A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Vanishing American Air Superiority"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old March 9th 10, 08:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Typhoon502
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 9, 2:37*pm, hcobb wrote:
On Mar 9, 10:41*am, Typhoon502 wrote:


Those fancy weapons would only be useful against targets at know
locations.


Yeah, just like the BAT...oh, wait, that can be pitched into an attack
area then autonomously identify and kill targets based on SONAR and IR
imaging. So the technology for post-launch autonomous target location
and designation not only exists but has been fielded. And it's not
hard to zero in on an emitting radar even if you don't have its exact
location fixed before you're airborne. Wild Weasels figured out how to
attack pop-up SAM threats 35 years ago. With a stealthy platform, you
can tease radars into coming up with even more finess than relying on
terrain masking.
  #72  
Old March 10th 10, 03:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
hcobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 9, 12:34*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:
Or you get data updates from AWACS or JSTARS or satellite or Predator
or ground observer or...

But if you are low observable in your Raptor and you are supporting
low observable F-35s, you really aren't too concerned about radar or
IR based SAMs.


Exactly.

As long as there are F-35s to escort it, the F-22 can keep to the high
and fast overwatch mission.

It excels at the role, with ceiling, supercruise, stealth and long
range radar.

As long as nothing else comes close it'll be fine.

The one thing the F-22 will not do is face the PAK-FA in combat.

Why?

It's because the biggest difference between the F-22 and the PAK-FA is
two decades of development.

By the time the PAK-FA is finally combat ready the F-22s will be
retired from service.

-HJC
  #73  
Old March 10th 10, 05:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Andrew Swallow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
{snip}

But define "exposure to enemy response". If the pilot of a 5th
generation fighter is blowing 3rd and 4th generation fighters out of the
sky at 50 or 100 nm range, with total impunity, exactly what enemy
response is he exposed to?

AHS


Possibly one of the enemy planes separated from the rest and flew
around the other side of the mountain. Close range combat is about
to commence.

Andrew swallow
  #74  
Old March 10th 10, 02:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Geoffrey Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Mar 9, 9:55 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:
...
No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to
quickly break the RAF resistance. ...


What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with
their airfield plan?


Probably a more favourable kill ratio for the Luftwaffe but no
change to the overall result, nor would the battle have lasted
much longer.

The point is the decision time was close, either it was too late to
launch the invasion so time to cut back on the air attacks, which
were increasingly hampered by the weather and lack of daylight,
or the defences would have a day when most things went right
and inflict enough casualties to force the decision. Also the tightly
packed shipping in the channel ports was an easy target for RAF
bombers, losses were going up.

The historical October fighting, as measured by aircraft lost on
operations was around 52 to 55% of the September losses
for both sides. So it is not like the fighting stopped on
September 15, if the RAF had been that close to defeat you
would have expected it to show in the second half of September
and in October as the Luftwaffe largely turned away from bombing
London by day.

Compared with July, the October losses around 50% heavier for the
RAF and 100% heavier for the Luftwaffe.

August was the peak month for both sides for aircraft lost on
operations.

The battle kept going at a steady pace until November and even after
that fighting continued through the winter with the RAF starting offensive
fighter sorties in 1941.

The evolution of the fighter loss ratio, all cause losses,

July 108 Spitfire and Hurricanes to 57 Bf109s, 1.9 to 1
August 350 to 232, about 1.5 to 1
September, 343 to 234, about 1.5 to 1
October, 174 to 136, about 1.3 to 1.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.


  #75  
Old March 10th 10, 02:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Geoffrey Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message
...

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
. au...
"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message
...

The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were
basically equals. the Spit is prettier
British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.


During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1.
If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of
3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count
bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over
France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner
over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is
the description for the bomber gunners?

Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more
deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the
number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the
claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive
at the time than it was.

The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October
1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719
Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes
to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command.


Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill.
one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other.
especially the waist gunners.


Since you describe over claiming by 2 to 1 as "vastly exaggerated"
could you please indicate what 3 to 1, 5 to 1 and more than 5 to 1
should be described as.

When I did a basic check of cause of loss of B-17s in the 8th Air
Force something like 3 were listed as lost to other B-17s. How
many USAAF were damaged by fellow bomber's gunners is rather
hard to determine, given the damage done by the German fighters
that caused the bomber gunners to open fire in the first place.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.


  #76  
Old March 10th 10, 03:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Typhoon502
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 10, 8:31*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Mar 9, 10:35*pm, Typhoon502 wrote:
I mean, if you're developing a platform that was such a big jump in
capacity, wouldn't someone go, "Hey, can we come up with some new ways
to arm it"?


