The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Crazy Horse on February 06, 2008, 03:59:39 PM
-
I swear............the goverment drives me crazy.......crazy I tell ya
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ea_china_02_04.asp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, February 4, 2008 Free Headline Alerts
China brokered sale of F-14 spare parts to Iran
WASHINGTON — The United States has learned that China was serving as a front for the illegal export of spare parts of the F-14 fighter-jet to Iran.
Officials said China has brokered purchases of F-14 spare parts for Iran's military. They said most of the components were obtained from surplus offered by the U.S. Defense Department.
"The Department of Defense should not be supplying sensitive military equipment to our adversaries, our enemies, terrorists," Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, said.
Shays said the Pentagon must end the sale of F-14 spare parts, Middle East Newsline reported. He said Iran was the only country that operated the F-14 Tomcat, a 1970s-era platform retired by the U.S. Navy.
Officials said Iran has been desperate to find spare parts to maintain its F-14 and F-4 fleet, procured from the United States in the early 1970s. They said Iran has achieved the capability of producing about 15 percent of the F-14.
<snip>
:banghead: :thatsright: :censored:
-
so... i'm reading Charlie Wilson's War ..
and in this story, he supplies the Afghan rebels in the early 80s (who are fighting against the Communist Russians) with Russian stamped weapons so as not to tip anyone off that the US is supplying these weapons.
well, fast forward a few decades and the Afghan rebels, and most Muslims, have no idea how the US helped them out in terms of running off Russia - and so they turn and attack the US repeatedly.
our govt is nothing short of brilliant at selling weapons (or giving them) to countries who continually screw us over..
-
And yet most of our government officials insist that China is a friend. Duncan Hunter was about the only official who saw China as a threat.
-
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z128/bhmason_album/c12-27428-3.jpg)
F-14's would be child's play for our F-22's and our vastly superior pilots.
-
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z128/bhmason_album/c12-27428-3.jpg)
F-14's would be child's play for our F-22's and our vastly superior pilots.
Not necessarily. If the Iranians were to send up F-14s, they wouldn't be sending them up to tangle with F-22s but rather to get them in firing range of US vessels- not a tall order for fast planes which carry long range missiles.
-
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z128/bhmason_album/c12-27428-3.jpg)
F-14's would be child's play for our F-22's and our vastly superior pilots.
Not necessarily. If the Iranians were to send up F-14s, they wouldn't be sending them up to tangle with F-22s but rather to get them in firing range of US vessels- not a tall order for fast planes which carry long range missiles.
Then they would probably be intercepted by the F/A-18 Hornets from the carriers.
-
The F-14's that the Iranians have...had just been delivered to the Shah in 1979...they've never flown to my knowledge...the Grumman Tech's did something to disable them just before they left town.
Not to mention they are early models with the less powerful engines and older tech radar and firing systems.
They'd never get in range of a U.S. Navy Battle group. The DG's would pick them up long before they'd pose a threat.
The Iranians are just grasping in the dark hoping the "spare parts" contain something to get those planes working again.
-
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z128/bhmason_album/c12-27428-3.jpg)
F-14's would be child's play for our F-22's and our vastly superior pilots.
Not necessarily. If the Iranians were to send up F-14s, they wouldn't be sending them up to tangle with F-22s but rather to get them in firing range of US vessels- not a tall order for fast planes which carry long range missiles.
You show the same knowledge of the military and tactics as other primitives.
Between SPY radars, E2C hawkeyes, AWACS and JSTARS...............we'd know if the the Iranian pilot farted on the taxi way.
Yes sarge I believe a couple flew in that great victory the Iranians had in 1987
-
The Islamic Republic Of Irans Air Force has indeed been able to use their F-14s as both a fighter and as a Type of AWACS sing the AGW-9 weapon system and radar. While they didn't eactly have the same air to air Kills ratio of the Israelies they didn't just sit on the runway during those 8 years of having at it with Saddam and his little scout troops.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_6.html
-
Between SPY radars, E2C hawkeyes, AWACS and JSTARS...............we'd know if the the Iranian pilot farted on the taxi way.
Knowing when the F-14s are taking off is one thing. Shooting down the F-14s before they get in firing range is another thing- considerably more difficult.
