can only loving wish. Air and ground, and at the same time. And it loving DOES. I've seen them train against T-38s, F-16s, F-15Cs, and F/A-18s. The F-22 steals their lunch money, kicks them in the nuts, then goes home to gently caress their girlfriends. and add this (from the same thread): iyaayas01 posted:Everyone's heard the stories about the 108-0 kill ratio during a Northern Edge or flying a four ship two vuls a day for a two week Flag with full up threats without losing a single jet...to anything, air or ground. That poo poo's just the tip of the iceberg. and just repeat that all that is literally the tip of the iceberg. Countries in WestPac wouldn't bat an eye if we sent another squadron of legacy fighters to Guam or wherever, but you can bet that Raptors get their attention. Again, the whole point of TSP/CBP/etc is not "welp, we've got some jets on Guam or wherever that can drop bombs on people, pretty sweet," it's the political aspect of the deterrent effect from those presences, and you wouldn't get that with a squadron of legacy fighters.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
A couple weeks ago I visited the USS Hornet in Alameda, California. Stand by for freedom! USS Hornet, CV-12. Launched 1943, decommissioned 1970. Served in World War II and Vietnam, and as recovery craft for two Apollo moon missions.  Close-up of the island.  Space capsule! The Hornet was used for the recovery of Apollo 11 and 12.  The Airstream quarantine chamber where astronauts were kept to see if they had space cooties.  UH-34  Piasecki HUP-2  Nose from an F-11  Needs some BLO  Milsurp  Torpedo storage  Galley  Dig that crazy fifties office equipment  Ditto  Kills  On the flight deck with a helicopter  A-4  THE WHITE PHANTOM  F8 doesn't put up with your nonsense  Can't see this without "Danger Zone" playing in my head  This is where the hot stuff comes out  TOO CLOSE FOR MISSILES  SWITCHING TO GUNS 
Jetrock fucked around with this message at 07:17 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
The Air Force made a big show a few weeks back of forward deploying a bunch of F-22s well within range of Iran. Brought them in in the middle of a sunny day to show off for any counterintel, who also noted these weren't later planes fitted for ground strike. The oxygen concerns are certainly serious and are an impairment to ongoing training, but if the planes were sent on no-poo poo Really Important Missions (which is all you'd send an F-22 on, hopefully) they're not just going to careen into the woods 5 miles from the runway, and anyone we might hit is well aware of that.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 07:08
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Hornets and Raptors aren't even in the same ballpark. I'll quote Godholio from another thread: And exactly what are we deterring the combined air forces of Russia, North Korea, China, and Vietnam from doing that they wouldn't do anyway? Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 07:18 on May 17, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
Former vice-chair of the JSF shits all over F-35, etc. http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/15/cartwright-savages-f-35-airsea-battle-warns-of-250-billion-mo/ tl;dr is that we're spending a lot of money on toys without a plan, instead of identifying missions and then coming up with tools/tactics. Major complaint against the F-35 is that it's not sufficiently hardened against ECM / "cyber" hacking. My take: he has a point about buying toys, and that the "pivot to the Pacific" and the gear we're buying are completely disconnected. Literally the only public procurement program that seems to be going well and has an active mission is the Virginia class, and that might just be luck. No clue about the "cyber" stuff, it's all clearly very much below public sight at this point so I see no way using unclass material to tell how we stand. He does state that we're "90% defensive / 10% offensive" which lines up with something other articles related to Stuxnet have said, that the US is far more terrified about any mil-developed offensive cyberweapons being leaked and used against US/Western financial / energy infrastructure targets than they are about being able to hack the Iranian SAM sites before the Raptors swoop in. E: Armyman25 posted:And exactly what are we deterring the combined air forces of Russia, North Korea, China, and Vietnam from doing that they wouldn't do anyway? China is surprisingly close to a shooting war with the Philippines at the moment and we've publicly said we don't feel bound by treaty to help, but I would suspect along with diplomatic activity that we're positioning assets to discourage aggression. Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 07:26 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The Air Force made a big show a few weeks back of forward deploying a bunch of F-22s well within range of Iran. Brought them in in the middle of a sunny day to show off for any counterintel, who also noted these weren't later planes fitted for ground strike. I was pretty amused they had them stopover in broad daylight in Europe (Spain, IIRC) on the way over, basically doing everything but posting the exact tail numbers onto the internet themselves. Armyman25 posted:And exactly what are we deterring the combined air forces of Russia, North Korea, China, and Vietnam from doing that they wouldn't do anyway? It's not solely about air forces, Vietnam is much closer to the U.S. sphere of influence these days given the fact that China has shot themselves in the foot pretty good with their behavior over the Spratlys/South China Sea, and it's not about literally "stopping" anyone from starting a shooting war, it's about influencing the political-military climate. Same reason we deploy carriers to a region when there are increased tensions, same reason we have Navy ships make port visits in countries where we want to have an influence. You can make an argument against whether or not the U.S. needs this type of foreign policy, but singling out Raptor deployments while ignoring stuff like WestPac carrier deployments or sending an Arleigh Burke to the South China Sea isn't being honest.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 07:30
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I was pretty amused they had them stopover in broad daylight in Europe (Spain, IIRC) on the way over, basically doing everything but posting the exact tail numbers onto the internet themselves. The carriers and Burkes are things that we already have though and aren't subject to the same kind of issues as the Raptor, yes? It's not a matter of the Raptors being deployed, it's the question of the necessity that it has to Raptors that are deployed.
