Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 99

Thread: Ditch the B-1s and B-2s for the B-21s

  1. #21
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Yep the tooling for the F-22 was lost evidently.

    Rich, I think the main difference between the F-22 and F-35 is that the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter whereas the F-35 is more of a general role fighter.

    Once again it seems the Air Force is betting on not needing elite dog-fighting capability for future conflicts. I'm sure some here remember how that assumption worked out during Viet Nam when they scrambled to put guns on the F-4 because the higher tech options weren't always working out the way they thought.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Robinson View Post
    Yep the tooling for the F-22 was lost evidently.

    Rich, I think the main difference between the F-22 and F-35 is that the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter whereas the F-35 is more of a general role fighter.

    Once again it seems the Air Force is betting on not needing elite dog-fighting capability for future conflicts. I'm sure some here remember how that assumption worked out during Viet Nam when they scrambled to put guns on the F-4 because the higher tech options weren't always working out the way they thought.
    I agree. The F-35 is a lot larger and carries a much bigger payload internally; I still think they should have called it an "A"-35. Would have made them look less silly when beaten air-to-air by an F-16.

    I also agree the Beyond Visual Range Sparrow missiles of the time weren't a 100%, but a really large part of the lack of success was the Rules of Engagement - they couldn't fire on an IFF (Identification Friend Foe) target, they had to visually engage. This was to ensure they weren't shooting at friendlies whose IFF was broken. So, if they were going that close it made sense to add a gun.
    Last edited by Jaywalker; 02-14-2018 at 10:18 AM.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaywalker View Post
    I agree. The F-35 is a lot larger and carries a much bigger payload internally; I still think they should have called it an "A"-35. Would have made them look less silly when beaten air-to-air by an F-16.

    I also agree the Beyond Visual Range Sparrow missiles of the time weren't a 100%, but a really large part of the lack of success was the Rules of Engagement - they couldn't fire on an IFF (Identification Friend Foe) target, they had to visually engage. This was to ensure they weren't shooting at friendlies whose IFF was broken. So, if they were going that close it made sense to add a gun.
    I don't have the expertise to fully debate the whole thing other than to say I've read that even the Sidewinders of the day were less than reliable. The MiGs would often draw the F-4s into close knife fights where their guns were more effective than missiles. Maybe we should have used the Skyhawks, F-5s, and Crusaders more for their gunfighting capabilities instead of just in a ground support role.

    I guess the only point I was trying to make is that I think it's a mistake to assume our aircraft will not encounter high-level threats from other nations in future conflicts. So we need the F-22 to remain a key part of the arsenal and the sixth generation fighters that will soon be developed should have a true air superiority capability. Otherwise what happens when the advanced technology it relies on fails and it finds the latest MiG on its tail?

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    NW Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaywalker View Post
    I agree. The F-35 is a lot larger and carries a much bigger payload internally; I still think they should have called it an "A"-35. Would have made them look less silly when beaten air-to-air by an F-16.
    Are you saying the F-35 is bigger than the F-22 or are you comparing it to the F-16?
    Last edited by JTQ; 02-14-2018 at 04:43 PM.

  5. #25
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    It's 2018. Shouldn't we have missiles attached to satellites right now? Constantly in geosynchronous orbit, mere minutes away from delivering megaton payloads of death and hate over whomever we want? B-52s are like wielding a broad sword in a rifle fight.

    The A-29 Super Turcano and AT-6 CAS aircraft do represent potentially beneficial roles in insurgency-type wars. Which, frankly, is all we'll be involved in for the foreseeable future. Anyone that thinks we're getting into a shooting war with China or North Korea anytime soon, needs to have their head examined. PROK doesn't have the food resources, let alone, military resources, to maintain a sustained conflict with any military that has superior equipment and finances. I'm actually pretty sure that South Korea and Japan could provide sufficient military pressure with relatively minimal aid from the US and Royal Navies to keep PROK locked down tighter than a clam with lockjaw.

  6. #26
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    It's 2018. Shouldn't we have missiles attached to satellites right now? Constantly in geosynchronous orbit, mere minutes away from delivering megaton payloads of death and hate over whomever we want?
    What happens when you have a Broken Arrow with that system?