Look, I doubt that the Iranians would try to attack a US Navy ship. Attacking a US Navy ship would be a suicidal action for the Iranian government to undertake and the Iranian government has not shown itself to be suicidal. All I'm saying is that underestimating a muscular plane such as the F-14 is a mistake. Keep in mind that history is full of examples of inferior planes getting the better of superior planes. What matters most is the pilot and the situation.
-
The Islamic Republic Of Irans Air Force has indeed been able to use their F-14s as both a fighter and as a Type of AWACS sing the AGW-9 weapon system and radar. While they didn't eactly have the same air to air Kills ratio of the Israelies they didn't just sit on the runway during those 8 years of having at it with Saddam and his little scout troops.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_6.html
Thank you for the links to the interesting articles.
:cheersmate:
-
Between SPY radars, E2C hawkeyes, AWACS and JSTARS...............we'd know if the the Iranian pilot farted on the taxi way.
Knowing when the F-14s are taking off is one thing. Shooting down the F-14s before they get in firing range is another thing- considerably more difficult.
Track, Lock, Fire. Not that hard.
-
I think I saw it on "Future Weapons" where an F-22 pilot was saying they had war gamed 1 F-22 against 12 F-18's, and the F-22 took out all 12 F-18's before the F-18's ever saw the F-22. Iranian flown F-14's? Pfffft.
-
I think I saw it on "Future Weapons" where an F-22 pilot was saying they had war gamed 1 F-22 against 12 F-18's, and the F-22 took out all 12 F-18's before the F-18's ever saw the F-22. Iranian flown F-14's? Pfffft.
I doubt that an F-22 Raptor downed 12 F-18 Hornets. The Raptor carries only 8 air-to-air missiles and two of those have to be used at very close range. Even if a Raptor were able to use its missiles to dispatch 8 out of 12 Hornets, that would leave 4 Hornets that the Raptor would have to dispatch with guns only. The Raptor might be able to survive or even win a gunfight against 4 Hornets, but I highly doubt that it can prevent all of them from disengaging.
Anyway, the Future Weapons segment on the F-22 Raptor can be seen at the following site...
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v2585742cGs7EWgF
One of the people interviewed in the FW segment mentions some sort of test engagement of Raptors and Hornets but does not give the specifics on the result of that engagement.
Look, I agree that Tomcats don't pose much of a threat to US Navy ships which are aware of their intentions, but in the opening moves of any conflict, the intentions of the various players are often not known and shit happens. That said, my money will always be on the F-22. :-)
-
I think I saw it on "Future Weapons" where an F-22 pilot was saying they had war gamed 1 F-22 against 12 F-18's, and the F-22 took out all 12 F-18's before the F-18's ever saw the F-22. Iranian flown F-14's? Pfffft.
I doubt that an F-22 Raptor downed 12 F-18 Hornets. The Raptor carries only 8 air-to-air missiles and two of those have to be used at very close range. Even if a Raptor were able to use its missiles to dispatch 8 out of 12 Hornets, that would leave 4 Hornets that the Raptor would have to dispatch with guns only. The Raptor might be able to survive or even win a gunfight against 4 Hornets, but I highly doubt that it can prevent all of them from disengaging.
Anyway, the Future Weapons segment on the F-22 Raptor can be seen at the following site...
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v2585742cGs7EWgF
One of the people interviewed in the FW segment mentions some sort of test engagement of Raptors and Hornets but does not give the specifics on the result of that engagement.
Look, I agree that Tomcats don't pose much of a threat to US Navy ships which are aware of their intentions, but in the opening moves of any conflict, the intentions of the various players are often not known and shit happens. That said, my money will always be on the F-22. :-)
Why not just stay out of converstations you don't know anything about.
Why could a F22 not down 12 F/A-18's??
-
Why not just stay out of converstations you don't know anything about.
Why could a F22 not down 12 F/A-18's??
Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the F-22 carries no more than 8 air-to-air missiles?
-
Why not just stay out of converstations you don't know anything about.
Why could a F22 not down 12 F/A-18's??
Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the F-22 carries no more than 8 air-to-air missiles?
