Skip to comments.
F-22 RAPTOR SCORES DIRECT HIT IN TESTING OF SUPERSONIC, HIGH-ALTITUDE JDAM DROP(50,000ft.drop)
lockheedmartin.com ^
Posted on 06/13/2006 10:15:56 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-170 next last
To: Hat-Trick
I was just gonna say, can't wait to test it out on Iran......
41
posted on
06/13/2006 10:29:36 AM PDT
by
b4its2late
(I don't do drugs. I get the same effect just standing up fast.)
To: MARKUSPRIME
That is one good-looking bird.
42
posted on
06/13/2006 10:30:29 AM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi - "The Road to Peace in the Middle East runs thru Damascus.")
To: MARKUSPRIME; Dark Skies
I just got to see FIVE of these gorgeous babies flying last weekend for the airshow at Hill AFB (Utah). They said that it was the first and possibly only time the public would ever see more than one or two at once at any air show, since they just happened to be doing training missions from Hill AFB around the same time as the air show. They added the show onto the end of their training missions..... WOW, the F-22 is one awesome aircraft.........
43
posted on
06/13/2006 10:30:35 AM PDT
by
Enchante
(General Hayden: I've Never Taken a Domestic Flight That Landed in Waziristan!)
To: pghkevin
Both. A weapons release at Mach 1.5 is a tricky situation. The fact that they got a clean separation and the weapon then hit its target is simply amazing.
44
posted on
06/13/2006 10:30:44 AM PDT
by
JRios1968
(There's 3 kinds of people in this world...those who know math and those who don't.)
To: chuckles
". . . a drone or a missile would be cheaper."
Someone might check me on this, but I believe the JDAM targeting system is linked into that of the piloted aircraft, which permits in-flight retargeting in ways missiles are incapable of being handled and, given that the JDAM is 1,000 lbs. minimum, it delivers a much more powerful punch than anything a drone can carry.
To: scannell
Currently about 45 or so out of a projected 380-odd buy.
46
posted on
06/13/2006 10:31:37 AM PDT
by
JRios1968
(There's 3 kinds of people in this world...those who know math and those who don't.)
To: JRios1968
To: scannell
How many do we own of these? Enough to make a difference anywhere? I think that's a great question.
Someone here with more knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one of the key missions of the F-22 is to take out enemy air defense capabilities. If they can pull it off, it opens the skies for all manner of other aircraft to enter and make follow-up strikes.
So if I have it right, the F-22 is a real force-multiplier -- relatively few of them are needed to make a big difference.
To: RexBeach
An altitude of 50,000 feet and a range of 24 nautical miles... I wonder if they had a tail wind.
49
posted on
06/13/2006 10:33:14 AM PDT
by
JeffersonRepublic.com
(There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth.)
To: MARKUSPRIME
I'm impressed with the munitions. Launched at that altitude and speed, it made the transition to subsonic and still hit perfectly on the target.
To: Cletus.D.Yokel
The Mk83 JDAM is a 1,000 lb bomb. Zarqawi was hit with a 500 lb laser guided bomb, followed up with a 500 lb JDAM...do the math!
51
posted on
06/13/2006 10:33:32 AM PDT
by
JRios1968
(There's 3 kinds of people in this world...those who know math and those who don't.)
To: UNGN
Imagine how far it can throw a winged small diameter bomb. Fly over Florida and lay one into Cuba.
To: chuckles
The Tomahawk can beat the drop distance, but it can't be redirected inflight the way an F-22 can, and it can't do its own damage assessment...
53
posted on
06/13/2006 10:34:46 AM PDT
by
JRios1968
(There's 3 kinds of people in this world...those who know math and those who don't.)
To: InterceptPoint
Full of innocent "civilians", I'm sure.
54
posted on
06/13/2006 10:36:11 AM PDT
by
pissant
To: Red Badger
Thanks.
I am not a big fan of Wikipedia as a reference resource. Mostly becuase of the potential for mischief within it. Case in point: William Rivers Pitt has his own entry.
To: MARKUSPRIME
Thanks for the correction. I was trying to do the math and was coming up short...6 at Edwards, 7 at Nellis, 24 at Tyndall, 24 for the 27th FS at Langley...I wasn't sure how many the 94th FS (Eddie Rickenbacker's Hat in the Ring squadron) has received.
56
posted on
06/13/2006 10:37:23 AM PDT
by
JRios1968
(There's 3 kinds of people in this world...those who know math and those who don't.)
To: chuckles
Bless you for thinking about cost as well as capabilities -- a lot of people here don't do that. I wish the Air Force would put a little more effort into low-cost solutions as well as the most expensive super-gee-wizz gear.
But on the other hand, the F-22 really does seem to give us some new capabilities we didn't have before -- I'm glad we've got it.
To: JeffersonRepublic.com
No need for a tail wind when you release a JDAM from 50k feet at Mach 1.5. Those nifty little bombs can glide something fierce.
58
posted on
06/13/2006 10:38:20 AM PDT
by
JRios1968
(There's 3 kinds of people in this world...those who know math and those who don't.)
To: StJacques
The JDAM can be re-targeted, but so can a cruise missile. The 1k lbs is easily beaten by a missile, but most individual targets can be handled by a drone sized weapon. I love the Raptor, I'm just pointing out tax savings and pilot safety issues in war planning. Using a Raptor to deliver munitions from 50k ft at Mach 1.5 is kinda mute.
59
posted on
06/13/2006 10:38:32 AM PDT
by
chuckles
To: JRios1968
Mach 1.5...50,000 feet...bullseye. Just damn.
60
posted on
06/13/2006 10:38:48 AM PDT
by
BJClinton
(There's plenty of room for all God's creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-170 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson