legios

Better get used to that here, pal, if you're gonna stick around for any length of time. Trust me on this. I've been a member for years...I just don't post a lot. (Not to mention, everyone's account got reset). Anyway, like I said, I don't post a lot. Only when the absurdity level has gotten ridiculously high...like now. People are criticizing something they know nothing about. People are just having fun. Making jokes about Robotech always gets a laugh. When HG comes up from a name like Shadow Force its just begging for people to make some cracks at its expense. I think people here know that their comments and or criticisms are sometimes ridiculous. That's part of the fun. No one should honestly take these type of comments seriously. I doubt that the author's of them do. On a side note I'm at point where I'm not as easily interested or entertained as was before from the usual debates (insightful ones or not). I really would rather see these debates among members who have been a active part of these messages boards and not those who wait a long time and only start to post again to set people straight. This is a warning: If I see anymore lurkers returning from the dead to set things straight out any time soon I'm going to straighten my foot out in their ass. This is not saying people can't try to straighten out things. It's saying that these people better not be those who weren't active. Bring that foot. I only post when I feel like I have something to contribute or when I think things are out of hand. I've been reading this mb almost every day for 3 years...so I'm active. Just not an active poster. The more people talk, the less they usually know.

Better get used to that here, pal, if you're gonna stick around for any length of time. Trust me on this. I've been a member for years...I just don't post a lot. (Not to mention, everyone's account got reset). Anyway, like I said, I don't post a lot. Only when the absurdity level has gotten ridiculously high...like now. People are criticizing something they know nothing about.

No planet turned into the SDF-01. Haydon turned out to be a artificial planet. The only real reference to the SDF-01 was when the original fold engines were found in N-space (the ones that disappeared after the macross fold). The Gamma Fighter is supposed to be the replacement for the Alpha and Beta Fighters, not some enemy fighter. I for one like the naming scheme, and it is mirrored in real life. USAF fighters are named for birds of prey. (That's why the F-22 was changed from Lightening II to Raptor). Different USN ships are named for different things depending on class. USA tanks are named for famous mobile/tank commanders, their helicopters are named after Native American tribes. I could go one, but I think you get the point. As others have mentioned, Shadow Fighters and Drones were extensively mentioned in the last episodes of Robotech. I recognize some of the cheesiness of Robotech, but I'm sooooooooooo sick of people knocking it when they obviously have no idea what they're talking about.

Ha, the one time I played someone with a battlemaster, he took a head shot. The damage spilled over to his reactor and he blew sky-high. That was the only time I played that I ever saw a head shot. I still have the game on my bookshelf, but I stopped playing as the new rules started coming out. Off topic post I know, but I couldn't help responding.

Tomcat bubbas forced themselves into early retirement. The plane took a lot of man hours to fly and maintain (much more than hornets...super or not), and their percentage of "full mission capable" birds was abysmmal. However, despite that fact, tomcats fulfullled an important role and so were planned to be phased out gradually as the E/F's came on line. Well, there were a few tomcat pilots that figured since the plane was being retired anyway, they might as well try to break a few. In case you're wondering, the operational G, airspeed, etc limits are lower than the actual limits of the airframe. This is to reduce the stress placed on the airframe over the lifetime of the aircraft. Well, these pilots went out and did some dangerous, stupid stuff and really did break a few aircraft (and a few flight rules as well). These incidents embarrassed the navy and cost it quite a bit of money. Since the Navy always considered Tomcat aircrew to be kind of "uncontrollable prima donnas" (and they kind of are), the powers that be figured it would be cheaper in the long run to simply retire the Tomcat as soon as possible...even if all the E/F's weren't ready.

F-14 TCS is weather dependent and is useless at night. In addition, its effectiveness is highly user dependent. More importantly, it can only tell what kind of aircraft it is...not who is flying it. For example, is that a French Mirage F-1 or an Iraqi one. Is that a red cross C130 or an Iraqi army one. etc. Incidently, NCTR has the same problem.