Perhaps you need to do some more research. There are 3 different loadouts for the F-22 and you can never count out the 20mm Gatling gun it carries.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-weaps-mg27.gif)
-
Perhaps you need to do some more research. There are 3 different loadouts for the F-22 and you can never count out the 20mm Gatling gun it carries.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-weaps-mg27.gif
The diagram confirms what I have been saying. In combat configuration, the F-22 carries 8 air-to-air missiles.
The F-22 can be configured to carry external missiles in addition to internal ordnance, but such a configuration greatly reduces the plane's stealth and maneuvering advantage. As far as I know, the external combat configuration has not been implemented yet.
-
The F-22 can be configured to carry external missiles, but such a configuration eliminates the plane's stealth advantage and has not, to my knowledge, been implemented yet.
How does it confirm what you're saying? You think the 22 has to be stealth to shoot down an F/A-18? Riiiggghhhhttt.t. The damn thing is the only plane on our MTOE, to my knowledge, that can fly supersonic without burning it's afterburners. You can load that damn thing to the max. It doesn't have to be stealth to lock onto an F/A-18 and blow it out of the sky. Not to mention it's thrust-vectoring capabilities that make it much more maneuverable.
-
Perhaps you need to do some more research. There are 3 different loadouts for the F-22 and you can never count out the 20mm Gatling gun it carries.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-weaps-mg27.gif
The diagram confirms what I have been saying. In combat configuration, the F-22 carries 8 air-to-air missiles.
The F-22 can be configured to carry external missiles in addition to internal ordnance, but such a configuration eliminates the plane's stealth advantage and has not, to my knowledge, been implemented yet.
Hmmm..............8 missles internally........8 missles externally................wait let me check my math...........yeah, that's 16. Stealth is not all a F-22 has for an advantage.
You are saying that the F-22 has no hardpoints on it's wings yet........... :lmao:
Maybe you should pay attention to everything............again I ask, Why could a F-22 not shoot down 12 F-18's?
-
How does it confirm what you're saying? You think the 22 has to be stealth to shoot down an F/A-18? Riiiggghhhhttt.t. The damn thing is the only plane on our MTOE, to my knowledge, that can fly supersonic without burning it's afterburners. You can load that damn thing to the max. It doesn't have to be stealth to lock onto an F/A-18 and blow it out of the sky. Not to mention it's thrust-vectoring capabilities that make it much more maneuverable.
Like I said... As far as I know, the external combat configuration which allows the F-22 to carry missiles externally has not been implemented. If you can find me a photo of an F-22 carrying missiles externally in a combat configuration, I would love to see it.
-
How does it confirm what you're saying? You think the 22 has to be stealth to shoot down an F/A-18? Riiiggghhhhttt.t. The damn thing is the only plane on our MTOE, to my knowledge, that can fly supersonic without burning it's afterburners. You can load that damn thing to the max. It doesn't have to be stealth to lock onto an F/A-18 and blow it out of the sky. Not to mention it's thrust-vectoring capabilities that make it much more maneuverable.
Like I said... As far as I know, the external combat configuration which allows the F-22 to carry missiles externally has not been implemented. If you can find me a photo of an F-22 carrying missiles externally in a combat configuration, I would love to see it.
You are a dumbass
(http://lh5.google.com/nelson.dale/R6uCVOvBJ0I/AAAAAAAABwA/K3nnraPFoTg/s800/droptankcz9.jpg)
-
Look Mr. Owl, let's say you're right and it only has 8 air to air missiles, then the guy must have said the F-22 was 8-0. The point is the stealth capability of the F-22 allowed it to remain essentially invisible to the F-18's while the F-22 locked on them and fired it's missiles. Maybe it was on the Military channel, there's been several shows produced on the F-22. For starters the Iranian F-14's radar's would get jammed as soon as they took off, no contest. And this is what's next:
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z128/bhmason_album/aaF-35.jpg)
F-35 Joint Strike fighter, probably the last manned fighter.
-
You are a dumbass
(http://lh5.google.com/nelson.dale/R6uCVOvBJ0I/AAAAAAAABwA/K3nnraPFoTg/s800/droptankcz9.jpg)
I've already seen photos of the F-22 carrying external fuel tanks. I asked for a photo of an F-22 carrying external missiles. Keep looking.
