Sukhoi T-50

[dmcowen674]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_stealth_fighter


looks like the f-22 is going to have some competition. this will definitely make things more interesting in a few years when this enters service.

There is no F-22, it was scrapped.

 

[Babbles]

There is no F-22, it was scrapped.

Negative ghostrider. F-22s were built, and I believe still being built to meet the previous orders. The contract for future fighters was scrapped and therefore there will be no additional aircraft built, but there are indeed F-22s in existence; 140 something I believe.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Am I not reading this correctly? There hasn't been one succesful attack by a UAV on a ground target? A response time of more than 1-week?

Also what are you saying about SAM missiles, that they are accurate?

There have been over 150 reports of strikes, not ONE has hit a HOT target, not even fucking ONE.

Sure, if they would just stay in their bloody homes or camps all the time it wouldn't be a problem to use UAV's for these kinds of hits but the problem is that they don't, well that and the fact that most attacks weren't even in the same area they were intended to be in, more like "drop payload now because we are almost out of where we can" and calling it a success.

Ground targeting is 100% effective, the TFB has used this method and with 100% results, you have troops on the ground targeting the exact location and the guidance system isn't off by as much as one inch, if i targeted your arsehole Common could send a missile that would hit you square in the arse.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Negative ghostrider. F-22s were built, and I believe still being built to meet the previous orders. The contract for future fighters was scrapped and therefore there will be no additional aircraft built, but there are indeed F-22s in existence; 140 something I believe.

Aye.

The common use F35 is the replacement, for it but the F15-16's are still in deployment whch is bloody good because they are the only planes that are actually usable for swift deployment and strike.

 

[Sclamoz]

There have been over 150 reports of strikes, not ONE has hit a HOT target, not even fucking ONE.

Sure, if they would just stay in their bloody homes or camps all the time it wouldn't be a problem to use UAV's for these kinds of hits but the problem is that they don't, well that and the fact that most attacks weren't even in the same area they were intended to be in, more like "drop payload now because we are almost out of where we can" and calling it a success.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ-dNu5uOQc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoVdlADd_qE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYeYlXfzGew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2y13woLylk

There are a few videos that made it public "captain".

 

[Carmen813]

But right now we are living in the present. And there isn't an unmanned craft out yet that is better than the F-22.*

*That we know of.

Fixed

I've seen F-22s in action (they were training pilots on them where I went to ROTC Field Training in 2004). Hell, I even got to walk onto the flight line and see one from about 150 feet away. It's a damn impressive aircraft. That said, the need for hundreds/thousands of them just isn't there.

IMO the U.S. Air Forces advantage in air-to-air combat has less to do with the fighters we use than it does with AWACS.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ-dNu5uOQc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoVdlADd_qE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYeYlXfzGew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2y13woLylk

There are a few videos that made it public "captain".

Made WHAT public? That they can fire missiles? Whoa, that is amasing, too bloody sad that not ONE hit the intended target.

I'll make it easy for you, they hit the intended buildings with one weeks planning, the targets are NEVER in the buildings, not even bloody once.

If you need more clarification i'll provide it, in the last five strikes the actual leaders went "neener neener nee nee" on radio and television.

UAV's are good for general scouting, as attack planes they are useless.

 

[Sclamoz]

Made WHAT public? That they can fire missiles? Whoa, that is amasing, too bloody sad that not ONE hit the intended target.

I'll make it easy for you, they hit the intended buildings with one weeks planning, the targets are NEVER in the buildings, not even bloody once.

If you need more clarification i'll provide it, in the last five strikes the actual leaders went "neener neener nee nee" on radio and television.

UAV's are good for general scouting, as attack planes they are useless.

Care to explain how the targets not being in the building is a failing of the UAVS? Thats a problem w/ intelligence/mission planning or just bad luck.

Even if it was a manned plane doing the mission if the targets not in the building it wouldn't change the results.

 

[Brovane]

Made WHAT public? That they can fire missiles? Whoa, that is amasing, too bloody sad that not ONE hit the intended target.

I'll make it easy for you, they hit the intended buildings with one weeks planning, the targets are NEVER in the buildings, not even bloody once.

If you need more clarification i'll provide it, in the last five strikes the actual leaders went "neener neener nee nee" on radio and television.

UAV's are good for general scouting, as attack planes they are useless.

