To find out where the boundaries are. Or, as has been suggested elsewhere, to get your domestic critics off your back, by pointing to the letter & saying "See - we can't buy it anyway, so stop whingeing about our decision not to buy it". Which would also explain the leak.
F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
3 reasons
-Cost
-ITAR
-The two aircraft Oz will get from the USA, the Super Hornet and Lightening II, are more than a match for Oz's opponents for at least the next 10 to 20 years. Oz will be operating two of the most capable platforms in the world paralleling the USN.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/hi-lo/hi-lo.jpg
DA
Last edited:
I don't connect bananas and US/allies military.
Maybe you are trying to translate somethig?
I don't get it. Is that a chinese expression or something?
Unfair advantage? Since when was war fair? If we are going to worry about fair and unfair advantage, might as well hand over the country to the enemy and let them WIN, that will be fair.
The idea behind having the greatest and best weapon is to win wars, accomplish missions quickly and end wars with very minimal loss of life and that is what F-22 is designed to do. There is nothing unfair about that... infact it is a favor to the enemies who wish to cause harm to the United States and its interest to think wisely and not challenge the sole superpower of the world, now that is fair.
The idea behind having the greatest and best weapon is to win wars, accomplish missions quickly and end wars with very minimal loss of life and that is what F-22 is designed to do. There is nothing unfair about that... infact it is a favor to the enemies who wish to cause harm to the United States and its interest to think wisely and not challenge the sole superpower of the world, now that is fair.
DragonKing786
New Member
Just wanted to add,. wouldn't this fall into what Putin said in Germany, having a Unipolar world is creating more hostility and nations are looking towards Nuclear power, cause of US, etc to defend themselves (P.S., if you read Putins' speech, he was also signaling an arms race saying soon Russia will show new weapons, and modernize the army, and hinted by saying a Multi polar world is better, instead having a sole super power dictating).
What I'm saying is this disadvantage to the enemy,. will force them to search for more deadly weapons (chemicals, Nukes, etc). All in all war is never fair.
Well, unipolar world or no unipolar world. One thing is for sure, you don't invest billions in weapon systems just to be "fair" to potential threats.
Moreover, if certain countries are building nukes, let them, obviously for their own protection as a defensive weapon. Having advanced aircraft and weapon systems just means that they will experience attack more quickly, it will be decisive, more destructive and render them useless for any hope for future.
Moreover, if certain countries are building nukes, let them, obviously for their own protection as a defensive weapon. Having advanced aircraft and weapon systems just means that they will experience attack more quickly, it will be decisive, more destructive and render them useless for any hope for future.
I would have thought that the whole point of developing a superior weapon system is to create an advantage over a potential adversary. Having developed it (the F-22) the USAF needs to train to use that advantage as well as possible. Allied forces would also benefit by working with a superior technology (albeit in the hands of USAF pilots).
Why is it unfair to exploit an advantage? IMHO it would be ridiculous not to.
Cheers
Why is it unfair to exploit an advantage? IMHO it would be ridiculous not to.
Cheers
I tend to agree the reality is that everyone tries to have advantage over their enemy, it is just nature of things. Nobody wants to play fair.
Now, that being said, I do think Putin is right about arm race. And it is dangerous direction the world is heading in. Why? When every country start investing in nuclear weapon to "defend" themselves, the more advanced countries with nuclear weapons will evolve to seek post-nuclear super weapons. Now, if technological trend in super weapon design continue this way, I would say we are simply racing ourself to our doom faster. As super weapons becomes more deadly, more devastating, eg. before cold war, at the dawn of nuclear age, "reaction time" was several days. During cold war it was cut down to mere hours, and now it's down to merely minutes to call back the nuclear strikes and get back to negotiating table. Soon it will evolve into just nano-second total planetary destruction. There won't be time to call back bomber, there won't be time to even react. It will all be automated "response" to gain crucial "advantage". (incase human operators are dead already). Show down between countries will only happen in nano-seconds between machines, and it's over for everyone.
