Raptors on the Prowl | F-22 Stealth Fighters deployed to South Korea
74 replies, posted
wouldn't be fp without all the armchair generals coming out of the woodwork at the mere mention of a fighter jet, having the exact same debate all over again
Honestly, I wonder how difficult it is logistically speaking for a military airport adapt to maintaining some new jets like this. As in, is it just a matter of having a free hangar to host the thing or do they need to send a bunch of American engineers with a ton of specialized equipment? If they need to rearm the jets, do they send them back to Japan or can it be mounted up with ammunition that's available in South Korea?
[editline]17th February 2016[/editline]
figures that my 7000th post would be made in one of these threads
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;49762837]Honestly, I wonder how difficult it is logistically speaking for a military airport adapt to maintaining some new jets like this. As in, is it just a matter of having a free hangar to host the thing or do they need to send a bunch of American engineers with a ton of specialized equipment? If they need to rearm the jets, do they send them back to Japan or can it be mounted up with ammunition that's available in South Korea?[/QUOTE]
They probably sent enough stuff to SK to keep them going for a little bit, but if anything they can very likely exchange most munitions besides certain bombs.
[QUOTE=Ta16;49762508]
Fleet defense is still terrible tbh, Mk 15 is notoriously hard to maintain (from personal experience) and is still unproven against Russia's Ultra High Performance AShM such as sizzler and sunburn. We even know that, if you knew the Hard kill percentage that they brief us on against one for a Burke or Ticonderoga you'd be depressed too. Soft kill (i.e. Chaff) is much better though but not by a lot[/QUOTE]
still better than relying on carrier launched interceptors unfortunately
chances are they aren't going to catch a sub or t-50 before they fire
[quote]
2) old airframes are naturally unstealthly (a-10).
[/quote]
you do realize your stealth is useless, especially if you have passive radar network nearby :)
also the upgrade program was quite impressive for F-14 addressing even some of your complains ...
and just like with A-10 the airframe was robust enough to fly for some time longer
also so far you have nothing to replace A-10 role while surviving hit from 20 or 40mm AA round ...
hard to tell if F-35 or A-10 can survive burst of .50 hits
anyway I never said F-14 upgrade was miracle, but it was massively cheaper than programs to no avail
also good luck to have 1 plane do all ... there is reason specialized roles do exist ...
multi-role-all-in-one non-sense is nice dream but not reachable on actual technology level
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;49763029]They probably sent enough stuff to SK to keep them going for a little bit, but if anything they can very likely exchange most munitions besides certain bombs.[/QUOTE]
Haha, makes me imagine how annoyed someone in charge of logistics must be when he hears the news, having to take into account everything that needs to be transferred and all the bureaucratic loops he'll probably have to jump through just so that those four planes can function properly in an airport that doesn't have any experience with those kinds of planes.
[QUOTE=Saxon;49761130]Seeing the F22 perform at an airshow was the coolest thing I ever saw in life. Don't wanna fuck with that[/QUOTE]
I saw the F22 perform at the Abbotsford International Airshow last year, it was god damn [B]loud[/B].
[QUOTE=Dwarden;49763059]you do realize your stealth is useless, especially if you have passive radar network nearby :)
also the upgrade program was quite impressive for F-14 addressing even some of your complains ...
and just like with A-10 the airframe was robust enough to fly for some time longer
also so far you have nothing to replace A-10 role while surviving hit from 20 or 40mm AA round ...
hard to tell if F-35 or A-10 can survive burst of .50 hits
anyway I never said F-14 upgrade was miracle, but it was massively cheaper than programs to no avail
also good luck to have 1 plane do all ... there is reason specialized roles do exist ...
multi-role-all-in-one non-sense is nice dream but not reachable on actual technology level[/QUOTE]
Stealth isn't useless. We use stealth aircraft because of how stupidly useful it is.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49763193]Stealth isn't useless. We use stealth aircraft because of how stupidly useful it is.[/QUOTE]
no you don't get it, every militarily advanced nation in the world is scrambling to get stealth aircraft because they're useless :)
[QUOTE=Dwarden;49763059]you do realize your stealth is useless, especially if you have passive radar network nearby :)
also the upgrade program was quite impressive for F-14 addressing even some of your complains ...
and just like with A-10 the airframe was robust enough to fly for some time longer
also so far you have nothing to replace A-10 role while surviving hit from 20 or 40mm AA round ...
hard to tell if F-35 or A-10 can survive burst of .50 hits
anyway I never said F-14 upgrade was miracle, but it was massively cheaper than programs to no avail
also good luck to have 1 plane do all ... there is reason specialized roles do exist ...
multi-role-all-in-one non-sense is nice dream but not reachable on actual technology level[/QUOTE]
The whole point of newer aircraft is to fly way higher than general ballistic munitions can reach them. The A-10 is made robust because at the time you had to be close to provide air support. Now jets can fly above pretty much any engagement ceiling that general ballistics can hit, while being able to strike extremely accurately. Add in stealth technology and now missiles/radar can't track you, you are literally invulnerable to any ground based anti air.
