@Noobs-R-Us: You know that movie is a semi-true story?
Its highly glamorized and dramatized to the point little is based on fact, but the Firefox is actually based on the real Mig-25 Foxfire, which scared the bejesus out of the west when we first started seeing it show up because of how fast it was as a interceptor, capable of actually intercepting the SR-71.
Firefox the movie is a fictional retelling of how the US finally got to see one up close, when a pilot defected to Japan.
@Jim Topoleski: The MiG-25 was developed, at hideous expense and effort, to counter the American XB-70.
We never seriously intended to build the XB-70, it was primarily for research and concept validation, but as soon as we saw the Soviets were in a lather about it, the supposedly "ultra secret" project was leaked just enough to ensure they wasted tons of rubles on defending against it.
I see a massive oil shortage. Pipelines inexplicably encountering significant maintenance downtime. Unusual weather reported, leading to unexpected downtime in drilling schedules. And then just a string of figures...$4.50...$4.75...$5.85.
The F-22 relies on Stealth to achieve air superiority. The idea being "I kill you even before you see me". This is done by making use of BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missiles. On the other hand if a plan does sneak up on the F-22 to engage it in a WVR(Within Visual Range) combat, the F-22's invincibility diminishes quite fast.
Planes like the Sukhoi Flankers or even upgraded Mig-21 can give it a run for its money, cause then it all depends on how good is the jamming pods on the plane (To stop the rival aircraft from locking onto its own plane) and missile used.
WVR missiles like the AIM 9X or the A11 Archer or the Python 5 can be quite deadly within their engagement envelope 'cause they have a high offbore sight and these missiles coupled with Joint Mounted queuing system in the pilots helmet can take down any aircraft.
The key with F22 and its stratosphere level cost is the stealth features, if it loses that advantage in battle, any aircraft can defeat it if it gets close and the pilot is good.
> The key with F22 and its stratosphere level cost is the stealth features, if it loses that advantage in battle,
> any aircraft can defeat it if it gets close and the pilot is good.
Which is precisely why they're not worth buying. It's a dinosaur.
The basis for modern air combat up to about 15 years ago has been pretty much the same as it was in the 1920s. The first thing you have to do is gain and then maintain air superiority. After that, you turn your aircraft loose on anything that moves on the ground.
The canonical example is WWII over Germany. As long as the Luftwaffe managed to maintain air superiority over some patch of land, the effectiveness of the allied air campaign was very close to nil. The RAF pushed them out of much of western France and Belgium, but this had no real effect. It was not until the Mosquito Serrate flights started at night, and the Mustang arrived during the day, that the Luftwaffe strength was able to be challenged at any point on the map. The Luftwaffe collapsed in a matter of months, and from then on Germany became a shooting gallery. Trains, trucks, even men walking became targets and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it.
The lesson taken away from this was that you needed three types of aircraft; fighters to take on their own aircraft, tactical fighters (fighter-bombers, attack aircraft, what have you) to attack whatever you found of value, and finally large bombers to make strategic attacks. But technology blurred the lines. At the start of WWII you had light bombers (~4,000 lbs), medium bombers (~6-8,000 lbs) and heavy bombers (~12,000 lbs) but by the end of the war engine power increased so much (over doubling) that even fighters could carry light bomber loads. And that aircraft could ditch its bombs and turn back into a fighter at a moment's notice.
This process continued, and inevitably every super-specialized aircraft became more generalist. Size limitations were reduced from many shades of grey to "big and small", the difference being due to range requirements, not ordinance. Strategic bombers have been of little use for the last 40 years, there's nothing (really useful) they can do that the same amount of money invested in tactical fighters can't do better. The last dedicated AA fighter died in the 1980s when the Strike Eagle came out, and since then every new aircraft goes out of it's way to boast it's multi-mission capabilities.
Except for the F-22. This was a Pentagon beast at its worse. A Death Star superweapon that would wipe the Soviet Union's fighters from the sky and then... what exactly? Critics have been saying it should have been cancelled since the project started.