-
Look Mr. Owl, let's say you're right and it only has 8 air to air missiles, then the guy must have said the F-22 was 8-0.
The guy did not say that the Raptor shot down 8 Hornets.
-
You are a dumbass
(http://lh5.google.com/nelson.dale/R6uCVOvBJ0I/AAAAAAAABwA/K3nnraPFoTg/s800/droptankcz9.jpg)
I've already seen photos of the F-22 carrying external fuel tanks. I asked for a photo of an F-22 carrying external missiles. Keep looking.
Look you ****stick......................where do you think they place the missles externally. Find your own ****ing pictures, The F-22 has hard points on it;s wings, hence it will carry missles on them if needed.
Again answer the damn question..............
-
Look you ****stick......................where do you think they place the missles externally. Find your own ******* pictures, The F-22 has hard points on it;s wings, hence it will carry missles on them if needed.
Again answer the damn question..............
I don't doubt that the F-22 can be configured to carry external missiles, but I have not seen evidence that the external combat configuration and its associated software has undergone the certification process required by the USAF before it can be employed. Fitting the F-22 with external missiles is probably not a big priority for the USAF. Or, the USAF may have decided against having the F-22 carry external missiles on conventional rail launchers. I vaguely remember reading that the USAF is developing stealth pods which will allow the F-22 to carry missiles externally without causing a great reduction in stealth and maneuverability.
Maybe you should pay attention to everything............again I ask, Why could a F-22 not shoot down 12 F-18's?
According to the pilots and technicians interviewed in the Future Weapons segment on the F-22, the F-22 is designed to take on roughly 4 or 5 air targets.
-
Fitting the F-22 with external missiles is probably not a big priority for the USAF.
Priorities change with the mission. You should know that from your days in the military. Remind me, when did you serve, BTW?
The fact of the matter is, the F-22 has 3 loadouts that are dictated by the mission requirements. Those 3 loadouts can increase the number of missiles from the 8 you mentioned, to well above that number. The simulation that was mentioned earlier was, more than likely, performed under those circumstances.
In summation, the F-22 can carry more than 8 missiles that can be used in air-to-air combat. Just admit your wrong and move on.
-
According to the pilots and technicians interviewed in the Future Weapons segment on the F-22, the F-22 is designed to take on roughly 4 or 5 air targets.
Yeah? And the AH-1 Super Cobra was never meant to carry troops, but it did in Afghanistan. Your point? It was a simulation. Saying they are designed to take on "roughly" 4-5 targets isn't the same as saying they can ONLY take out 4-5 targets. The F-4 was never meant to dogfight jets with cannons either. It was supposed to take'em out before they got close enough to use the cannons, hence why cannons weren't included on the earlier versions. I think Duke Cunningham proved that it could go head to head with one when he took out Colonel Toon.
-
Look Mr. Owl, let's say you're right and it only has 8 air to air missiles, then the guy must have said the F-22 was 8-0.
The guy did not say that the Raptor shot down 8 Hornets.
Dude there's been more than just the show you posted. I get it, in the video you posted he didn't mention shooting down F-18's. In the show I saw the pilot talked about going 8-0 against a bunch of F-18's, GET IT?
-
Priorities change with the mission. You should know that from your days in the military. Remind me, when did you serve, BTW?
The fact of the matter is, the F-22 has 3 loadouts that are dictated by the mission requirements. Those 3 loadouts can increase the number of missiles from the 8 you mentioned, to well above that number. The simulation that was mentioned earlier was, more than likely, performed under those circumstances.
In summation, the F-22 can carry more than 8 missiles that can be used in air-to-air combat. Just admit your wrong and move on.
No dice. Until someone can show me a photo of the F-22 carrying external missiles in a combat configuration, I have no reason to think that the external combat configuration and associated software has undergone certification and implementation. Keep in mind that the external combat configuration was not a requirement for the F-22 to enter service.
-
No dice. Until someone can show me a photo of the F-22 carrying external missiles in a combat configuration, I have no reason to think that the external combat configuration and associated software has undergone certification and implementation. Keep in mind that the external combat configuration was not a requirement for the F-22 to enter service.