Like the F-16?


Yes, like weapons to go in the F-16's internal ordnance bay so it
maintains its stealthy profile. eyeroll
  #77  
Old March 10th 10, 03:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 10, 9:08*am, Typhoon502 wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:31*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On Mar 9, 10:35*pm, Typhoon502 wrote:
I mean, if you're developing a platform that was such a big jump in
capacity, wouldn't someone go, "Hey, can we come up with some new ways
to arm it"?


Like the F-16?


Yes, like weapons to go in the F-16's internal ordnance bay so it
maintains its stealthy profile. eyeroll


The F-16 went from Boyd's "mean clean machine" to the pack mule for
any ordinance the Pentagon could find a manufacturer for. It's
scheduled for a nearly 50 year life span.
  #78  
Old March 10th 10, 06:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
hcobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 10, 6:20*am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
The F-22 and -35 are no longer dependent upon self-carried sensors
with a forward looking pie-shaped observation field. They now carry
the ability to share data with a wide range of platforms, even without
the need to employ their own suite of sensors. The data is then
integrated, prioritized and presented to the operator with full
4-pi-r-cubed spherical coverage.


And thanks to MADL using this doesn't carry a high risk of giving
yourself away.

The problem is that the F-22 needs to have something else watching its
six, while the F-35 has this built in in additional to MADL.

Remember that LPI radars are still emitting energy and this can be
(theoretically) traced.

-HJC
  #79  
Old March 10th 10, 07:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 10, 7:01*am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message

...
On Mar 9, 9:55 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:

...
No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to
quickly break the RAF resistance. ...

What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with
their airfield plan?


Probably a more favourable kill ratio for the Luftwaffe but no
change to the overall result, nor would the battle have lasted
much longer.

The point is the decision time was close, either it was too late to
launch the invasion so time to cut back on the air attacks, which
were increasingly hampered by the weather and lack of daylight,
or the defences would have a day when most things went right
and inflict enough casualties to force the decision. *Also the tightly
packed shipping in the channel ports was an easy target for RAF
bombers, losses were going up.

The historical October fighting, as measured by aircraft lost on
operations was around 52 to 55% of the September losses
for both sides. *So it is not like the fighting stopped on
September 15, if the RAF had been that close to defeat you
would have expected it to show in the second half of September
and in October as the Luftwaffe largely turned away from bombing
London by day.

Compared with July, the October losses around 50% heavier for the
RAF and 100% heavier for the Luftwaffe.

August was the peak month for both sides for aircraft lost on
operations.

The battle kept going at a steady pace until November and even after
that fighting continued through the winter with the RAF starting offensive
fighter sorties in 1941.

The evolution of the fighter loss ratio, all cause losses,

July 108 Spitfire and Hurricanes to 57 Bf109s, 1.9 to 1
August 350 to 232, about 1.5 to 1
September, 343 to 234, about 1.5 to 1
October, 174 to 136, about 1.3 to 1.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.


Realistically invasion would never have worked. Barges would have been
sitting ducks for RN. Manhandling tanks by dozens of cannon fodder
onto the beaches would have been insane. Towed barges for troop
transports in the Channel? Germans had no naval force to speak of,
best would have been air surperiority if they broke the RAF and
attempts to sue for peace. Then again, we're talking Der Fuehrer, he
might have toddled off to Russia or some such. Invaded Palestine as
Himmler was looking for the Holy Grail. Who knows.
  #80  
Old March 10th 10, 08:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
BlackBeard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default "Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 10, 6:18*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Mar 10, 9:08*am, Typhoon502 wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:31*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:


On Mar 9, 10:35*pm, Typhoon502 wrote:
I mean, if you're developing a platform that was such a big jump in
capacity, wouldn't someone go, "Hey, can we come up with some new ways
to arm it"?


Like the F-16?


Yes, like weapons to go in the F-16's internal ordnance bay so it
maintains its stealthy profile. eyeroll


The F-16 went from Boyd's "mean clean machine" to the pack mule for
any ordinance the Pentagon could find a manufacturer for. It's
scheduled for a nearly 50 year life span.


Ahhh yes, Death by bureaucracy! "We'll bury you in so many laws and
regulations you'll surrender in the first week!"


BB
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite frank Naval Aviation 1 August 30th 08 12:35 PM
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi Charlie Wolf[_2_] Naval Aviation 0 August 29th 08 03:19 AM
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus WiseGuy Naval Aviation 0 January 9th 08 03:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.