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
I wonder who holds more weight between the US and China. America needs the Chinese to keep giving us loans so Congress doesn't have to face tough economic realities. China would probably like America to repay those loans and keep buying Chinese products. I think a shooting war between these two countries is pretty unlikely.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:The carriers and Burkes are things that we already have though and aren't subject to the same kind of issues as the Raptor, yes? Like I said, the Raptors bring things that carriers/Burkes/bombers don't (crazy performance, focuses attention on the region), just like all of those things bring things that Raptors don't (persistence in the case of the ships, reach in the case of the bombers). The TSP deployment for the Raptors isn't some unilateral Air Force boner/F-22 justification exercise, it's something PACOM (combatant command run by an Admiral that is heavily Navy-centric) has specifically requested for several years. So PACOM planners apparently think the Raptors need to be deployed in addition to the CBP and various Navy vessels. Oxford Comma posted:I wonder who holds more weight between the US and China. America needs the Chinese to keep giving us loans so Congress doesn't have to face tough economic realities. China would probably like America to repay those loans and keep buying Chinese products. It's not about a shooting war, it's about managing the various issues and flashpoints in the region to prevent a shooting war...and not all of those issues and flashpoints are necessarily being driven by a government. Like I've said numerous times, there is a lot more to this issue than the military angle, but that does play a role. Steaming a carrier through the South China Sea probably isn't the most ideal course of action, but neither is completely withdrawing everything from the WestPac.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
Yep, because General officers and staff never make mistakes. I'm sure the Raptor is the only thing keeping the Chinese from invading the Philippines.
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I wonder who holds more weight between the US and China. America needs the Chinese to keep giving us loans so Congress doesn't have to face tough economic realities. China would probably like America to repay those loans and keep buying Chinese products. This is far beyond the scope of this thread but China does not have a unified military chain of command with complete civilian control in the sense that the US or some Western nations do, so while you're certainly correct that in general none of their high-up civilians want a war, it's not exactly that simple. It's not like the PLA is just going to independently go zipping off to war, of course, but they certainly (internally and externally) aggravate diplomatic situations in ways that aren't 100% rational in the whole-picture Chinese context. China's also having economic problems where they're running out of civilian things to throw stimulus at, so they're ramping military production through the roof instead, and history shows that countries that do that tend to find awfully flimsy excuses to go play with their toys.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
I'm not sure people hate the idea of Raptors going to PACOM for strategic prick-waving purposes. It's more that they hate the idea of Raptors doing that when there are still significant, life-threatening problems with them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 11:30
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Fair enough, but as I've said above "not being used in combat" != "not needed at the moment." I can understand that. The guys do need to train, so do the ground crews. I don't mean to downplay that aspect, but I'd rather keep them on the ground than kill someone. The fact that it took pilots going public to get some action taken is pretty sad. Hopefully they can fix it once and for all. e- also yes, they are a good deterrent as well Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 12:46 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Yep, because General officers and staff never make mistakes. No one expects a Raptor squadron to singlehandedly beat up China or North Korea - but it is a very public way to put a nation on notice - "Yes, we're paying attention to you, and we're willing to use a very limited, very special asset to remind you of it." I don't think anybody rational is expecting China to invade anybody quite yet - a more realistic goal for deterrence would be to prevent disputes over maritime boundaries from escalating into limited violence. China has proven in the past that it's not above harassing or even ramming ships and aircraft to make a point. The potential for these sorts of incidents to escalate into a military confrontation and lost lives is obvious. All it takes is one twitchy officer one one side or the other to get someone killed. Cyrano posted:Really the only way to understand french political history is to understand the French revolution. It, and