And then came the drones. For the same money as a single F-22, I can buy dozens of armed drones. They can loiter for hours at long distances, and are increasingly autonomous. They're moderately stealthy, enough to make them survivable from older AA anyway, and if they do get hit, who cares, the next ones nails the launcher with a Mav. Better yet, since you only need a man in the loop for limited periods of time, crew requirements are dramatically reduced, and now they're being devolved down to the Army level.
While this is happening, any reasonable threat to the USAF's dominance is rapidly disappearing. The Soviets would have been problematic, but that's all. They're out of the loop, and there's absolutely nothing to replace them. That era is over.
@Nitin Mehra: It's not only the stealth. It's the maneuverability. These things are impossible to lock in dogfights. Or almost impossible, as we can see. Or maybe it's all a mountain of bull.
re: "...or played that homoerotic game of volleyball."
You know, I thought I was the only one who thought this. Having watched Top Gun again recently, it was amazing how uncomfortable some of the scenes in that movie made me feel.
@AutoTuneShouldBeACrime_GitEmSteveDave: Yeah, Launchpad McQuack doesn't get enough credit. Although, there had to be a reason why he ended up living with Drake Mallard instead of being Scrooge McDuck's personal pilot.
@Kaiser-Machead: I still have no clue why Scrooge had to hire Baloo and fire Launchpad just b/c of some affirmative action suit. I mean, Launchpad was an idiot, doesn't that give him "special" status?
@SpongeSteveSquareDave_GitEmSteveDave: They ain't tellin where they play their games. Most likely over southern Nevada, or one of those other featureless states.
A humble T-38 training jet, piloted by a trainer...
That one sentence tells the whole story. No one would care if the the title of this story would have more accurately read, Master pilot shoots down student.
@baltwade: Please read about the F-22 turning rate. Like Stephen said, this is near impossible (and theoretically, it's impossible unless you put a monkey to pilot the F22).
People who ask why we need this plane, are the same kind of people who ask why we need the military. The idea isn't that we want to use the equipment, the idea is that we keep the force ready so that ideally we discourage people from making us use it.
The planes these are replacing have reached the end of their airframe life.
@Lite: supports Bacon Salt...And so should you.: It's not like we are nor do we need to keep the actual 1970's era F-15's maintained, it just seems like we can build new F-15E's with upgraded avionics and still maintain air dominance. At the very least certainly no plane's come close to matching the F-22, so why the need to spend the billions to get the next generation already.
07/07/09
Those pictures are the same as those artist renditions of the F-117 in the 90s from before they revealed the Wobbly Goblin.
Tom Clancy even had a plane looking like that in his US-Soviet WWIII novel Red Strom Rising
Looks like Ivan is about 20yrs behind the times
07/07/09
[www.modelingmadness.com]
I was wondering if anyone else would mention that.
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
Anyhow, it's not just about the equipment but also who's operating it. U.S. fighter pilots are trained way better than their Russkie counterparts.
07/07/09
Its highly glamorized and dramatized to the point little is based on fact, but the Firefox is actually based on the real Mig-25 Foxfire, which scared the bejesus out of the west when we first started seeing it show up because of how fast it was as a interceptor, capable of actually intercepting the SR-71.
Firefox the movie is a fictional retelling of how the US finally got to see one up close, when a pilot defected to Japan.
07/07/09
07/07/09
We never seriously intended to build the XB-70, it was primarily for research and concept validation, but as soon as we saw the Soviets were in a lather about it, the supposedly "ultra secret" project was leaked just enough to ensure they wasted tons of rubles on defending against it.
07/08/09
The internet, as always, is your friend.
[en.wikipedia.org]
07/08/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
anyone else get it?
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
I see a massive oil shortage. Pipelines inexplicably encountering significant maintenance downtime. Unusual weather reported, leading to unexpected downtime in drilling schedules. And then just a string of figures...$4.50...$4.75...$5.85.
07/07/09
04/21/09
Planes like the Sukhoi Flankers or even upgraded Mig-21 can give it a run for its money, cause then it all depends on how good is the jamming pods on the plane (To stop the rival aircraft from locking onto its own plane) and missile used.
