We have enough missles that lock onto infarred and missles advance more quickly than jets. All you need is an AWACs or something similiar to paint a target for other planes if their tracking systems are not good enough. Of course, as Madd said, the F-22 probably cant do this because its "technologically unable to speak with other aircraft"
They know what poses a good detterant and the claim and image of a super fighter thats untouchable, they did not over publisize its RAM melting off so easily in the rain or its falts in the chasis I outlined in a previous video. It also takes third party journalism to look into its maintance costs and other vulnerabilities.
Also the militaries only know what the profit hungry salesman tell them, dont forget they could be just as well fooled by Lockheeds sales pitch on the thing as much as anyone else.
also, if you think about potential military enemies of the United States, its not the technologically advanced or powerful nations (Europe/Russia/China/India), but smaller nations with much older technology (Pakistan, North Korea [to some degree], Syria, Iran, etc).
You might be right about modern radar tech, in terms of engaging a stealth fighter against the EF, but for the most like theaters for the Americans, I'm pretty sure the stealth tech would be relevant.
Though, like I said, I still think stealth is huge, /shrug
Originally posted by inimalist
are you suggesting that, all other things being equal, a plane with stealth isn't going to be harder to lock onto than one without?
Not if your using a full developed sensor suite. Obviously, older equipment using normal radar, rather than an IRST or such radar would have trouble.
Originally posted by inimalist
also, if you think about potential military enemies of the United States, its not the technologically advanced or powerful nations (Europe/Russia/China/India), but smaller nations with much older technology (Pakistan, North Korea [to some degree], Syria, Iran, etc).You might be right about modern radar tech, in terms of engaging a stealth fighter against the EF, but for the most like theaters for the Americans, I'm pretty sure the stealth tech would be relevant.
Though, like I said, I still think stealth is huge, /shrug
Exactly. Stealth is good against nations that do not have IRST, infared, large scale trackers like AWACs etc. And I would rather not have to pay the initial cost, maintance and disadvantages (lower payload, less multirole capacity, weather problems) just so I can bother less developed nations. I would argue a cruise missle launched by a EF can hit the same target the Raptor can in enemy territory.
Stealth, against todays enemis is not the difference between untouchable planes and having to try and find a new Jet because yours has been shot down, most of our enemies do not have the tech to face even older generations.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well there's this plane as well as China's new stealth fighter. Any nation that has aspirations of taking on the USA seems to be looking for it.
That would be because most nations as of now recognize that in the near future every major air to air engagement will be decided at BLOS and their stealth will play a role.
I dont know about the "near future", but in the future I would more likely champion advanced drones like Taranis rather than stealth as the most common tech to be used in a major engagement. In a major engagement its not likely to be of much use at all, as the good General said earlier, its built for precision strikes into enemy territory, if its a major air to air engagement there will no doubt be many AWACS, ground radars and more than a hundred other planes all watching the skies. I would rather a flight of non stealth aircraft at this stage, until they are cheaper and have less problems, I would hate to be about to start an engagement only to have the F-22's retreating back to base because it starts to rain.
The drones are hindered by the fact that our technology isn't advanced enough to support them, you can't as of yet have a drone observing and making the same call's in the air as pilotes can. If we truly could, there wouldn't have been a single plane, be it Harrier or Rafale flying into Libya, if drones could do all the work. And if it's a major engagement, there will be a great amount of EW (given the technology integrated into the planes), and given that in the future the air to air will most likely be above water, ground radar will only play a small role, also lets not forget that realising that a plane is there (thanks to the radar) is one thing, but getting a lock on it (BLOS) is another thing entirely as pointed out by Rebecca Grant in her Thesis about Radar Warfare. And that is where Stealth plays a role, because if I can get a lock on your plane 5-6 seconds before you can get a lock on mine, with a missile that flies over 4 mach's you'll be dead and I'll be fine.
Originally posted by Utrigita
The drones are hindered by the fact that our technology isn't advanced enough to support them, you can't as of yet have a drone observing and making the same call's in the air as pilotes can.
Yes they can. They're not magic, you know, a person is flying them from a station on the ground. That person can see what happens and make relevant calls exactly like a pilot of a normal plane.
Originally posted by Utrigita
given that in the future the air to air will most likely be above water,
Why?
so, just thinking about it, if the "weakness" of the raptor and the f35 is that they are specially designed to combat the enemies they are likely to fight, wtf is the purpose of the eurofighter? fighting Russia? turkey? given it specs, it seems like trying to cut bread with a broadsword, no?
it strikes me more like a cold war style tech (re: terrifying Russians) rather than something designed for battlefields European nations are likely to fight on... at least compared to the American planes...
Originally posted by inimalist
so, just thinking about it, if the "weakness" of the raptor and the f35 is that they are specially designed to combat the enemies they are likely to fight, wtf is the purpose of the eurofighter? fighting Russia? turkey? given it specs, it seems like trying to cut bread with a broadsword, no?it strikes me more like a cold war style tech (re: terrifying Russians) rather than something designed for battlefields European nations are likely to fight on... at least compared to the American planes...