[QUOTE=Jund;49762276]we've had a no sell policy for the f-22 since day 0 and that's not going to change any time soon[/QUOTE]
Israel probably wishing they didn't sell all the jet tech we gave them now.
Once (if ever) Russia or India starts exporting the T-50 they'll probably lift the embargo on the F22
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49758992]Do they have [I]anything[/I] that could sniff out an F-22 before its too late to react?[/QUOTE]
well if you point enough radars at it, you might be able to find it, thats how the f117 was brought down once, but obviously every radar you point in one location isn't looking for more fighters elsewhere
[QUOTE=Sableye;49764290]well if you point enough radars at it, you might be able to find it, thats how the f117 was brought down once, but obviously every radar you point in one location isn't looking for more fighters elsewhere[/QUOTE]
One time, during the rain (significantly degrades performance of stealth coatings), after flying the same flight plan over and over, requiring multiple radar stations, for the stations to run on a wavelength that is otherwise worthless, and you STILL needed a lot of luck to actually get the missile to acquire a lock.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49764319]One time, during the rain (significantly degrades performance of stealth coatings), after flying the same flight plan over and over, requiring multiple radar stations, for the stations to run on a wavelength that is otherwise worthless, and you STILL needed a lot of luck to actually get the missile to acquire a lock.[/QUOTE]
and we were talking the f117, basically a dead end as far as stealth tech went. so ya chances of finding it before its launching missiles at you
Btw aircraft detection and missile guidance are two different things.
Passive radars can detect stealth aircraft but that doesnt mean you can always hit it with a missile using the data from such a radar. Pretty much all radar guided missiles right now have active or semi-active guidance, which is usually in the x-band where stealth aircraft have the best capabilities.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;49763579]The whole point of newer aircraft is to fly way higher than general ballistic munitions can reach them. The A-10 is made robust because at the time you had to be close to provide air support. Now jets can fly above pretty much any engagement ceiling that general ballistics can hit, while being able to strike extremely accurately. Add in stealth technology and now missiles/radar can't track you, you are literally invulnerable to any ground based anti air.[/QUOTE]
again, one of the argument for F-35 is that it will replace A-10 as CAS ;)
which is utter non-sense for anyone who knows what that means
(be it both the survival aspect or fuel aspect etc)
also, like I tried explain before,
any existing stealth plane is flat out visible to new generation of passive radars
all of this available to super-powers and advanced nations ...
in fact your past 'stealth' planes were stealth only against active radars,
yet the old Warsaw-pact developed passive radars (in Czechoslovakia, then in USSR (now Ukraine and Russia) and other countries including USA, India and so on)
speaking of missiles,
quite some of best AA missiles aren't using radar but also IR and optical recognize in area of 'target' for seek&destroy upon recognize as target approach
[QUOTE=Dwarden;49766974]again, one of the argument for F-35 is that it will replace A-10 as CAS ;)
which is utter non-sense for anyone who knows what that means
(be it both the survival aspect or fuel aspect etc)
also, like I tried explain before,
any existing stealth plane is flat out visible to new generation of passive radars
all of this available to super-powers and advanced nations ...
in fact your past 'stealth' planes were stealth only against active radars,
yet the old Warsaw-pact developed passive radars (in Czechoslovakia, then in USSR (now Ukraine and Russia) and other countries including USA, India and so on)
speaking of missiles,
quite some of best AA missiles aren't using radar but also IR and optical recognize in area of 'target' for seek&destroy approach[/QUOTE]
But as has been pointed out by numerous people here, passive radar systems are not suited for missile guidance. You can tell the plane is there, but you can't do anything about it with your own missiles. You'd have to scramble your own fighters and get within close range, all the meanwhile the F35 you think is such a piece of garbage can be firing at your own aircraft or dropping guided munitions un-opposed. Also, stealth aircraft do not need to be titanium bathtubs like the A10, they fire precision munitions outside of SPAAG range. When the A10 was conceived, this capability didn't exist.