The F-15's also shot down two US Blackhawks. (yes I know that they weren't using NCTR). NCTR is not fool-proof. It's great when it works, but it requires the target aircraft do certain things. I won't go into what on this forum. It is also considered hostile intent (it uses a firing-solution radar), so its use is often restricted in congested airspace like the North Arabian Gulf. China's airforce and to a certain extent, N. Korea's air force can compete with the US today. The reason why is that they have so many aircraft that US fighters would be overwhelmed. Both nations use tactics that take advantage of the fact that they have THOUSANDS of low tech (but still deadly) aircraft and a few hundred modern aircraft. Their command and control is nowhere near as capable as ours, and right now that would be the difference. However, China has recognized this and is working to even the gap. The US has already had to block Isreal from selling China a really capable AWACS type platform. The F-22 is much better equipped to integrate with the command and control platforms and as such it is able to engage more targets in quicker secession than current US fighters. This would make it a much more capable air-superiority platform. In addition, it is MUCH faster than everything else (sustained). Right now the Chinese Su-27's are difficult to interecept because of their speed. And MiG-25's?....fuggetaboutit. This allows the F-22 to employ a wide-range of new tactics, while at the same time reducing the amount of aircraft needed to maintain air superiority. I'm not saying that BVR needs a human operator in the aircraft. I'm just saying that it's not just push button warfare. In other words, AI could not handle it, you would definitely need a human operator somewhere. Which in turn makes you vulnerable to jamming.

Air to Air BVR engagements are anything but push button warfare. It is a mentally complex and maneuver intensive evolution. And nobody shoots BVR anymore...too many civillians/blue forces. Almost all engagements need a visual ID (VID), so the fighters push to the merge. At that point, the manned fighter is crucial. BVR was cool when we were fighting the Russkies and we were red and free with our weapons, and BVR is still the shot of choice. It's just hard to do in todays world.

But transmitting jamming decreases by cube of the radius (r^3). Since the strike aircraft by necessity have to be near the target, the power from a defensive jammer will be orders of magnitude greater than the power being transmitted by the attackers base stations. (for example a ship hundreds of miles away).

I see UCAVS in the strike role very soon. With GPS weapons (JDAM and JSOW), most strike aircraft are just bomb trucks anyway. I don't see UCAVAS taking the place of air to air or close air support any time soon. AI is not up to the task of performing these tasks on its own, and I think that jamming is still a problem. I argue with my peers all the time...most of them think that a few systems of ours are unjammable. I say that jamming is just a power issue...if you have enough power, you can jam anything. Just a personal opinion.

The US has always supported Pakistan...well at least since the Reagan years. The US propped up Pakistan because it feared that the USSR would move into Pakistan after it finished Afghanistan. The fear was that the USSR was expanding south to gain a warm weather sea port. Since then, US/Pakistan ties have generally been strong while US/India times have been strained at times. The only time in the last 20+ years or so when the US/Pakistan ties were not that strong is when the US placed economic embargoes on both India and Pakistan for their nuclear shows of force in the late 90's. Of course, even then the US was generally supportive of Pakistan over India.

Low flying aircraft don't do well in actual conflicts. The biggest reason is that great forward looking terrain avoidance radar tends to let people know you're coming. I don't have the exact figurers, but I think that Tornadoes had the highest loss/sortie ratio in the 1st Gulf War. In addition, flying low subjects you to all sorts of ground fire. India is a tentative ally, but they are nowhere near as chummy with us as Pakistan. We have always backed Pakistan, and now Pakistan is more important to us than ever. In case you haven't noticed Pakistan and India are mortal enemies. India is one major incident away from becoming a real adversary. (P.S. When we were flying over Afghanistan from the North Arabian Gulf, Indian intervention was REAL worry) The good thing about the ABL 747's is that they will be close enough to hit missiles in the boost phase. The power delivered to the missile will be great enough for a burn through since the 747's will be relatively close to the target. (They're really a theater ABM system rather than a strategic one. In other words, they're designed to shoot down short range SCUDS, not ICBM's). You want to hit the missle in the boost phase for several reasons. 1. Huge IR signature makes it easier to track 2. Boosters are thin skinned (1cm or less) and filled with explosive fuel 3. Missile is at its slowest velocity 4. The warhead tends to fall back on the shooter's territory