Well thats just one weakness, the Eurofighter is a defence jet. it was never designed to be a fear factor/trophy jet iirc unlike the Raptor which is just a media stunt more than anything imo and your right, but its a cheaper step forward than the F-22 and JSF (not so sure about the JSF).
You could say the same about all vehicles and weapons, no future battle is likely to be enormous and requiring a ton of the best tech. The American planes are over expensive trophy productions, over priced and filled with holes. The only place I can see for stealth planes and the F-22 is either in maintance for 30 hours OR doing an early strike before major air operations escalate. Then, once its did a first hit (if you like RPGs, the F-22 plays a rogue) then you can get the Eurofighters, other F series and more multi-role, higher yield/spec jets to knock all the opponents forces out of the fight (mages and other high DPS classes 😉 )
Originally posted by Utrigita
The drones are hindered by the fact that our technology isn't advanced enough to support them, you can't as of yet have a drone observing and making the same call's in the air as pilotes can. If we truly could, there wouldn't have been a single plane, be it Harrier or Rafale flying into Libya, if drones could do all the work. And if it's a major engagement, there will be a great amount of EW (given the technology integrated into the planes), and given that in the future the air to air will most likely be above water, ground radar will only play a small role, also lets not forget that realising that a plane is there (thanks to the radar) is one thing, but getting a lock on it (BLOS) is another thing entirely as pointed out by Rebecca Grant in her Thesis about Radar Warfare. And that is where Stealth plays a role, because if I can get a lock on your plane 5-6 seconds before you can get a lock on mine, with a missile that flies over 4 mach's you'll be dead and I'll be fine.
As said, pilots and humans work through drones, and the Taranis is on the cutting edge of that tech, its apprently supposed ot be not only able to select targets and destroy the general target but also take commands from humans on the ground.
Theres ship radars as well, there are hundreds of ground, air and AWAC radars, stealth planes are not invisible. And no, radar by itself is not the only way to get a lock, you have IRST trackers, todays stealth planes only have so much infra red protection to reduce heat but anything moving at supersonic or using weapon systems is giving off tell tale amounts of heat and further one missle does not mean death, theres a reason why most planes have large number sof counter measurers and unlike stealth planes, decoys to take at least one or two hits.
Stealth as a platform is too young to be of any use in full scale engagements like your describing, they have vulnerabilities both technical (flaws in the design, rain vulnerability, cant talk to other craft) and external, have less weapon systems and cannot hold decoys and other tell tale signs since their designed for deep strike missions. A handfull of more multi-role planes like the Eurofighter are vastly superior in large scale engagement.
The whole "fight over water" thing is a bit off anyway. What body of water? I would put more money on it being over Europe/further East than over any large body of water.
well, if you look at the various wars Israel has had against it neighbours, being able to knock out your opponents air force before the escalation of major combat is a decisive advantage
what is the eurofighter designed to defend against though? that's my point, if everything is overpriced and whatever, at least the raptor/jsf have a functional purpose designed into them that reflects their most likely use
You cant just "knock out the airforce" of large countries/nations/allies like America, EU, China etc and none of these stealth jets can knock out an airforce, only begin an assault, perhapsin vulnerable areas. This is in the realm of theorycrafting now, because we dont know the locations of all the major assets a military general would want to go for.
Any possible incursion, its like a mini nuclear bomb so to speak. We dont use our nukes but their a deterrant to everyone just steam rolling us with their own high yield weapons. They do not have any functional purpose until theres an actual major war against a more technological opponent, as for the Eurofighter, it has and will be used not just for defence but because its multi-role unlike these stealth jets it can be used as a bomber (Gadafis tank park for one falling victim to Typhoons).
They can do anything we need them for, while the US probably have to wait until thers something for their planes to do, making them not only more useless considering their cost but their not even working properly yet, hence the vulnerabilities, maintance, tech and design flaws. What you have to appreciat is that Eurofighters can do most roles, and be used in many situations while the F-22 was designed as a fear factor jet against air to air enemies of equel technology which as Madd said, is redundant while the Euro's can be used (and has been) in other roles.
Why? Thier made for different things as I said, the Eurofighter can do anything we want it to do, the F-22 cannot....hence, the F-22 is useless outside of the arms race to nowhere while the Euro can just toss in a load of bombs, missles or w/e we want it for on the go.
Why would it be "more" true in the case of the Euro in any case? its a cheaper plane that can work in almost any environment as opposed to something thats only useful in one environment and inferior in others.
The F-22 is designed for enemies (high end enemy jets) that it will never face unless EU declare war on USA or theres a civil war.
"will be" I dont know, hence why we dont just sell every weapon we have and become a peaceful nation. However, yes I think much older tech could still have blown up Gadaffis tanks, old tech could also knock out terrorist operations. But it costs us no more to use the EF now we have it than another Jet, same class of bombs more or less regardless of whats dropping it.
I dont understand what your getting at, weve gone from discussing pros and cons of certain craft to pointing out that we dont really need all this tech for current fights. You could claim the same for most weapons, we dont need level 2 Chorbrham (dorchester) covered challenger 2 tanks, we could probably use the old Challenger equipment similiar to the current American tanks now, but updating hardware is part of a growing military.
I would rather stay discussing specific jets rather than philosophical ideals around how the military should function.