[QUOTE=Dwarden;49766974]again, one of the argument for F-35 is that it will replace A-10 as CAS ;)
which is utter non-sense for anyone who knows what that means
(be it both the survival aspect or fuel aspect etc)
also, like I tried explain before,
any existing stealth plane is flat out visible to new generation of passive radars
all of this available to super-powers and advanced nations ...
in fact your past 'stealth' planes were stealth only against active radars,
yet the old Warsaw-pact developed passive radars (in Czechoslovakia, then in USSR (now Ukraine and Russia) and other countries including USA, India and so on)
speaking of missiles,
quite some of best AA missiles aren't using radar but also IR and optical recognize in area of 'target' for seek&destroy approach[/QUOTE]
Yet, the A-10 wasn't even effective at doing the job it was built for, you do know what the A-10 was built for, right?
The Gau-8 could just barely, if directed at the right spot, penetrate the armor of T-72's and even some older tanks, you can verify this for yourself by downloading an official manual used during Desert Storm that instructed A-10 pilots to waive off if they couldn't get a clear shot, because it wasn't even good at killing tanks in the 70's and 80's.
Tell me, what happens when the glorious A-10 is butt-fucked by an S300 before it's even within its engagement range? Now, before you reply "WE BLOW UP THE AA FIRST THEN LET THE A-10'S GO IN!" need I remind you, as above, the A-10 can't penetrate a cardboard box from the 80's, you really think it can penetrate a MBT of today?
And before the inevitable "IT STILL CARRIES AGMS!!" comes up, I think I'd rather trust the job to the more advanced craft capable of performing CAS from 100+km away, rather than the bucket from 1977 that can only engage tanks from 21km away.
When it all comes down to it: Shut the fuck up. Stop horse shitting about modern AA "But MUH RADAR!" and whatever other asinine shit coming out of your mouth. If you think modern AA can handle stealth aircraft, why the hell would you argue that the A-10 should remain in service? That's like sending the Mayflower to destroy the USS Ronald Reagan.
Case in point - the A-10 sucked in 1977 - It still sucks today - The F35 does the role literally a thousand some times better. Get over it.
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;49761547]supermaneuverability is [I]the [/I]coolest shit
[video=youtube;dggtma54dZc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dggtma54dZc[/video][/QUOTE]
Holy shitballs. That's some goddamn RC plane-like handling.
Thrust vectoring?
[quote]
Case in point - the A-10 sucked in 1977 - It still sucks today - The F35 does the role literally a thousand some times better. Get over it.
[/quote]
you don't have have anything better for CAS, nor reliable nor more robust
also the fuel sustain-ability of F-35 for CAS is so miserable that I feel sorry for the ground troops
and no you don't need S-200/300/400/500 to grind CAS, all you need is system like Pancir or Tunguska
and yes I will bet on A-10 to have longer lifetime than F-35 when under crossfire-fire of those systems
btw. the F-35 will use similar gun
(25mm vs 30mm tho new ammo) which is lighter (1 barrel less), less RPM, slightly more precise
so, if A-10 can't kill tank (as you claim) then F-35 either ;)
and about Gun vs ATGM or ATFAF then we can argue that Arena-3 will take care of any incoming threat
so it's pointless to have airplanes and one must wonder where are your orbital Ion guns ;)
[QUOTE=Anders118;49767389]But as has been pointed out by numerous people here, passive radar systems are not suited for missile guidance. You can tell the plane is there, but you can't do anything about it with your own missiles. You'd have to scramble your own fighters and get within close range, all the meanwhile the F35 you think is such a piece of garbage can be firing at your own aircraft or dropping guided munitions un-opposed. Also, stealth aircraft do not need to be titanium bathtubs like the A10, they fire precision munitions outside of SPAAG range. When the A10 was conceived, this capability didn't exist.[/QUOTE]
passive radars aren't even super useful against anything but a nighthawk because modern stealth relies more on absorption and rcs reduction than wave redirection
[QUOTE=Dwarden;49767735]you don't have have anything better for CAS, nor reliable nor more robust
also the fuel sustain-ability of F-35 for CAS is so miserable that I feel sorry for the ground troops
and no you don't need S-200/300/400/500 to grind CAS, all you need is system like Pancir or Tunguska
and yes I will bet on A-10 to have longer lifetime than F-35 when under crossfire-fire of those systems
btw. the F-35 will use similar gun
(25mm vs 30mm tho new ammo) which is lighter (1 barrel less), less RPM, slightly more precise
so, if A-10 can't kill tank (as you claim) then F-35 either ;)
and about Gun vs ATGM or ATFAF then we can argue that Arena-3 will take care of any incoming threat
so it's pointless to have airplanes and one must wonder where are your orbital Ion guns ;)[/QUOTE]
It always mystifies me why critics of the F-35 bring up its internal cannon - it's a strike fighter, it's not going to going around gunrunning hajjis, it's going to be dropping JDAMs or SDBs on them. The gun on the F-35A and the gunpod on the F-35B/C aren't meant for that, they're meant for dogfighting enemy aircraft in the extremely unlikely event that scenario will happen. Plus, the cannon on the F-35 is still better than the vulcan 20mm on the F15/16/18/22.
