Talk-Polywell.org

http://gizmodo.com/5419363/usaf-confirm ... alth-plane

and here:
Aviation Week

Guess that is where at least some of the F22- money went...

I remember reading an interview in the nineties with the head honco at skunkworks. He was saying they've had some stuff under wraps for over 40 years.
I'll never forget one day in my car waiting at a red light with my window half down. All of a sudden the edge of the window started vibrating, then it started vibrating so hard I though it would snap off. Then the whole car started rocking back and forth. After a few more seconds I hear this burning sound, like on TV when NASA does a launch, and I look up.
There was an SR-71 standing almost vertical on its afterburners not 300 feet overhead, airshow was in town. It looked like something straight out of Buck Rogers!

It's not about the money. That can be printed as needed, once the taxpayers have been shaken down.

It's about image:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... alask.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the Obama White house decision on the F22 production issue was consistant with the Bush Whitehouse decision. I don't know the merits of the F22 versus the F35, but since both administrations took this position I assume there is meat behind their positions.

Personally, I like the F22, though again I am not privy to the operational issues and costs. Certainly the F22 beats the F35 in dogfighting, but the apparent claimes of advances in off boresight missles (along with off boresight sensors) essentially negates dogfighting concerns. The less stealth of the F35, except in the frontal axis where initial contact would occur in a noncluttered air battle, may be offset by advances in radar counter measures, smaller size, etc. I speculate that the IR stealth of the F35's exposed engine engine is far behind the F22's buried engines, but again the difference may be moot due to countermeasure advancements.

My primary concern from a survivability perspective is that assumptions about various aspects are wrong or overcome by opposing technology. The F4 Phantom was a klunker without a gun because the experts were sure that missles would dominate the battlefield, and dogfighting and guns were obsolete. They were completly wrong then, and I worry that they may still be so.

The dogfighting capacity of the F35 may trail behind the clean performance of the F22, Su 35, Eurofighter, Rafele, etc. but, except for the F22, the other fighters will almost always have multiple tanks and weapons hanging off the wings. How does this change the dogfighting picture? And, the all aspect stealth of the F35 trails befind the F22, but it will still be far ahead of the 4.5th generation fighters.

Another aspect of the attrition formula would be losses from accidents and losses on the ground. Having ~2000 F35s instead of ~300 F22s would dillute the pain of each loss. Ideally, you would have both, but with cost restraints, which path gives you the most bang for the buck?...

Dan Tibbets

Cost isn't the issue, it's stupidity. F-22 costs are already sunk, the per-unit cost can only go lower. F-35 is still climbing, and it's not even close to production. You'd get a higher combat capability per dollar dumping the F-35 and going with a mix of F-22s, F-35s and F-15Es(Strike Eagles can carry ordnance the Raptor can't).

There is an impression that there is no possibility of war with China or other country closer to peer status. Thus, we don't need the Raptor, but remember, the military has always been wrong about how the next war will be fought. We need to keep the ability to go up against a peer, and it's not that big of a deal, because proper weapons development will provide a force with the equipment to do both, just needing the training to apply it properly.

Also, COIN works very differently these days than it did in Vietnam--the different tactics required don't need the force they're trying to build. See John Robb for more on that:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

We were most likely using this drone for the same reason we used the obsolescent Sherman in WWII--it's what we have, and it'll do the job. Likely a different machine could do the job in that environment just as easily with less money, but we have it, so use it.

What's the last time any of you heard of a US fighter involved in a real dogfight? A couple of Gadaffi's MiGs off the coast of Libya maybe? We've shot down some enemy planes, but nothing that would qualify as a real furball. In the last go-around with Iraq, Saddam didn't even send up planes to challenge us.

Much as I love dogfighting, it just is not much of an issue any more. Third world countries can't afford to waste the planes. Thus, the interest these days is in missiles or UAVs that can dogfight. There are already target drones out there capable of making US pilots glad target drones don't have guns.

What the US needs is affordable and versatile planes that can be deployed in sufficient quantity to kick butt. They need the ability to deliver heavy payloads, and to defend themselves.