No dice? What are we, playing a ****ing game here? First off, you totally discount the 20MM CANNON MOUNTED on the damn thing, secondly, you discount the thrust-vectoring capabilities of the aircraft, something only seen in the JSF, the F-22, and some Russian POS, and thirdly, you've been shown the loadout.
By the way, the damn thing was a simulation. I don't know how many times that has to be told to you.
-
Another configuration:
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f22/f22_schem_04.jpg)
-
Track, Lock, Fire. Not that hard.
Especially when the piloting skills of those on the stick of the inbound aren't near that of the ones shooting back
-
No dice? What are we, playing a ******* game here? First off, you totally discount the 20MM CANNON MOUNTED on the damn thing, secondly, you discount the thrust-vectoring capabilities of the aircraft, something only seen in the JSF, the F-22, and some Russian POS, and thirdly, you've been shown the loadout.
Like I wrote earlier, a Raptor with only its gun might be able to survive an engagement against 4 Hornets but it wouldn't be able to shoot all of them down because, without missiles, it can't chase more than 1 plane at a time.
Be realistic... A Raptor would be putting itself at great risk by getting into a dogfight with 4 Hornets. For the Raptor to achieve a firing solution for one of the Hornets it would inevitably expose it to the risk of giving one or more of the other Hornets a firing solution.
-
Another configuration:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f22/f22_schem_04.jpg
Correction: A possible configuration.
The fact that drawings are the only images we have of the F-22 carrying external missiles tells me that the external combat configuration for the F-22 has not been implemented. The reason why it has not been implemented is anyone's guess.
-
Like I wrote earlier, a Raptor with only its gun might be able to survive an engagement against 4 Hornets but it wouldn't be able to shoot all of them down because, without missiles, it can't chase more than 1 plane at a time.
Be realistic... A Raptor would be putting itself at great risk by getting into a dogfight with 4 Hornets. For the Raptor to achieve a firing solution for one of the Hornets it would inevitably expose it to the risk of giving one or more of the other Hornets a firing solution.
You don't think it can get into a dog fight with 4 Hornets, given that it has 8 air-to-air missiles, stealth technology, thrust vectoring technology, and the mere fact that it can fly supersonic without lighting the afterburners? :lmao:
As for a "firing solution", never heard that term used for an aircraft, but what the hell.
-
As for a "firing solution", never heard that term used for an aircraft, but what the hell.
The term "firing solution" is a generic term describing the position from which weapons can be fired effectively against a target.
You don't think it can get into a dog fight with 4 Hornets, given that it has 8 air-to-air missiles, stealth technology, thrust vectoring technology, and the mere fact that it can fly supersonic without lighting the afterburners?
What I argued is that even if an F-22 can use its missiles to shoot down 8 out of 12 F-18s, it can't shoot down all of the remaining 4 with its guns. Impossible.
-
As for a "firing solution", never heard that term used for an aircraft, but what the hell.
The term "firing solution" is a generic term describing the position from which weapons can be fired effectively against a target.
....and I've never heard of it used in terms of air-to-air combat. I spent 8 years in the military and have spent the last 7 as a defense contractor working on some of the birds flying, or that are going to be flying, now.
-
What I argued is that even if an F-22 can use its missiles to shoot down 8 out of 12 F-18s, it can't shoot down all of the remaining 4 with its guns. Impossible.
Nothing's impossible. Improbable? Maybe. Impossible? Hell no. Stranger things have happened. The Hornet can't turn on a dime like the Raptor, nor does it have the speed. Not to mention, the original post was about a simulation. Does it or does it not stand to reason that the simulation included ALL available configurations?
Oh, and just because you've never seen a pic of a full loadout does not mean it doesn't happen. To my knowledge, the F-22 has yest to see combat. There are developing technologies to this day for the Raptor. ...and those hard points CH was talking about? Can be used for an external loadout. We have a lot of military people on this board. This isn't DU.
-
...and I've never heard of it used in terms of air-to-air combat. I spent 8 years in the military and have spent the last 7 as a defense contractor working on some of the birds flying, or that are going to be flying, now.
I can't think of a reason why the term "firing solution" should not be used in a discussion about air combat. Can you?