The UAV's hit exactly what they are targeted at. They don't need one week planning. The UAV's have a higher loiter time than other aircraft. As attack aircraft UAV's are far from useless. What is the difference between a MQ-9 reaper attacking a target with a Hellfire or Laser Guided bomb and a Apache or F-16? They are all using the same weapons to attack the ground target. Just with the manned vehicle there is pilot in the seat using the weapon system and with the MQ-9 the operator is sitting back in a air conditioned trailer someplace and not exposed to ground fire. The UAV's are perfect for long loiter times to target high value targets especially in built up areas. If you are under a general attack by a enemy you call in a A-10 to take out the enemy. You need a aircraft to continously scout and when necessary take out a target a UAV is perfect for that. The manned aircraft and UAV are performing two different missions.

 

[BladeVenom]

Since 2006, drone-launched missiles allegedly had killed between 750 and 1,000 people in Pakistan, according to the report. Of these, about 20 people were said to be leaders of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and associated groups.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...-a-stepped-up-war-in-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan

 

[Sclamoz]

Since 2006, drone-launched missiles allegedly had killed between 750 and 1,000 people in Pakistan, according to the report. Of these, about 20 people were said to be leaders of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and associated groups.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...-a-stepped-up-war-in-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan

Overall, about 66 to 68 percent of the people killed were militants, and between 31 and 33 percent were civilians, according to the report

You left that part out.

 

[Pocatello]

You left that part out.

The militants live among the civilians, with the wives and children in the same house.

 

[Pocatello]

Made WHAT public? That they can fire missiles? Whoa, that is amasing, too bloody sad that not ONE hit the intended target.

I'll make it easy for you, they hit the intended buildings with one weeks planning, the targets are NEVER in the buildings, not even bloody once.

If you need more clarification i'll provide it, in the last five strikes the actual leaders went "neener neener nee nee" on radio and television.

UAV's are good for general scouting, as attack planes they are useless.

If the strike miss the intended target, I would blame that the intelligence is not up to date. If a manned bomber had the same intelligence it would have the same success as an unmanned bomber. If the target isn't there, he isn't there. But targeting individuals will not win the war in Afghanistan, even if we hit them every time.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Wonderful, they're almost caught up with our 1972 F-14 Tomcats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat

What will they copy from our technology next?

You know, they actually had the 'Stealth Technological Model', mathematically a long time ago,
and the wing-sweep angle for minimal radar signal on the MiG-17 . . and didn't even know it.
You could barely trace the wings, but the big fat body and the tall tail gave away any
rdar advantage it had.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If the strike miss the intended target, I would blame that the intelligence is not up to date. If a manned bomber had the same intelligence it would have the same success as an unmanned bomber. If the target isn't there, he isn't there. But targeting individuals will not win the war in Afghanistan, even if we hit them every time.

Well DUH!

That is the bloody point of direct targeting, you can actually follow a target and hit spot on if you need to, if they leave the house you can hit a vehicle via direct targeting or other means.

UAV strikes are planned strikes and while they SOMETIMES hit the intended target building, not that that happesn even 1 times out of 10 but anyway, if they do, chances are that the target won't be in the building.

Ground targeting is what almost won the ware to begin with, when the US decided that the war shouldn't be won and removed all ground troops and air support all that was shot to hell.

I kind of think that i have some insight in this considering that i led the bloody invasion in both places, TFB was first on the ground and the ones that DID have the Taliban pinned.

Of course, if we had destroyed and won that would be that, no more WOT, no reason to do anything more, no terrorist connections no nothing. Couldn't have that so... halt the war and allow them to spread and now you can just pull us home, we might get some local taliban but it's like cutting off the head of the famous dragon, two new will take it's place.

The WOT is done, we lost because we were forced to lose courtesy of GW and Co, bring the soldiers home, there is nothing more to do now.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Wonderful, they're almost caught up with our 1972 F-14 Tomcats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat

What will they copy from our technology next?

You know, they actually had the 'Stealth Technological Model', mathematically a long time ago,
and the wing-sweep angle for minimal radar signal on the MiG-17 . . and didn't even know it.
You could barely trace the wings, but the big fat body and the tall tail gave away any
rdar advantage it had.

Whoa... you're Airforce? RAF 89 here, leveled to black. My favourite is the F15, they have helped us kick some serious arse.

 

[Pocatello]

Well DUH!

That is the bloody point of direct targeting, you can actually follow a target and hit spot on if you need to, if they leave the house you can hit a vehicle via direct targeting or other means.

UAV strikes are planned strikes and while they SOMETIMES hit the intended target building, not that that happesn even 1 times out of 10 but anyway, if they do, chances are that the target won't be in the building.

Ground targeting is what almost won the ware to begin with, when the US decided that the war shouldn't be won and removed all ground troops and air support all that was shot to hell.