Now, that being said, I do think Putin is right about arm race. And it is dangerous direction the world is heading in. Why? When every country start investing in nuclear weapon to "defend" themselves, the more advanced countries with nuclear weapons will evolve to seek post-nuclear super weapons. Now, if technological trend in super weapon design continue this way, I would say we are simply racing ourself to our doom faster. As super weapons becomes more deadly, more devastating, eg. before cold war, at the dawn of nuclear age, "reaction time" was several days. During cold war it was cut down to mere hours, and now it's down to merely minutes to call back the nuclear strikes and get back to negotiating table. Soon it will evolve into just nano-second total planetary destruction. There won't be time to call back bomber, there won't be time to even react. It will all be automated "response" to gain crucial "advantage". (incase human operators are dead already). Show down between countries will only happen in nano-seconds between machines, and it's over for everyone.
Last edited:
F-22 is not super weapon. Super weapon implies strategic status. F-22 is merely a tactical weapon. It may be able to deliver nuclear weapon (through modification) but because of its range, it will just be relegated to tactical status.
Whether it is a strategic or tactical weapon system is beside the point. What I believe is that the F22 is likely to be able to dominate the air. That, IMO, is the advantage that the USAF and its allies ought to exploit.
Cheers
I heard and read similar stories about ground force wargames exercised in Germany. Often the US Army trained with the Bundeswehr (german army) and it seems to be usual that the Americans requested conditions for the wargame that put their forces into a overwhelming advantage. They refused to have two forces of similar or at least compareable strength fight each other and only want to train cases in which a hughe US force has to overwhelm a small enemy force.
Also they didn't want any enemy air support or even anti air capabilities. I heard similar things from an british soldier talking about their war games with the americans too. If i would quote the things i heard about the performance of the US forces in those wargames, i'd be accused to spread anti american propaganda here or at least accused to exaggerate to make the americans look stupid and incapable, so i better don't repeat those stories.
But i saw a video my uncle's paratrooper unit shot during a wargame "against" the US Army and if i wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes, i wouldn't have believed what was going on there.
I can understand that you want to train a scenario that is as likely as possible and the most likely scenario for the US Army is to fight an enemy that is clearly outnumbered and totally inferiour when it comes to equipment and technology, but still it seems stupid to me not to train under a little harder conditions to prepare for a case that is different.
Also they didn't want any enemy air support or even anti air capabilities. I heard similar things from an british soldier talking about their war games with the americans too. If i would quote the things i heard about the performance of the US forces in those wargames, i'd be accused to spread anti american propaganda here or at least accused to exaggerate to make the americans look stupid and incapable, so i better don't repeat those stories.
But i saw a video my uncle's paratrooper unit shot during a wargame "against" the US Army and if i wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes, i wouldn't have believed what was going on there.
I can understand that you want to train a scenario that is as likely as possible and the most likely scenario for the US Army is to fight an enemy that is clearly outnumbered and totally inferiour when it comes to equipment and technology, but still it seems stupid to me not to train under a little harder conditions to prepare for a case that is different.
Some of the more aggressive UK Infantry Battalions have made claims of a 6-1 kill ratio over purely infantry US army units, not sure if you can really read much into it but it makes a good pub story. The overwhelming air power and numerical sdvantage of the US would make that unpleasant to try of course.
Many stats can be made. In WW2 only something like 1 in 14 german tanks was desroyed by an allied tank, the rest by artillery and massive airpower not to mention lack of fuel.
The US has the kit and the numbers so its reeasonable it trains as such. Iraq might suggest that insurgents have a good chance of killing lots of highly trained professionals, in not sure the same could be said in airpower.
Certain conflicts allow tactics and smaller advantages win, eg the Falklands where the Harrier was flown to its advantage against with better short ranged missiles against a numerically bigger enemy. No commander would choose to fight in those conditions it was just that at the time the harier was all we had and the argentinians were flying at the end of thier range and some UK pilots would argue, not particularly inspired tactics. Given the choice Im sure Adm Woodward woudl have preffered Phantoms and Buccs with a few Gannets as early warning.
Many stats can be made. In WW2 only something like 1 in 14 german tanks was desroyed by an allied tank, the rest by artillery and massive airpower not to mention lack of fuel.
The US has the kit and the numbers so its reeasonable it trains as such. Iraq might suggest that insurgents have a good chance of killing lots of highly trained professionals, in not sure the same could be said in airpower.
Certain conflicts allow tactics and smaller advantages win, eg the Falklands where the Harrier was flown to its advantage against with better short ranged missiles against a numerically bigger enemy. No commander would choose to fight in those conditions it was just that at the time the harier was all we had and the argentinians were flying at the end of thier range and some UK pilots would argue, not particularly inspired tactics. Given the choice Im sure Adm Woodward woudl have preffered Phantoms and Buccs with a few Gannets as early warning.