-
I can't think of a reason why the term "firing solution" should not be used in a discussion about air combat. Can you?
Because the term firing solution is generally used for warships, subs, etc., when there is a calculated effort to track and fire on a target. In air-to-air no one is going to say, "I have a firing solution and I'm taking it". Could it be? Sure. The real question is, "why would it be used"? Firing against another aircraft doing Mach 1.2 while you're doing Mach 1.4 really isn't as calculated as a ship firing on a moving enemy sub, approaching bird, or warship. I would assume once you have tone, you launch.
-
Oh, and just because you've never seen a pic of a full loadout does not mean it doesn't happen. To my knowledge, the F-22 has yest to see combat. There are developing technologies to this day for the Raptor. ...and those hard points CH was talking about? Can be used for an external loadout. We have a lot of military people on this board. This isn't DU.
Like I wrote earlier, the fact that the F-22 has external hardpoints does not mean that the plane has been certified to carry external weapons. Configuring the F-22 to use external missiles requires the testing and development of software which the plane was not required to have to enter service.
-
Because the term firing solution is generally used for warships, subs, etc., when there is a calculated effort to track and fire on a target. In air-to-air no one is going to say, "I have a firing solution and I'm taking it". Could it be? Sure. The real question is, "why would it be used"? Firing against another aircraft doing Mach 1.2 while you're doing Mach 1.4 really isn't as calculated as a ship firing on a moving enemy sub, approaching bird, or warship. I would assume once you have tone, you launch.
Oh, I'm not suggesting that the term "firing solution" is the kind of term a pilot would need to use in combat, but it can be used in discussions about air combat. For instance, the following abstract about Stochastic Trajectory Optimisation for Aircraft in Air Combat uses the term "firing solution" twice...
www.siaa.asn.au/get/2411853304.pdf
-
Like I wrote earlier, the fact that the F-22 has external hardpoints does not mean that the plane has been certified to carry external weapons. Configuring the F-22 to use external missiles requires the testing and development of software which the plane was not required to have to enter service.
...and like I said earlier, I don't even think it's seen combat. There are still improvements being made to the Raptor. The simulation, however, can be made to include ALL configurations utilizing the same maneuverability and performance of the current Raptor.
-
An d People on here wonder why Me and TheSarge have no warm feelings towards this idiot TNO. You are all wasting your time trying to educate someone who's only experience with the Military is from watching TV.
-
What I argued is that even if an F-22 can use its missiles to shoot down 8 out of 12 F-18s, it can't shoot down all of the remaining 4 with its guns. Impossible.
You fantasy only works if the F-22 flies without a wingman.
When is the last time you saw that happen?
Roll your d20 and try again.
-
The F-14's that the Iranians have...had just been delivered to the Shah in 1979...they've never flown to my knowledge...the Grumman Tech's did something to disable them just before they left town.
Not to mention they are early models with the less powerful engines and older tech radar and firing systems.
They'd never get in range of a U.S. Navy Battle group. The DG's would pick them up long before they'd pose a threat.
The Iranians are just grasping in the dark hoping the "spare parts" contain something to get those planes working again.
Yeah, I saw that on either Modern Marvels or some other show like that. The F-14s were sweet for the time, but we got bigger and better now. If Iran were to have the balls to try to send those against our carriers..... they'd be wiped out in no time. It's like we have the X Box 360, and they have the Commadore 64 still.
-
In case the news has yet to filter through here. Those Iranian F-14s are still able to do what they did years ago,The Russians and the Chinese have both been doing everything they could to help the little nut jobs keep their tomcats going. They have both done business as fronts for the Iranains to get spare parts and they have supposedly tried to upgrade the engines and electronics of the F-14s. When you add to that they are getting new model S)-30s and possibly new built J-10s from China then its not as easy as most want to believe, There is also the fact that the United States trained and equipped the IIAF/IRIAF for years so they have had time to learn to be able to maintain a decent level of skills needed to fly those kinds of planes and I wouldn't put it past Putin to be giving them a hand in continuing the training for something on the side from Iran.
