What Makes a Good Fighter?

[hot222]

actually the F-22 is almost a 25 year old design. It was started during the halcyon days of the cold war. As it was, the Soviet Union collapsed and the priority for the aircraft was reduced considerably.

Any aircraft in the world was designed many years before entering in service. Most of the times it was a decade, but here are a lot of needs in term of technology, cause F-22 incorporates material/avionics/engines/etc. that weren't even known before 25 years.

Moreover, today seemed outdated, cause, since Russia is a friend, there are in the world that kind of threats that really need F-22.

How many times do we have to repeat this? (rhetorical question)

This was not a case where the Serbs had some capability to compromise stealth:

French Major Pierre-Henri Bunel was convicted for treason in Bosnia for providing targetting data and flight information to the Serbs.

"A special military court in Paris heard that he revealed details of Nato's bombing plans just before its military campaign got under way in Kosovo. Bunel, who was attached to Nato in Brussels at the time, admitted passing on information, but denied the treason charges, saying he was acting under the orders of French intelligence services."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1706341.stm


and before I sound like a broken record:


1) the aircraft had flown the same flight path 4 missions in a row - a complete planning and tactical failure on the pilot due to complacency
2) Major Brunel gave the Serbs flight path information of likely stealth ingress
3) The serbs were able to set up a box kill once they established the ingress pattern


An example of good lateral thinking on the serbs part - but not a demonstration of technical detection prowess.

The continuing urban myth that the Serbs ID'd the target cold and made the shot is absolute nonsense.

There are also post conflict records that show that the Serbs expended over 2000 individual bits of weaponry at the thing. That also supports the notion that there was a lack of accurate targetting information and an attempt to saturate the ingress route.


At least get it right if events are to be presented as supporting evidence of capability.

Oh, you mean there are spies in a war! Was that the first time? Serbs seems that had aquired true intel, when NATO was bombing fake MiGs on the ground.

And you have the information what a top-secret aircraft was doing during a combat mission? Can you actually get the info that it use 4 times in a row the same corridor, the same aircraft, flown by the same pilot. Oh, by the may the pilot is planning that kind of things? Not want to argue with you, but it seems to me that this not possible.

If it is so, that we see is that Serbs, propably knowing that they had disadvantages in the term of technology, worked out the situation to overcome with that problem. NATO (US) let to technology everything, and they just failed. Whatever the way was, a highly stealth aircraft went down, and not from the most technological advanced airdefence.

 

[highsea]

...And you have the information what a top-secret aircraft was doing during a combat mission? I don't think that you can know that it used 4 times in a row the same corridor, the same aircraft, flown by the same pilot. Oh, by the may the pilot is planning that kind of things?

hot222, gf knows that the pilot does not plan the missions, he was generalizing for expediancy. All of the UNCLASS reports, including testimony before the US Congress, support gf's statement that the mission was a repeat performance, and the planners were definitely complacent.

I will tell you something that I have learned here. There are certain people who's credibility carries more weight than others. gf is one of those people.

I worked in the US aerospace industry for nearly 20 years on the engineering side, and I have a pretty good sense about certain things. On more than one occasion, gf has corrected someone on misconceptions that are commonly held, though he cannot give details for obvious reasons. On every single instance where my own personal knowledge applies, gf has been correct in his assertions. So when he says "don't believe everything you hear", you would be smart to listen . Most of the time, he keeps silent.

I have the same problem, there are many times when I want to speak out about something, such as specifications on certain AC, but I can't. That's just the way it goes.

When it comes to the "smell test", gf, Gremlin, AD, and some others here pass. Frankly, you don't. Just one opinion, I am speaking as a member, not a moderator. But I am a pilot (private, not military), Gremlin is a military helo pilot, you say you are an Apache pilot, but you just don't speak the language.

You might bear in mind that it's awfully hard to take you seriously at this point, and attacking gf's credibility only weakens your own.

JAT

 

[gf0012-aust]

Any aircraft in the world was designed many years before entering in service. Most of the times it was a decade, but here are a lot of needs in term of technology, cause F-22 incorporates material/avionics/engines/etc. that weren't even known before 25 years.

thanks for stating the obvious, so whats your point? what in my response is contradicted in fact by your answer? do you think that planes are developed and refined in some kind of temporal flux? If you consider the fact that this is probably the 7th manned stealth enhanced platform of type, then I think that progress is self evident.

Moreover, today seemed outdated, cause, since Russia is a friend, there are in the world that kind of threats that really need F-22.

can you run this by again? I think we're having a cultural disconnect here as I'm failing to understand your point. You appear to be saying that the F-22 is still relevant as there are approp threats for it to be used against? If thats the case, then thanks for pointing out (again) that the platform is required and it still has a mission. Whats your point outside of the obvious reason as to why it still has a future whereas Crusader and Commanche (for example) did not and were pulled? On the basis of that example I'm pretty sure that DoD surmised correctly that the plane still contributes to deterrence in a futuristic fashion. The fact that it does points out to inherent design stability.

Oh, you mean there are spies in a war! Was that the first time? Serbs seems that had aquired true intel, when NATO was bombing fake MiGs on the ground.

again your'e either being faecetious or you're failing to grasp the reason for my response. which is it? when someone points out an error of statement there is usually a non subtle reason sitting in there for doing so.

And you have the information what a top-secret aircraft was doing during a combat mission? Can you actually get the info that it use 4 times in a row the same corridor, the same aircraft, flown by the same pilot. Oh, by the may the pilot is planning that kind of things? Not want to argue with you, but it seems to me that this not possible.

Then you've obviously ignored the myriad of US documents criticising the pilot for errors of planning and judegemnt. That's been in a number of USNI issues of Proceedings and was commented upon by US planners at post incident assessments. If you haven't seen them - then what more can I say. The criticism has been open internally. What airforce did you say that you fly with??

If it is so, that we see is that Serbs, propably knowing that they had disadvantages in the term of technology, worked out the situation to overcome with that problem. NATO (US) let to technology everything, and they just failed. Whatever the way was, a highly stealth aircraft went down, and not from the most technological advanced airdefence.

sigh, and what is your point? for how long have we known that compounded errors have a high contribution rate from human elements? As a pilot you're telling me that you're oblivious to this little gem? You do understand that the ratio of missions to kills was about 2000:1. That seems to indicate that it was a "Golden BB". Believe me, when someone works how to regularly down an F-117 they will be the "richest man in babylon". I assume that you're old enough to understand the expression and the subtlety of my response in this instance.