WVR missiles like the AIM 9X or the A11 Archer or the Python 5 can be quite deadly within their engagement envelope 'cause they have a high offbore sight and these missiles coupled with Joint Mounted queuing system in the pilots helmet can take down any aircraft.
The key with F22 and its stratosphere level cost is the stealth features, if it loses that advantage in battle, any aircraft can defeat it if it gets close and the pilot is good.
04/21/09
> The key with F22 and its stratosphere level cost is the stealth features, if it loses that advantage in battle,
> any aircraft can defeat it if it gets close and the pilot is good.
Which is precisely why they're not worth buying. It's a dinosaur.
The basis for modern air combat up to about 15 years ago has been pretty much the same as it was in the 1920s. The first thing you have to do is gain and then maintain air superiority. After that, you turn your aircraft loose on anything that moves on the ground.
The canonical example is WWII over Germany. As long as the Luftwaffe managed to maintain air superiority over some patch of land, the effectiveness of the allied air campaign was very close to nil. The RAF pushed them out of much of western France and Belgium, but this had no real effect. It was not until the Mosquito Serrate flights started at night, and the Mustang arrived during the day, that the Luftwaffe strength was able to be challenged at any point on the map. The Luftwaffe collapsed in a matter of months, and from then on Germany became a shooting gallery. Trains, trucks, even men walking became targets and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it.
The lesson taken away from this was that you needed three types of aircraft; fighters to take on their own aircraft, tactical fighters (fighter-bombers, attack aircraft, what have you) to attack whatever you found of value, and finally large bombers to make strategic attacks. But technology blurred the lines. At the start of WWII you had light bombers (~4,000 lbs), medium bombers (~6-8,000 lbs) and heavy bombers (~12,000 lbs) but by the end of the war engine power increased so much (over doubling) that even fighters could carry light bomber loads. And that aircraft could ditch its bombs and turn back into a fighter at a moment's notice.
This process continued, and inevitably every super-specialized aircraft became more generalist. Size limitations were reduced from many shades of grey to "big and small", the difference being due to range requirements, not ordinance. Strategic bombers have been of little use for the last 40 years, there's nothing (really useful) they can do that the same amount of money invested in tactical fighters can't do better. The last dedicated AA fighter died in the 1980s when the Strike Eagle came out, and since then every new aircraft goes out of it's way to boast it's multi-mission capabilities.
Except for the F-22. This was a Pentagon beast at its worse. A Death Star superweapon that would wipe the Soviet Union's fighters from the sky and then... what exactly? Critics have been saying it should have been cancelled since the project started.
And then came the drones. For the same money as a single F-22, I can buy dozens of armed drones. They can loiter for hours at long distances, and are increasingly autonomous. They're moderately stealthy, enough to make them survivable from older AA anyway, and if they do get hit, who cares, the next ones nails the launcher with a Mav. Better yet, since you only need a man in the loop for limited periods of time, crew requirements are dramatically reduced, and now they're being devolved down to the Army level.
While this is happening, any reasonable threat to the USAF's dominance is rapidly disappearing. The Soviets would have been problematic, but that's all. They're out of the loop, and there's absolutely nothing to replace them. That era is over.
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
re: "...or played that homoerotic game of volleyball."
You know, I thought I was the only one who thought this. Having watched Top Gun again recently, it was amazing how uncomfortable some of the scenes in that movie made me feel.
Creepy.
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
It's nothing compared to what they've got in the shadows, that stalk the night.
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
Prosecutor: Over Macho Grande?
Witness: No. I don't think I'll ever get over Macho Grande.
04/21/09
Never should have left his wingman or played that homoerotic game of volleyball.
04/21/09
04/21/09
@portugue: @Ho0ber: Domo danko.
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
03/02/09
The planes these are replacing have reached the end of their airframe life.
03/02/09
03/02/09
The point is to stay ahead of people, not keep up w/ them.
Pretty much it's government funded research that eventually ends up in public domain for other companies to use for profit/technology advancement.