We have a few squadrons now of the F-22 but they are not combat ready to be deployed. The Red Flag guys at Nellis just got thier first one so its going to be awhile before we really see the combat capabilities of the F-22. So far nothing that the US Military has thrown at it has beat it in any aspect of air to air combat. All in all The Iranians would still have a hard time going toe to toe with any F-22 squadron since it looks like even during the War years and with the purges of their air Force they didn't really do them selves any favors by killing some of their better pilots and shying away from real combat.
-
Look Mr. Owl, let's say you're right and it only has 8 air to air missiles, then the guy must have said the F-22 was 8-0. The point is the stealth capability of the F-22 allowed it to remain essentially invisible to the F-18's while the F-22 locked on them and fired it's missiles. Maybe it was on the Military channel, there's been several shows produced on the F-22. For starters the Iranian F-14's radar's would get jammed as soon as they took off, no contest. And this is what's next:
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z128/bhmason_album/aaF-35.jpg)
F-35 Joint Strike fighter, probably the last manned fighter.
right, we have hundreds of those in service! oh wait...
-
F-35 Joint Strike fighter, probably the last manned fighter.
right, we have hundreds of those in service! oh wait...
That's why I said this is what's next, what's your point?
-
We have a few squadrons now of the F-22 but they are not combat ready to be deployed. The Red Flag guys at Nellis just got thier first one so its going to be awhile before we really see the combat capabilities of the F-22. So far nothing that the US Military has thrown at it has beat it in any aspect of air to air combat. All in all The Iranians would still have a hard time going toe to toe with any F-22 squadron since it looks like even during the War years and with the purges of their air Force they didn't really do them selves any favors by killing some of their better pilots and shying away from real combat.
You are correct to point out that nothing has been able to outperform the F-22 at air combat, but everyone should keep in mind that the superiority of the F-22 does not make it invulnerable...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/jesters_dead.asp
:-)
-
Oh goody--a noob gets smoked. It's gonna happen until you get 200-300 hours easily in the aircraft.
And "Indian aces?" Name ONE.
-
Oh goody--a noob gets smoked. It's gonna happen until you get 200-300 hours easily in the aircraft.
I doubt that the USAF would put a "noob" in the cockpit of a $150 million aircraft.
-
Oh goody--a noob gets smoked. It's gonna happen until you get 200-300 hours easily in the aircraft.
I doubt that the USAF would put a "noob" in the cockpit of a $150 million aircraft.
They ain't ALL generals, sonny.
-
Oh goody--a noob gets smoked. It's gonna happen until you get 200-300 hours easily in the aircraft.
I doubt that the USAF would put a "noob" in the cockpit of a $150 million aircraft.
They ain't ALL generals, sonny.
The only jet aircraft that has a limitation on what rank it takes to fly it is the AV-8B Harrier. The reason being is becuse it takes far longer to get real experiance to learn to fly a jet that flys like no other in our services. The lowest rank to fly one is Captain.
-
The only jet aircraft that has a limitation on what rank it takes to fly it is the AV-8B Harrier. The reason being is becuse it takes far longer to get real experiance to learn to fly a jet that flys like no other in our services. The lowest rank to fly one is Captain.
According to what I've read, F-15 and F-16 pilots who are qualified to try out for the F-22 program go through 5 weeks of testing in an F-16. I don't know how much training raw recruits have to have before they can fly the F-15 or the F-16, but I would imagine that the training takes a minimum of a few months. In a nutshell, the USAF does not put noobs in Raptors.
-
The only jet aircraft that has a limitation on what rank it takes to fly it is the AV-8B Harrier. The reason being is becuse it takes far longer to get real experiance to learn to fly a jet that flys like no other in our services. The lowest rank to fly one is Captain.
According to what I've read, pilots who are selected to try out for the F-22 program go through 5 weeks of testing in an F-16. I don't know how much training raw recruits have to have before they can fly the F-16, but I would imagine that the training takes a minimum of a few months. In a nutshell, the USAF does not put noobs in Raptors.
Dumbass............. Those pilots that go through the 5 weeks of testing are in addition to their basic flight training.
A minimum of a few months :lmao:
Again you are trying to discuss things that you have no clue on.
-
Dumbass............. Those pilots that go through the 5 weeks of testing are in addition to their basic flight training.