[QUOTE=Dwarden;49767735]you don't have have anything better for CAS, nor reliable nor more robust
also the fuel sustain-ability of F-35 for CAS is so miserable that I feel sorry for the ground troops
and no you don't need S-200/300/400/500 to grind CAS, all you need is system like Pancir or Tunguska
and yes I will bet on A-10 to have longer lifetime than F-35 when under crossfire-fire of those systems
btw. the F-35 will use similar gun
(25mm vs 30mm tho new ammo) which is lighter (1 barrel less), less RPM, slightly more precise
so, if A-10 can't kill tank (as you claim) then F-35 either ;)
and about Gun vs ATGM or ATFAF then we can argue that Arena-3 will take care of any incoming threat
so it's pointless to have airplanes and one must wonder where are your orbital Ion guns ;)[/QUOTE]
super tucano, texan 2, ov-10 bronco, textron airland scorpion
and they won't be stupidly overweight and almost cost as much as an f-16 per flight hour
the a-10 was good for what it was built for at the time (destroying masses of russian apcs and disabling t-62s at the fulda gap) but no one does that shit anymore
"can't kill a tank (as you claim)" lmao. shows how little you know about what you're talking about ;)
you think guns are effective anti-tank when they couldn't even pen a t-62 frontally ;)
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Ir6KHBD.gif[/img]
nevermind that modern tanks have 800+mm composite and 1200+ rhae and that the gau-8 has an effective pen of 60mm rhae at 1000m ;)
ofc here comes the common rhetoric about how every single aircraft that isn't an a-10 will immediately be detected because stealth is useless and how the a-10 is invincible against aa because it survived an indirect triple a hit one time ;)
it's not like we lost more a-10s in combat than any other aircraft during the gulf war ;)
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War#1991_.28Operation_Desert_Shield.2FDesert_Storm.29[/url]
[editline]18th February 2016[/editline]
please tell me what else you learned from warisboring and foxtrotalpha, i'm really interested
[QUOTE=Dwarden;49767735]you don't have have anything better for CAS, nor reliable nor more robust
also the fuel sustain-ability of F-35 for CAS is so miserable that I feel sorry for the ground troops
and no you don't need S-200/300/400/500 to grind CAS, all you need is system like Pancir or Tunguska
and yes I will bet on A-10 to have longer lifetime than F-35 when under crossfire-fire of those systems
btw. the F-35 will use similar gun
(25mm vs 30mm tho new ammo) which is lighter (1 barrel less), less RPM, slightly more precise
so, if A-10 can't kill tank (as you claim) then F-35 either ;)
and about Gun vs ATGM or ATFAF then we can argue that Arena-3 will take care of any incoming threat
so it's pointless to have airplanes and one must wonder where are your orbital Ion guns ;)[/QUOTE]
Why would the A10 have a longer lifetime when under a crossfire of Tunguskas and S-300s? The S-300s can't see the F35, and the Tunguskas can't see OR hit it due to the range it would be striking from. Second, you're not going to have an F35 gun running tanks. That's not what the gun is for. It would use long range precision munitions. Also, what the hell is the Arena-3? Some sort of CIWS system or missile interceptor? I can't find anything online about it. If it's a missile interceptor, I'd like to point out that the Russians have never actually deployed and fired their modern SAMs in a combat situation, either against proper aircraft or missiles, so I'd be highly suspect about their ability to target and destroy small, stealthy ordnance.