the subsequent decades of turmoil it spawned, created a whole bunch of social and political tensions which have been reverberating through French history to this day. OK, calling the country schizophrenic was excessive. More recently, a lot of France's, uh, 'unique' attitudes can be traced back to the back to back to back humiliations of Suez, Indochina, and Algeria. The end of colonialism and Empire in France was very different from, say, Britain. Though the end of the British Empire was messy and frequently violent, it pales in comparison to the holding-on-by-their-nails national agony that France experienced in Indochina and Algeria. These traumas, in turn, came after the humiliation France experienced at the hands of the Nazis. At least the British had their defiance and victory in WWII and (relative) success in Malaysia with which to comfort themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Well, they're going to park the Enterprise soon, doesn't that mean a bunch of planes with out a home? Not really, no.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Former vice-chair of the JSF shits all over F-35, etc. There's been a lot of talk recently about cyber-defense being an ultimately futile battle, and the only effective strategy is to ensure cyber-Mutually Assured Destruction (or 'Debilitation' as some wonks put it) against anyone who goes after your infrastructure. The only problem is that with a lot of developing countries or pariah states like DPRK and Iran they really don't have much to lose if we hacked all their telecoms and computer networks.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
What's involved keeping these stealth aircraft stealthy? There's been a lot of reference in this thread to many hours on the ground needed to keep em up to scratch - can anyone shed some light on this for me?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
dusty posted:What's involved keeping these stealth aircraft stealthy? There's been a lot of reference in this thread to many hours on the ground needed to keep em up to scratch - can anyone shed some light on this for me? I'm sure iyaayas can explicate more but a good deal of the stealthy/radar-evading character is due not only to the shape of the aircraft, but the material it's made out of, and the coatings on that material. The exact coatings/materials are of course highly classified, but I guess it's commonly known that inclement weather, salt spray, etc, can cause these coatings to degrade prematurely, compromising the radar-absorbing characteristics of the aircraft. I can only imagine it's a great deal of manual labour to repair the coatings, plus an equal if not greater amount of time to verify that the repairs were done properly. Not to mention that the coating material probably costs a hilarious amount of money. e: obligatory 'lol rain' for F-22, my work here is done 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:The carriers and Burkes are things that we already have though You know we already have all the F-22's that we're most likely ever going to have right?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 15:36
|
|
kill me now posted:You know we already have all the F-22's that we're most likely ever going to have right? I mean have in operational condition.
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
dusty posted:What's involved keeping these stealth aircraft stealthy? There's been a lot of reference in this thread to many hours on the ground needed to keep em up to scratch - can anyone shed some light on this for me?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
Is there any work being done on materials that have many of the same properties as the coatings but are more resistant to environmental factors? If a good portion of the RCS reduction comes from the paint then integrating its properties into the skin material itself seems like a no-brainer requirement for active service. Unless you honestly think a stealth plane's niche being compromised by bird poo poo is acceptable, in which case you probably either work for or are a shareholder of Lockheed.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
As I understand it the material that reduces RCS is a little more complicated than "paint." Also depending on a lot of details I have no idea of, integrating it into the skin material itself could mean "replace a whole panel of the airframe" instead of "touch up the RCS-reducing material" when it gets compromised. I'm unconvinced that's a slam dunk no-brainer.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Is there any work being done on materials that have many of the same properties as the coatings but are more resistant to environmental factors? If a good portion of the RCS reduction comes from the paint then integrating its properties into the skin material itself seems like a no-brainer requirement for active service. Unless you honestly think a stealth plane's niche being compromised by bird poo poo is acceptable, in which case you probably either work for or are a shareholder of Lockheed.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 21:06
|
|