StephenBierce
New Member
With the weapons load that the F-22 carries, in theory it should be able to hold against 4-to-1 or 5-to-1 odds, if your typical air superiority adversary is something like a MiG-29 or upgraded MiG-21 ~ MiG-23 ~ Mirage.
I'm more worried about the math, tho'. For every Raptor the U.S. (or any other nation willing to spend on them) can field, a potential enemy can field 10 Sukhoi Flankers--or 20 late-model F-7s. The missile quality gap is narrowing, and since the shootdown of that F-117 in the Balkans wars, the "rest of the world" arms industry has been working to see through the RAM technology that the Raptor relies upon.
I'm more worried about the math, tho'. For every Raptor the U.S. (or any other nation willing to spend on them) can field, a potential enemy can field 10 Sukhoi Flankers--or 20 late-model F-7s. The missile quality gap is narrowing, and since the shootdown of that F-117 in the Balkans wars, the "rest of the world" arms industry has been working to see through the RAM technology that the Raptor relies upon.
I am sure that the USAF will agree with you that it will have not have enough Raptors. Even the USAF, though, has to live within its budget and the Raptor will be complemented by other sophisticated assets like the F-35 Lightning II and the USN's FA18E/F Super Hornet.
It is unlikely other nations will spend anything on the F-22. As reported in other threads in this forum the US Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England has written to the Australian Defence Minister confirming that the US will not export the F-22 Raptor to any foreign countries.
The US seems determined to ensure that the "cutting-edge stealth technology" possessed by the F-22, is kept even from its closest allies.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21222473-2,00.html
The F-22 gives USAF an advantage in air dominance which it will and should exploit as long as possible. Eventually, as history shows, someone else will develop an aircraft that is able to counter it.
Cheers
regardless of wargames the U.S soldiers have shown themselves capable of fighting in the urban enviroment and doing it well and no other western military has been able to out perform them in combat in Iraq or Afganistan.
Oh oh, i'm seeing some not so amused british and canadian comments coming there, hehe.
And anyway, what do you know about the performance of other armies in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Do you know anything about how for example the polish troops are doing? There isn't really much news coverage about them outside of Poland, it seems.
So on what informations is your claim based?
Last edited:
I,m not from Britian or canada i,m from New Zealand.
I keep track of things in Iraq and Afganistan through the internet and i base my claims on what the U.S were able to do in the fallujah operation which wasn,t an exercise it was the real thing where people find out what they are really made of,no more just playing soldier and the U.S soldiers and Marines did the job well i would like to see anyone else do it any better.
And in Afganistan the brunt of the fighting has been bourne out by U.S,Canadian,British and Dutch forces and none of them have been able to achieve anymore than U.S forces on the ground so on those grounds it can be said that no one has out performed the U.S forces.
I would also claim that training and maneuvers are a good indicator but to me there is nothing in conventional warfare operations were the US overall did not show good work.
Especially if you look at Desert Storm or OIF (the conventional phase) there you see that the US forces performed maneuver warfare with combined sea, air and land assets at the highest level.
And especially from a german point of view I would not cry out that loud about US performance with us not being involved in combat operations for 60 years.
But I am confident that our forces would not significantly perform worse than our NATO allies if the shit hits the fan.
At least I hope so.
Especially if you look at Desert Storm or OIF (the conventional phase) there you see that the US forces performed maneuver warfare with combined sea, air and land assets at the highest level.
And especially from a german point of view I would not cry out that loud about US performance with us not being involved in combat operations for 60 years.
But I am confident that our forces would not significantly perform worse than our NATO allies if the shit hits the fan.
At least I hope so.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
but it still doesn't make sence from a training point of view to allways "war game" from a point of overwhelming advantage. It could even be considered reckless. The Falklands is a great example of a war that didn't fit expected peramiters. You would think it would be positive to train on even terms, or even at a dissadvantage from time to time. I mean if you are purely simulating an expected conflict with a particular enemy, and the enemy was at a massive dissadvantage, then it makes sence to use expected tactics against expected threats with all your capabilities, including the F 22. But to allwas insist on an advantage, and never meet a unit of comperable size, and always without arty and AA is irresponsable. What happens when an individual unit does meet a similar sized unit with Arty and AA who knows how to handle thierself? A real nasty shock i'd say.