    As for B-52s, we've gotten our Cold War dollars and then some from them.

    Forrestal class carriers? Museums.
    M47 tanks? Rusting in front of the VFW.
    B-52 Stratofortress? Ready to rock today with the Air Force Global Strike Command. Awesome.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  7. #27
    Site Supporter NEPAKevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    It's 2018. Shouldn't we have missiles attached to satellites right now? Constantly in geosynchronous orbit, mere minutes away from delivering megaton payloads of death and hate over whomever we want?
    I forget why I know this, but 'm pretty sure WMDs in orbit are a no-no however, conventional and kinetic weapons may be OK.
    "You can't win a war with choirboys. " Mad Mike Hoare

  8. #28
    Project Thor.
    Drop the bar on them.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by JTQ View Post
    Are you saying the F-35 is bigger than the F-22 or are you comparing it to the F-16?
    The F-35 can carry a larger payload internally than the F-22 can.

    ETA: Length, height, wingspan and empty weight the F-22 is bigger.
    Last edited by Jaywalker; 02-14-2018 at 09:51 PM.

  10. #30
    The F-22 is actually a larger plane than the F-35. But it is also faster and more maneuverable than the F-35. It also has a smaller radar signature. It is designed for pure air superiority, though it has been used to drop precision bombs. The only thing that the F-35 can do that the F-22 cannot due is internally carry a pair of 2000lb bombs. The F-22 is limited to carrying 1000 lb bombs internally. By carrying weapons internally they maximize their stealth characteristics.

    One big important capability of the F-22 that the F-35 lacks is that it has the ability to supercruise--that is fly at supersonic speeds without the use of its afterburner. It can supercruise at Mach 1.8--which is faster than the F-35 can even fly. The F-22 can do this and launch the longer ranged AIM-120 air to air missile, and by doing so add an additional 30% to the missile's range (please don't ask me to explain the physics of it, I am not a rocket scientist). Also, sometimes you need speed to fly in fast and fly away fast. The F-35's is slower, so it risks getting overtaken by enemy aircraft.

    Also, the plane is not as maneuverable as some of the planes it is trying to replace. In tests, an F-35 was outmaneuvered by an F-16--and the F-16 had external fuel tanks when it did so.

    Also, the F-22 can carry 6 AIM-120 medium range air to air missiles internally and 2 shorter ranged sidewinder AIM-9 air to air missiles internally. By carrying it internally the plane maintains its stealth profile. The F-35 can only carry 4 Aim-120 medium range missiles internally.

    Originally the planes were designed to be used in a high-low mix like the F-16 and F-15. Our original order was for 720 F-15s and 1388 F-16s. It was supposed to be the same way with the F-22 & F-35--with the F-22 being the high mix.

    The F-22 production was cancelled by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2009 so that production would end at 187 F-22s built. He claimed we could simply buy more F-35s to make up for the shortfall. The problems were that the F-35 was put into production before development was completed and even if it could do everything it was claimed (which it can't) , it still could not take the place of the F-22. In fact it looks like the

    The other issue is that when you are buying major weapons systems like aircraft you need to be looking 20 years ahead. While there might not have been any major air to air threats at that instant, there is not telling what what may emerge in the future decades. Even at the time, Russia was producing the SU-35, which is probably the second best fighter in the world next to the F-22. In fact it has some capabilities that the F-22 does not have. Russia was also producing advanced versions of the SU-27, on which the SU-35 was based. They are also selling them to China, who now make their own version of the plane.

    The other issue is attrition. Over time planes may be lost in accidents or combat. Based on cold war numbers, the US Air Force was supposed to buy 750 F-22s. That number was later reduced to 380. In this case I think they were shortsighted to stop production at 187. If anything they should have reduced the number of F-35s, which is supposed to be 2400 to buy more F-22s.

    A big problem with the F-35 is that they wanted a plane to replace the air forces F-16s, the navy's F-18s, and the Marines vertical takeoff Harriers. Treying to have one air frame and aircraft do all of this is expensive and complicated and results in a combat airplane that is overall less effective.
    Last edited by Ed L; 02-15-2018 at 02:59 AM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •