The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 20, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
On War and Warfare Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Stealth Supremecy
Thud Weasel    7/7/2006 11:42:14 AM
I do not believe that in this day and age the Air Force needs stealth as a mainstream fighter/bomber. The tactical and strategic missions have changed enough in our new type of war to negate the need of stealth. But God bless AF Doctrine that WILL NEVER change.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Thud Weasel    RE:Stealth Supremecy   7/10/2006 4:56:19 PM
Here is my thinking. We do not NEED the B-2 fleet, nor the F-22, nor the XF-35, nor the B-1. The B-2 has an outdated mission doctrine: deep penetration strikes; as does the B-1. Both aircraft are a bitch to maintain as well as plan missions. The doctrine supporting those two airframes does not support our current style and type of fighting in the war on terror. As for the F-22, since we already maintain air supremacy, we do not need a fighter that is not as maneuverable as the current fighters (F-16CG,CJ;F-15C,E). That thing is HUGE...it's bigger than the F-15E!!. I say that if we were to have the F-22 be mission capable for all the missions it is slated for, we do not need it to be stealth and PLUS if you know anything about it..it's EXTERNAL pylons carrying ANY ordinance will NEGATE stealth....oh and what if it is using ACTIVE radar instead of passive? NO STEALTH. It's a multi-million dollar waste of machinery. We don't need them; we don't need the B-1; we don't need the B-2. It's either that or fix the Air Force Doctrine and mission and make the Air Force realize that it is ONLY a support branch and that we cannot win wars with air power alone.
 
Quote    Reply

ajSpades       10/13/2006 9:08:42 PM
I don't think the need for stealthy and deep strike aircraft will ever fully disappear.  There will always be a need to destroy an opponent's air defenses without risking ground forces in the initial push.  The Persian Gulf War and the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of this.  Without air dominance to weaken the enemies ground forces, many more ground troops would have been needed and would have died.  You can't establish air dominance unless you destroy an enemy's air defenses and air forces.  And with the advances in AAA and SAM technology, the present generation of aircraft (F-16, F-15, F-18) would be at much greater risk.
 
Admittedly, we will probably never need the shear numbers of fighter/attack aircraft that we presently have in inventory because air wars will be short.  The B-2 and F-22 will be most useful in the initial attacks to disable an enemy's warfighting capabilities.  After that, heavy bombers with long loiter times (B-52) and close air support aircraft (A-10) will be able to further weaken the enemy's ground forces and provide close air support for our ground troops.
 
Plus, the United States has to keep up technologically with the rest of the world or the edge we presently hold will weaken and disappear.  Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea all pose possible threats to the US and our allies.  All have access to Soviet military hardware, which is what the B-2 and F-22 are designed to negate.  Also, all this push to further our technological advances is for one reason:
 
To win wars faster and with less of our boys getting killed.
 
Quote    Reply

kensohaski       10/27/2006 4:59:13 PM

Here is my thinking. We do not NEED the B-2 fleet, nor the F-22, nor the XF-35, nor the B-1. The B-2 has an outdated mission doctrine: deep penetration strikes; as does the B-1. Both aircraft are a bitch to maintain as well as plan missions. The doctrine supporting those two airframes does not support our current style and type of fighting in the war on terror. As for the F-22, since we already maintain air supremacy, we do not need a fighter that is not as maneuverable as the current fighters (F-16CG,CJ;F-15C,E). That thing is HUGE...it's bigger than the F-15E!!. I say that if we were to have the F-22 be mission capable for all the missions it is slated for, we do not need it to be stealth and PLUS if you know anything about it..it's EXTERNAL pylons carrying ANY ordinance will NEGATE stealth....oh and what if it is using ACTIVE radar instead of passive? NO STEALTH. It's a multi-million dollar waste of machinery. We don't need them; we don't need the B-1; we don't need the B-2. It's either that or fix the Air Force Doctrine and mission and make the Air Force realize that it is ONLY a support branch and that we cannot win wars with air power alone.

Sure....
Our boys did not "need" the M-1 rifle either..  Our boys did not "need" long range fighter escort either....
 