The A-10 requires full air superiority and near-complete destruction of all ground based AA to be able to operate even remotely safely, as opposed to a F-22 or an actually functional F-35, which can actually avoid or counter most any threat that might come up in a conventional warzone.
The only reason the A-10 has any sort of continued success is because the U.S. haven't been at war with any power that has had any sort of anti-aircraft capabilities since Vietnam. The job it actually does could probably be done better and cheaper by a fuckin' B-17 dragged out of the museum with a few Hellfires duckttaped crudely to its' wings.
where does this concept that the A-10's gun is even meant to kill tanks come from
it's not, it's to shred APCs which it does just fine. it had mavericks for tanks. the F-35 would probably do it fine as well but doing gun runs is dumb and suicidal against any enemy with a proper IADS
as for time on station you've got drones that can loiter much longer for that. they'll get shot down? you're not going to be doing CAS missions while the enemy has a strong AA net up anyway. the US already saw that in iraq where the A-10's got wrecked so hard they were pulled out from doing CAS missions and F-16's and hornets did their job for them.
the A-10 has its uses as a COIN aircraft but there are unimaginably cheaper alternatives available with drones and turboprops.
[QUOTE=Dwarden;49767735]you don't have have anything better for CAS, nor reliable nor more robust
also the fuel sustain-ability of F-35 for CAS is so miserable that I feel sorry for the ground troops
and no you don't need S-200/300/400/500 to grind CAS, all you need is system like Pancir or Tunguska
and yes I will bet on A-10 to have longer lifetime than F-35 when under crossfire-fire of those systems
btw. the F-35 will use similar gun
(25mm vs 30mm tho new ammo) which is lighter (1 barrel less), less RPM, slightly more precise
so, if A-10 can't kill tank (as you claim) then F-35 either ;)
and about Gun vs ATGM or ATFAF then we can argue that Arena-3 will take care of any incoming threat
so it's pointless to have airplanes and one must wonder where are your orbital Ion guns ;)[/QUOTE]
I think it's safe to say everyone here agrees, absolutely, 100% that you literally don't know anything, about anything, that you're talking about.
[QUOTE]btw. the F-35 will use similar gun
(25mm vs 30mm tho new ammo) which is lighter (1 barrel less), less RPM, slightly more precise
so, if A-10 can't kill tank (as you claim) then F-35 either ;)[/QUOTE]
:what:
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;49768341]where does this concept that the A-10's gun is even meant to kill tanks come from
it's not, it's to shred APCs which it does just fine. it had mavericks for tanks. the F-35 would probably do it fine as well but doing gun runs is dumb and suicidal against any enemy with a proper IADS
as for time on station you've got drones that can loiter much longer for that. they'll get shot down? you're not going to be doing CAS missions while the enemy has a strong AA net up anyway. the US already saw that in iraq where the A-10's got wrecked so hard they were pulled out from doing CAS missions and F-16's and hornets did their job for them.
the A-10 has its uses as a COIN aircraft but there are unimaginably cheaper alternatives available with drones and turboprops.[/QUOTE]
It was designed to kill tanks. The whole point was that they could kill more tanks per sortie and reduce cost per kill if they didn't have to rely solely on Mavericks. And it worked fairly well on the T-62s that were in action at the time. Source: [I]A-10 Thunderbolt II[/I] by Mike Spick
[QUOTE=Apache249;49768623]It was designed to kill tanks. The whole point was that they could kill more tanks per sortie and reduce cost per kill if they didn't have to rely solely on Mavericks. And it worked fairly well on the T-62s that were in action at the time. Source: [I]A-10 Thunderbolt II[/I] by Mike Spick[/QUOTE]
Yes but the point at hand is the fact the Gau-8 had trouble even destroying T-62's, yes it [I]was[/I] possible, but only at certain points - the gist is, the Gau-8 had trouble destroying T-62's. Anyone who thinks the A-10's main weapon will do anything to even well armed APC's today are crazy.
Source: A-10 pilots manual
We are fighting people who predominately use unarmored vehicles and dumbfire rockets. Having an aircraft that can sortie and do gun runs for a fraction of even dropping bombs is helpful. It is a cost effective solution for the enemy we are actually facing.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49768961]We are fighting people who predominately use unarmored vehicles and dumbfire rockets. Having an aircraft that can sortie and do gun runs for a fraction of even dropping bombs is helpful. It is a cost effective solution for the enemy we are actually facing.[/QUOTE]
So are attack helicopters like Apaches or Cobras, probably more so.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.