The push to end the F22 did not come from either administration, it came from the Pentagon brass.

Later Air Force F-4's were equpped with a cannon. I've flown simulations of it, and it could fight tolerably well in the right hands. One on one it might lose to a good single fighter. In proper flights with wingman tactics I would not care to fool with a flight of them. The F-35, flown as intended, would be plenty dangerous.

And if we're ever up against tiny UAV fighters capable of 20 g turns, hard to see or hit, and not scared of nuttin, we'll need our own UAV fighters to defend against them.

Tom Ligon wrote:The push to end the F22 did not come from either administration, it came from the Pentagon brass.

Political brass, not fightin' brass.

Tom Ligon wrote:And if we're ever up against tiny UAV fighters capable of 20 g turns, hard to see or hit, and not scared of nuttin, we'll need our own UAV fighters to defend against them.

By that time, other technologies will have matured.

1. Jam the comm links. Non-AI UAVs drop or go into safe mode.
2. For the AI remainder, click-and-kill:



[To be miniaturized/solid-state...]

I am with Tom Ligon on this issue. He pretty much sums up what I have said in the other discussion.
Also, why risk the life of a US pilot, if you can just throw material on the enemy?
UAVs are still expensive, but they will get cheaper very quickly. It is mostly electronics and electronics are cheap if they dont have to protect a human life.
At some point they will be so cheap that you can have 20, 30 UAVs in the air for any fighter jet that the enemy has. An overpowering force for any enemy fighterjet, dogfight or not.
These UAVs will be in the air all the time, requiring very little downtime. A fighter pilot will get tired after a few hours and you need to replace him. How well is a tired fighter pilot going to fare against an UAV?

Skipjack wrote:It is mostly electronics and electronics are cheap if they dont have to protect a human life.
At some point they will be so cheap that you can have 20, 30 UAVs in the air for any fighter jet that the enemy has.

Ah, good. That means more targets, less target EM shielding, and greater effectiveness for my EMP weapon.

Skipjack wrote:How well is a tired fighter pilot going to fare against an UAV?

How alert do you have to be to flip the "Arm" switches for the automated fore, aft, top and bottom DEWs/EMPs?

what is the range of an EMP?
What is the range of an AMRAAM, or sidewinder missile?

Classified.

Missiles irrelevant. Speed of light.

Ok, so your magical EMP makes all currently existing weapons systems irrelevant?
I am sorry, but I have never heard of such a weapon being part of the USAF standard arsenal. I think I have heard of experiments with these things, but that is all...
Also, if such a weapon truly exists, then you dont need any F22s either.
Any old plane equipped with this would be at a huge advantage over any competing fighter system that does not have this sort of defense.
Only things that would be working, would be dumb- fire missiles and guns/cannons.

Skipjack wrote:Ok, so your magical EMP makes all currently existing weapons systems irrelevant?

Only the ones not controlled by neurons.

Skipjack wrote:I am sorry, but I have never heard of such a weapon being part of the USAF standard arsenal. I think I have heard of experiments with these things, but that is all...

The security measures worked.

Skipjack wrote:Also, if such a weapon truly exists, then you dont need any F22s either.
Any old plane equipped with this would be at a huge advantage over any competing fighter system that does not have this sort of defense.
Only things that would be working, would be dumb- fire missiles and guns/cannons.

So the advantage would be to the pilot with the better maneuverabilty, climb rate, sensors, stealth, etc. I rest my case.

Read this report and a couple of others a while back (> year).
The single greatest threat we face as a nation is EMP.

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473 ... on-7MB.pdf

A rogue actor popping a low orbital will take out almost half the US. How about one over Europe? Who do you shoot back at? And how? Surface strike? Air Strike? Low Orbit them back? Hard call...and they will have neighbours.
Now do you understand the press to get missile defence up and running as well as robust non-proliferation policies?

EMP is no secret. It scares the bejesus out of anyone who knows what it can really do.

Any of you guys heard of induced gamma emission? Triggered fusion in tiny objects (1,300MJ/g) without fission trigger, or graser potential?
http://www.hafniumisomer.org/isomer/isomerPubl.htm