Quote    Reply

USMC_ZIGGY    F-35 LIGHTING RULES   12/19/2006 4:00:03 PM
at this time and age, we need the airforce more than ever. If a war should break out between the us and n.korea, there is no way we could fight them with ground troops. The majority are in iraq. The only thing we can do is bomb. the f-45 lightning is the best jet in the world there is not a single missile anywere in the world besides are own that can shoot it down, the afterburners on it posses more than 40,000 pounds of pressure. They can also take off and land vertical, which means they can land virtually anywere. Also because of nuclear warfare the us needs it jets to shoot down any threat to its ships or country.
 
Quote    Reply

USMC_ZIGGY    F-35 LIGHTING RULES   12/19/2006 4:01:28 PM
Also there is not a single jet  in the world that can catch up to or match the raptor of the lightning (f-22, f-35)
 
Quote    Reply

Man In Black    The Truth-Finaly   5/13/2007 8:17:00 PM
    Wow guys! Looks like things are getting a little heated. Look I didn't
read the entire debate but I think I got the picture and I certainly don't want
to repeat anything but there are some things that I would like to point out or
make light of.
    I strongly agree that the single most important thing in a fighter plane
is the pilot. Period. Now with that been said, there is such a thing as
"superior technology"! If I were a fighter pilot I certainly wouldn't want to be
stuck in a non-stealthy aircraft while the other guy is flying circles around me
in his or her, next generation, cloaked death ship! Do you guys really think
Russian fighter pilots feel confident at being able to bag one of those new
fangled F-22ski's. I think not!
    I think anyone who watches an SU-37 Terminator fly would be utterly
astonished. It is truly amazing to see an aircraft pull such spectacular
maneuvers. What may surprised F-22 opponents is the fact that the Raptor has an
identical performance. Both of these aircraft have vastly superior
maveauverability to any other in-service fixed wing aircraft. For those who just
refuse to believe me, I recommend you go to youtube and watch a few clips of the
SU-37 Terminator then watch a few clips of the F-22. If you don't then you'll be
missing out- big time!
    Now for battle tactics! And this will be real world scenarios straight
from the mouth of actual Raptor pilots. This is what will happen to those SU-37
Terminators when they approach and enter the kill zone of the Raptor. Say a
group of 4 or 6 SU-37's detect an enemy fighter with it's radar on at full
blast. They will know that it is either an F-15 or an F-22 coming at them so
they will want to get in closer to get off a missile or two or three to get a
kill. But there's a problem! One of comrades just blew-up. And in the few seconds
it took for the group to figure out what just happened, another SU-37 is
obliterated. Finally, the call goes out to turn around and retreat. The Russian
pilots now realize that they have entered the playground of the Raptor. But it's
already to late because as they turn away an F-22 has already launched the
necessary number of AMRAAM's to finish off the remaining Terminators. What the
enemy didn't know ,until it was to late, was that the F-22 who's radar they were
chasing down was simply the eyes of the strike package. There was another F-22
40 miles (64km) ahead in full stealth mode. He was getting the info through a
secure data link from the other F-22 behind him. Like the original raptors from
65 million years ago, they're pack hunters.
    The F-22 has another more sinister capability but I can't seem to get
confirmation on it at this time. The B-2 bomber has the ability to use its
terrain following radar system without being detected. I think the F-22 may be
able to use a similar technique to detect and maybe even track opposing
aircraft!
    Now I have a problem with people who say the U.S. doesn't need the F-22.
People like our own government among others. Their thinking is incredibly short
sighted. They seem to think the world is just going to stay the same forever and
that other countries are happy with knowing that the U.S. has a fleet of
stealthy fighters and bombers that can slip past all of their defenses and
destroy targets at will. Foreign nations have seen that stealth technology works
and works extremely well so they to would like to have their own stealthy
aircraft and sea ships. And at the same time they will also want to create
anti-stealth countermeasures. I think our "lawmakers" who hate the F-22 should
take a trip to Russia and see an air show featuring the SU-37 Terminator and the
new Mig-29 OVT! If that doesn't scare them straight then I think they should be
put in jail for rampant incompetence.  
    Let me ask the F-22 opponents a question. Would you want your grand
children flying a 55 year old F-15 in 2030? How long do you think your grand
daughter will live in an air to air engagement? How long do you think she will
survive against advanced S.A.M.'s? Why aren't you offended? How could you be
o.k. with sending other peoples kids to war with inferior equipment when you
have the superior stuff sitting in a hanger somewhere. If I told you that I am
going to shoot you are you going to get a knife? The U.S.A.F. is not a
organization of dummies. They're thinking of countering threats out to 2040. And
in 2054 the Raptor will gets replaced by an extremely long range, skin morphing,
hypersonic, 2000 megawatt laser armed super fighter. I hope!...
    
