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

GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 11th 08, 09:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

In message , Tiger
writes
William Black wrote:
What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish

quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers

that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
fits the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to
drop bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may
be pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....


Fine until the Bad Guys hit it with a 1960s-vintage SA-7 or similar,
which is cheap and widely proliferated and very effective against such
aircraft (as evidenced by the withdrawal of the A-1 from Vietnam by the
end).

By the time you've added the IRCM capability to survive MANPADS,
included the navigation and comms gear needed to hit *that* building to
support the troops, and bolted on the sensors that let you operate at
night as well as by day... your solution is no longer quick, cheap and
simple.


It's the old problem of the Blitzfighter: it's an appealing notion to
fill the skies with cheap, simple aircraft armed with a simple but
deadly gun and unburdened by complex electronic boondoggles, but the
reality falls over when many are blotted from the sky by SAMs, others
can't be reached on a swamped VHF voicenet, those that can get to where
they're needed get into long conversations about "I see the street, I
think, and some red smoke, you want me to hit the red smoke?... okay,
across the street and three houses north of the red smoke... I show two
red smokes now... was that you calling 'Check! Check! Check!'?"

The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
(though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting
on bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
effectiveness and longevity...)

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
  #22  
Old June 11th 08, 11:44 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jim Wilkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

On Jun 10, 8:14*pm, Ian B MacLure wrote:
Who with?


* * * * Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
* * * * Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
* * * * "who" and "with".

* * * * IBM


Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted
the next war.
  #23  
Old June 11th 08, 11:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Roger Conroy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


"Tiger" wrote in message
...
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
.. .

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in
:



we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.



Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity. They
are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
expansions. Decades may be a bit much.


Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.


  #24  
Old June 11th 08, 11:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Roger Conroy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


"Tiger" wrote in message
...
g lof2 wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger wrote:

William Black wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....



Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.


The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
sites... Nor does most of the world have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
plane is really what you want.


Can you ABSOLUTELY, GUARANTEE that no possible future enemy could
aquire/develop such technology within the next 30 or so years?


  #25  
Old June 11th 08, 12:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Andrew Swallow[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
[snip]

Redesign a B747 or A380 with a conveyor belt and a hole in the bottom
so that it can drop scores of smart bombs, one at a time, and you'll
have all the air support you'll need for the ground forces.

Juergen Nieveler


Make the hole in the side rather than the bottom. Civilian aircraft
have large cargo holds whose doors are on the side.

The aircraft have sufficient space to carry bombs, missiles and a gun.

Andrew Swallow
  #26  
Old June 11th 08, 01:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

On Jun 11, 1:34 am, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:
"Tiger" wrote in message

...



William Black wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


---------------------------------


Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.


What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish

quantities
with great precision.


What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers

that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988 F150
could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits the
bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop bombs
in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be pushing the
concept a bit, but I hear you.....


I haven't gotten the impression that the A-10 is going away any time soon...

AHS


I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
carrier-able version of the A-10 or a new design.
  #27  
Old June 11th 08, 01:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


"Mike Williamson" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that
are designed to fight a major European war.


That's what the WWII twin engined bombers were built for, but that is
besides the point. No B-25 would be allowed to FLY in Iraq, much less
drop a bomb on anything. They don't have the equipment to safely fly
in the airspace around Baghdad, for instance (some of the most congested
airspace in the world, and not nearly as neat and tidy as, say, Chicago
O'Hare airport).


Technical issue.

Easy to solve.


They also don't have anywhere near the accuracy needed
to be allowed to drop a bomb just about anywhere in the country- when it
comes to dropping bombs, a counter-insurgency has come to being about
dropping them right on the specific vehicle/person/room you are aiming
at, not hitting a railroad yard.


Again, that's a technical issue.

You just throw the old gear out and bolt new gear on.

It's still going to be a lot cheaper than new F-35s

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.



Mike



  #28  
Old June 11th 08, 01:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
.. .
"William Black" wrote in
:


"eyeball" wrote in message
.
..
On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black"
wrote:


What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.

Until the next war?


Who with?


Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
"who" and "with".


I'm sure.

But if it turns out to be yet another gang of urban terrorists the F35s will
be about as useful as the SSBNs.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.



  #29  
Old June 11th 08, 01:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


"g lof2" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger wrote:
William Black wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish

quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers

that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....


Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

------------------------

Youi mean the vast Tabilan air threat that was sucessfully neutralised after
a hard fight?

I don't remember that one, perhaps you'll enlighten us...

--------------------------

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.



  #30  
Old June 11th 08, 02:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Typhoon502
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

On Jun 11, 6:51*am, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:
"Tiger" wrote in message

...





Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
...


"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in
:


*we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.


Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity. They
are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
expansions. Decades may be a bit much.


Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide quoted text -


Not to mention Venezuela...
 




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
Logger Choice Jamie Denton Soaring 10 July 6th 07 03:13 PM
Headset Choice jad Piloting 14 August 9th 06 07:59 AM
Which DC Headphone is best choice? [email protected] Piloting 65 June 27th 06 11:50 PM
!! HELP GAMERS CHOICE Dave Military Aviation 2 September 3rd 04 04:48 PM
!!HELP GAMERS CHOICE Dave Soaring 0 September 3rd 04 12:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM.


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