I kind of think that i have some insight in this considering that i led the bloody invasion in both places, TFB was first on the ground and the ones that DID have the Taliban pinned.

Of course, if we had destroyed and won that would be that, no more WOT, no reason to do anything more, no terrorist connections no nothing. Couldn't have that so... halt the war and allow them to spread and now you can just pull us home, we might get some local taliban but it's like cutting off the head of the famous dragon, two new will take it's place.

The WOT is done, we lost because we were forced to lose courtesy of GW and Co, bring the soldiers home, there is nothing more to do now.

UAV are flew by pilots, just not in the cockpit, and not in danger. So they could be redirected to strike at any target. As long as Pakistan remains a sanctuary for the Talibans, the war cannot be won.

 

[Deeko]

Does this mean that we can finally sell export versions of the F22 to our close allies now?

NO! Bad idea, bad.

Just because someone is our ally now, doesn't mean they'll always be, and just because they're our ally, doesn't mean they'll use these weapons for things we support.

Keep military superiority in the United States. Lockheed Martin will survive without selling these to foreigners, don't worry.

 

[Pocatello]

NO! Bad idea, bad.

Just because someone is our ally now, doesn't mean they'll always be, and just because they're our ally, doesn't mean they'll use these weapons for things we support.

Keep military superiority in the United States. Lockheed Martin will survive without selling these to foreigners, don't worry.

Only a few countries can afford to buy, operate, and maintain the F-22. I think Australia is a safe bet. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, not so much. The Saudis are buying anything they can get their hands on, whether they can operate high-tech weapons are debatable.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

UAV are flew by pilots, just not in the cockpit, and not in danger. So they could be redirected to strike at any target. As long as Pakistan remains a sanctuary for the Talibans, the war cannot be won.

That doesn't matter, they are flown on definitive routes without detours, i stand by my statement, UAVS are useless in this form of strikes, nor taking out a building, good job, the building won't move, for taking out a target within a building, here has not been ONE success.

Besides, i'm Airforce, they prefer doing their thing live, with the targeting we provide, not ONE miss either.

We do need to deploy snipers instead at times depending on the situation and yes, i'm looking forward to get the British AS50 semi auto fully one hit with a choice of rounds to choose from, i'm going to need a load of orange.

 

[BigDH01]

This is relatively an ignorant and small-minded thing to say. While obviously budgets and congressional issues are always at stake, not to mention keeping the Pentagon interested, the sort of scientific and engineering development that goes into developing, testing, and manufacturing these types of airframes are crazy useful for society at large. Not only does the Pentagon (i.e. some "fighter jocks") as well as some congressmen get funding for manufacturing in their districts, the research of technology benefits universities and private industries which translates into technology that can be substituted into private sector research.

In a sense when looking at Defense spending, it may be suited to not only look at the end product (e.g. F-22) but look at the process and realize the benefit that society gets from such research. Think about that the next time you use your GPS app on your smartphone.

To think otherwise is, simply put, very ignorant and the opinion of an uneducated person.

Actually, what you are describing is somewhat analogous to the broken window fallacy. Although many discoveries are made along the way to the creation of the F-22, it says nothing about net benefit. Just as there is some benefit to someone breaking a window (jobs for the person who repairs windows) it's actually a net negative. What if the engineers working on the F-22, and all of those engineering hours, had been spent on something more beneficial for society? Has some of the time spent on the F-22 benefited society as a whole? Almost certainly. Did we receive as much benefit from that research as might have been achieved with more efficiently directed funds? Debatable.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

NO! Bad idea, bad.

Just because someone is our ally now, doesn't mean they'll always be, and just because they're our ally, doesn't mean they'll use these weapons for things we support.

Keep military superiority in the United States. Lockheed Martin will survive without selling these to foreigners, don't worry.

Already done.

I'm still waiting for the US to catch up, doesn't look like you ever will though.

 

[Deeko]

Already done.

I'm still waiting for the US to catch up, doesn't look like you ever will though.

Wow. Not only clueless, but an asshole in his way of presenting his cluenessness. What a winner you are, Johnny.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Only a few countries can afford to buy, operate, and maintain the F-22. I think Australia is a safe bet. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, not so much. The Saudis are buying anything they can get their hands on, whether they can operate high-tech weapons are debatable.

Agreed that we should not be selling anything like the F22 or any 5th gen fighter (like the F35) to countries that are one regime change away from being our enemy. But, I would like to point out that export version != US military version. There is "gimping" involved to make sure that we still have the edge.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Double post - see next entry.