   P.S. For the vast majority, of people who don't know anything about jet
fighters, The F-22 Raptor is the top dog and the F-35 Lightning is the little
cousin that's second only to the F-22. A rule of thumb to the laymen. Usually the
bigger the fighter the more advanced it is at what it does. 
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    Just say NO to isolationism.   5/15/2007 12:47:18 AM
Ever hear of the Zero? The Zero happened because after WWI the US turned Isolationist and decided they didn't need advanced military hardware. So by 1940 we allowed Imperial Japan to develop a fighter that it took three years of full out wartime R&D to overcome. In the meantime hundreds of US pilots died.
 
Sure we don't need the F22, and if we don't have it and someone builds a better fighter we'll be able to develop one that kicks its butt in a few years. So what if a bunch of US fighter pilots have to die again in the meantime. I suggest you learn from history, because I'm darn tired of repeating it.
 
Quote    Reply

Man In Black    It's not that easy.   5/20/2007 3:05:51 PM
   I don't think some of you get it and it saddens me deeply. We are not living in the 1940's in which we can just design and build a new fighter like the P-51 in less than 2 months. It costs billions of dollars  and over a decade to develop a fighter aircraft these days. And the replacement of the F-22 well begin sometime in the late 2030's to the early 2040's. Contrary to popular belief, other countries like Russia have to go through a similar process. Enemy countries are not sitting on their hands waiting for America to create a new fighter first then make something better in 2 or 3 years. They also want to sell fighters too. If you're going to spend billions of dollars over 15 years, would it not make sense to create the very best fighter money can buy? I understand that right now it's easy to kick-back and enjoy our military's technical superiority but your enemies are constantly on the move to acquire the same capabilities we have. And they are inching ever closer. Unfortunately the only people who truly comprehend this issue are the actual war planers. Even our own politicians are to stupid to realize that our enemies are playing a deadly game of catch-up. But to make a long story short, I am a pilot and I understand that supremacy in the air directly translates to supremacy on the ground. At Luke A.F.B. I went head to head against an SU-27(Simulator). It was a disturbing experience to say the least. I was in an F-15. I have a son who is currently growing up near Luke and he might want to be a fighter pilot one day. I don't want him to be trapped in an already obsolete F-15. I don't want your sons and daughters to be in them either!... 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Man In Black    It's happening again.   5/20/2007 5:18:08 PM
   It's funny. Throughout all time people have always been so complacent. For those who think the F-15 is the last fighter we will ever need you are not alone. There were people who thought the Zero, the P-51, and the Spitfire were the ultimate fighters until someone realized they could do better. Even when a vastly superior piece of military hardware is ready for takeoff at the end of the runway there will always be those who will say "I like the old one better".
 
   In the future I will be driving a fuel cell or all electric vehicle. The reason why is because those are superior win-win technologies. The old school types will want to continue to drive the gas guzzling polluting cars. And when they drive those gas powered cars they will be helping to support both sides of the so-called war on terror but that's another story. 
 
   I don't know why I was so angry. I now realize that the people who don't understand why we desperately need the F-22 Raptor will come around soon. One day in 2054 there will be a spectacular new fighter sitting at the end of a runway ready to replace the now legendary F-22. It will be powered by pulse detonating engines. It will house a new high energy omni-directional laser weapon. It will be a full size fighter with the ability to hover and so on and so on! And while that new fighter powers up for its maiden flight there will be an old man standing there telling the guy next to him that he  doesn't think we need it and last year (2053A.D.) he stopped liking the F-15 and now loves the F-22. You guys just need a little time. I get it now!
 
   Im just glad that the right people who are in charge of our lives are a more foward thinking bunch. God I love this country.
   
   
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy