Posted on 09/17/2015 10:02:19 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
I saw a program about future air combat that featured a B-1b converted from a bomb truck to a missile truck. It carried 80-100 AIM-120D's on rotating racks and flew about 20 miles behind a flight of F-22's. They'd launch a handful at a time depending upon the threat, and the Raptors would guide them to the targets. The enemy would see the B-1b but not the Raptors or the incoming barrage of missiles.
The Terminator: [picking up guns] The 12-gauge auto-loader.
Pawn Shop Clerk: That's Italian. You can go pump or auto.
[hands the Terminator the pump action shotgun]
The Terminator: The .45 long slide, with laser sighting.
Pawn Shop Clerk: [hands the Terminator a .45 gun] These are brand new; we just got them in. That's a good gun. Just touch the trigger, the beam comes on and you put the red dot where you want the bullet to go. You can't miss. Anything else?
The Terminator: Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.
Pawn Shop Clerk: [annoyed] Hey, just what you see, pal!
The Terminator: [looks around] The Uzi nine millimeter.
Pawn Shop Clerk: You know your weapons, buddy. Any one of these is ideal for home defense. So uh, which will it be?
The Terminator: [pointing the 12-gage shotgun towards the door] All.
Pawn Shop Clerk: I may close early today. There's a 15-day wait on the hand guns but the rifles you can take right now.
[sees the Terminator load his 12-gage shotgun]
Pawn Shop Clerk: You can't do that.
The Terminator: [shoots the clerk] Wrong!
“The Russians and Chinese have plans to beat us in the air.
1. Beat us by numbers. Far more SU-35’s and J-11s than F-15/16/18 variants.
2. Match us in technology. Russia has the SU-50, and the Chinese J-xx, are both knock offs of the F-35.
3. Beat us in technology. Russian and Chines 4th generation fighters have advanced AESA radar and plasma stealth.”
For generations the Soviets knew their planes did not match the quality of ours, but they built A LOT more of them. Their attitude was “Quantity has a quality all its own”.
That’s kind of funny. You actually point out some of the types of things I was hinting at.
And yeah, we are on Free Republic, so we probably are monitored. Lol.
PS Anything I do discuss is publicly available info, just mostly on obscure websites.
There are flying ME-262s clones now, with new engines.
I’d like to dig up one of the Mig-25s Saddam had, or get a ride in an SR-71 or B-70 Valkyrie.
Hey, is that a still image from The Bridges at Toko-Ri?
Remember this the Air Force is only accounting on the books so many F22 fighters.
We have No Idea what we have hidden behind the drapes.It like when they pulled the stealth helicopter out of their hat to launch that attack that got Bin Ladin.
I read an article recently about when the F-14 got the AIM-54C, which had a decent anti-fighter capability.
Seems some senior officer from DC (F-4 jockey) did a junket to Topgun and really wanted to go out in an F-5 and mix it up with some Tomcats.
So he and his flight are out there. They pick up the Tomcats coming in. Then the Tomcats salvo off a bunch of Buffalos, turn and go home.
DC Officer was LIVID. Stormed into the debrief and asked what the hell the Tomcat guy’s thought they were doing.
“We were flying anti-Flogger tactics, Sir”.
DC Officer stormed out, the Topgun instructor told the Tomcat pilots that they’d done good.
So here’s the thing, we can compare the datasheets on the Raptors and ChiCom Flanker knockoff all day long. But what’s going to matter is HOW they’re used. Remember that the F4F was a vastly inferior fighter on most points to the A6M Zero. Then the Thatch Weave was introduced.
So consider this. You have 100 Flankers vs 10 F-22s. The F-22s salvo off their AMRAAMs before the Flankers even know they’re there. The F-22s turn and leave.
Lowballing the AMRAAMs hit ratio, let’s say that 40 Flankers die. The other 60 are still forced to maneuver defensively burning up fuel and energy.
Now if there also happens to be F-15Cs or F/A-18s (which can carry something like 12 AMRAAMs plus a centerline tank) in the area ...
And thats just one of many possible scenarios.
Of course. Manned fighters will be expensive window-dressing in the next real war, and everybody knows it. The F-22 was canceled because - especially at its ludicrous price point - it was already recognized to be useless against newer technologies. The F-35, on the other hand, is just a defense industry payoff, a pretty toy to be sold to foreign militaries for fun and profit.
I didn’t mean to be a smart a$$ but you came across as kind of arrogant. But I understand where you were coming from.
Regards-
I have plasma stealth. :>)
I didn’t mean to be a smart a$$ but you came across as kind of arrogant. But I understand where you were coming from.
Regards-
I have a friend who works for Boeing. He can’t discuss anything he does or what he knows. One time he winked and said “feel confident”. Whatever that meant.
No worries. Guess I kind of did. Lol.
Back in the 1970s, when I was still in the Air Force, one of the big arguments was whether to build high-performance but expensive fighters, or lower-cost, lower-performance fighters, but many more of them: the so-called Hi-LO Mix. The mantra was "fill the sky with cheap airplanes." One of the questions that was ignored was, where are we going to get the pilots to fill those cheap cockpits?
Anyway, I developed a model for the situation, comparing an all-high-performance air force against an equal-cost HI-LO mix, using a range of mixes, few HI to many LO, all the way to almost no LO and mostly HI. I used a fixed ratio of cost to performance, where performance was expressed by the effectiveness coefficient in Lanchester attrition equations. That allowed me to make the two air forces equal in cost.
The result was probably not surprising. As you degrade the performance of the LO part of the mix, in order to reduce the cost per each and get more of them, you simply provide more targets for the all-HI air force.
I presented the results in a paper at an Operations Research Society meeting. My paper was nominated for an award, but lost out to another paper, primarily because I didn't use actual dollars in my analysis (I really had no way of doing that).
Sounds to me like we're having that same debate all over again. Unfortunately, history has a way of repeating itself.
The US can establish control of any Sea or Airspace it chooses.
When close to Russia that could be costly, but could still be done.
China is a video game joke.
Thank you!
The US can establish control of any Sea or Airspace it chooses.
When close to Russia that could be costly, but could still be done.
China is a video game joke.
Do you think we will be able to maintain that advantage?
Di the author take into consideration the command and control structure for fighter combat? If they practice the old Soviet era style technique that controlled aerial combat from ground stations it will end in a slaughter like the Israeli’s out in the 6 day war, and the why the Iraqi’s didn’t wage in aerial combat in the gulf war or enduring freedom.
That depends on the US Congress.
So far they have not demonstrated they are up to the task.
It’s stock footage used from the movie, “Men Of The Fighting Lady” from 1954.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.