I'm in the Navy and I have no vested interest in the F/A-22 at all. In fact, if it did get cancelled, it would free up money for projects that I'm working on/with. With that said, I am HEAVILY in favor of the Raptor and here's why. China/India. Are they an immenent threat...know. Are they a possible threat...yes. They are just now becoming world players and sooner or later they are going to try and dictate policies that are in their best interest...especially in Southwest to Southeast Asia. In case you haven't noticed...we have several interests in that area. Oil, Pakistan, Afghanistan, a few former USSR republics, Taiwan, Japan, etc. One of the reasons we've had to fight so few wars is the fact that other countries have respected our huge advantage and have been tentative to get into a conflict with us. However, if they perceive that advantage to be slipping, they will push for their own national interests. We have to be able to meet that challenge by maintaing our overwhelming superiority in everything. By the way, both India and China are buying the best equipment there is on the market...so they're planning for something. Syria/N.Korea/Libya. Can the F-15 and other platform/weapons deal with this threat. Definitely (probably for N.Korea). Can the F-22 deal with this threat better? Definitely. The F-22's capabilties in avoiding detection and getting the first shot are heads and shoulders above everything else in the world. If your child was a pilot, would you rather he or she had a 99% chance of coming home alive or a 75% chance. Reliability. Yes the avionics have problems. However, that is a software issue and can and will be fixed. Now let's talk about everything else. The mean time between failure for all other componens, and especially the engines, are magnitudes greater in the F-22 over all other 3rd generation aircraft. That means you need less parts support, less maintainers, and less money to support the aircraft in the long run. In addition, the smaller logistical footprint allows for more rapid and more flexible deployments. The designs for the F-15/16/18C are approaching 40 years. We have made huge leaps in materials and manufacturing since then. We also have a huge lessons learned file that we used to make the F-22. An example of one lesson learned is that all the high failure parts are easily accessible. This means that when a part does fail, it takes hours instead of days to fix and turn around the aircraft. JSF. The JSF is years away and is in all respects a less capable platform. Smaller radar, shorter range, slower speed, smaller weapon loadout. In addition, the F-35 is to share avionics and engines with the F-22. Cancelling the F-22 will in turn make the F-35 much more expensive. It is easy to fault the F-22 for all its problems. People did the same for the F-15/14/16/18 and they turned out to be phenomenal aircraft. Remeber, this is the 1st true 4th generation aircraft and there will be some growing pains. It does not mean we give up and start all over again.

White Drew Carey: I actually work with the stuff everyday and my current job deals with future advances and future threats. I do not need to sway you since I KNOW what's going on. Most of you guys are just guessing. Phyrox: The war on terror is not the next war. The war on terror will go on for years and years and it is doubtful that it will ever be won conclusively. The "next" war is the next war we will be fighting against a state government, and it is inevitable. We need to gear up to fight this threat. Noone will be able to match us globaly for a long time...but there are several states that will be able to match us locally. China and India will be able to dictate policy in East Asia if we do not continue to meet their challenges. Use spec-ops and intelligence to deal with terrorists. You do not want to build for the lowest threat...you want to prepare for the greatest threat. Also remember that in order to defeat terrorists, we may have to fight a conventional war. Afghanistan began as a conventional war. Conflicts in Syria and Libya would also be conventional wars.

Where to start. How about we start with nullifying the rumor that the B-1 and B-2 were worthless. The B-1 made the USSR completely redesign their integrated air defense (IAD) network to deal with a low flying/high speed threat. The B-1 could effectively penetrate the defenses that Soviets had been fielding and combined with ALCM's, the B-1's could potentially hit several targets before being intercepted. This made the Soviets spend BILLIONS and helped lead to their eventual collapse. The B-2 proves it's worth over and over by not needing the huge amounts of support aircraft that normal strike aircraft need. When I've helped plan strikes, we've needed to use dozens of aircraft just to get a couple of actual bomb droppers to the target. However, when I've flown with B-2's, all we do is stay out of their way. They come in, strike their targets, and leave without talking to anyone or asking for any help. The A-12 was costly, overweight, and behind schedule. Of course it was a completely new design that incorporated a lot of new, untested technology. It really wasn't a surprise to anyone that it had growing pains. However, when it was cancelled, it was probably only a few years from flying. Instead, it was cancelled outright and all that money was wasted. In addition, since the A-6 was already being retired, the Navy had to start a whole new program. That program (the superhornet) is just now getting to the fleet. The end result is that the Navy spent billions more and got a much inferior aircraft than it would have had it just stuck with the A-12. The F/A-22 is desperately needed. There are scenarios now that the Navy considers unwin-able or marginally win-able in the air-to-air arena. The AF has better aircraft/systems than we do, but I bet they are facing the same problems. Everyone that is bashing the F-22 is basing their opinions on 3 wars...The 2 Gulf wars and the Balkans. However Iraq had an inept, poorly motivated airforce and the Serbs had few aircraft at all. I can guarentee that countries such as Syria, N.Korea, and especially China would contest the US for air superiority. Let's not plan on fighting the last war...let's plan for the next one.