Right... The 5 weeks of testing required for pilots trying to gain entry into the F-22 program is in addition to basic flight training... which takes at least a few months. That is why I said that pilots, not raw recruits, are selected for the F-22 program.
A minimum of a few months :lmao:
Again you are trying to discuss things that you have no clue on.
According to F-16 pilot Maj. Gregory N. "Mongo" Stroud, the shortest fighter pilot training program in the USAF lasts 15 weeks...
http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article16.html
-
Dumbass............. Those pilots that go through the 5 weeks of testing are in addition to their basic flight training.
Right... The 5 weeks of testing required to gain entry into the F-22 program is in addition to basic flight training... which takes at least a few months.
A minimum of a few months :lmao:
Again you are trying to discuss things that you have no clue on.
According to the following interview of an F-16 pilot, the quickest program for fighter training in the USAF is 15 weeks...
http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article16.html
Do you even read the things you post??
That was Navy flight school not the USAF and just the beginning, notice it was about two years before he recieved his wings dumbass
Again............you are talking about things you have no idea on
-
That was Navy flight school not the USAF and just the beginning, notice it was about two years before he recieved his wings dumbass
So? Even though most of the pilots in the F-22 program come from F-15 and F-16 squadrons, some pilots can enter the program straight after basic flight training and without fighter training (not counting the 5 weeks of testing in an F-16)...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/01/mil-080116-afpn03.htm
4 new pilots begin F-22 training
by 2nd Lt. Bryan Bouchard
56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
1/16/2008 - LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFPN) -- The first Air Force pilots selected to fly the F-22 Raptor without previous fighter experience entered the 63rd Fighter Squadron for the Raptor Lead-in course Jan. 14 here.
...
-
That was Navy flight school not the USAF and just the beginning, notice it was about two years before he recieved his wings dumbass
So? Even though most of the pilots in the F-22 program come from F-15 and F-16 squadrons, some pilots can enter the program straight after basic flight training and without fighter training (not counting the 5 weeks of testing in an F-16)...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/01/mil-080116-afpn03.htm
4 new pilots begin F-22 training
by 2nd Lt. Bryan Bouchard
56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
1/16/2008 - LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFPN) -- The first Air Force pilots selected to fly the F-22 Raptor without previous fighter experience entered the 63rd Fighter Squadron for the Raptor Lead-in course Jan. 14 here.
...
Again you are talking about something you have no idea of dumbass.
They are not entering after basic flight training
Since the F-22 is replacing F-16's and F-15's taking in the first 4 students that have not had true fighter experience is the normal process.
-
They are not entering after basic flight training
Since the F-22 is replacing F-16's and F-15's taking in the first 4 students that have not had true fighter experience is the normal process.
Okay. I thought that the Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals course was part of basic flight training for fighter pilots. In any case, we are talking about a difference of 6 weeks. Why are we squabbling about 6 weeks? The point that both of us are trying to make is that the USAF does not put noobs in Raptors, so I really don't understand your aggravation.
-
Again you are talking about something you have no idea of dumbass.
They are not entering after basic flight training
Since the F-22 is replacing F-16's and F-15's taking in the first 4 students that have not had true fighter experience is the normal process.
Okay, I thought that the USAF basic flight training program for fighter pilots included the Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals course. Why are we squabbling about 6 weeks? The point that both of us are trying to make is that the USAF does not put noobs in Raptors, so I really don't understand your aggravation.
from your own article they are about to put 4 noobs into the Raptor.
Oh my aggravation is just you discussing things that you have no knowledge of
-
from your own article they are about to put 4 noobs into the Raptor.
A person who has the best training in the world is not someone who I would consider a noob, but I guess everything is relative.
Oh my aggravation is just you discussing things that you have no knowledge of
Okay. Whatever you say, Top Gun.
-
from your own article they are about to put 4 noobs into the Raptor.
Oh my aggravation is just you discussing things that you have no knowledge of
A person who has the best training in the world is not what I would call a noob, but I guess everything is relative.
They are when they have not done any previous fighter training. They are noobs to all the others pilots dumbass. So yes the USAF will put a noob into the Raptor
-
They are when they have not done any previous fighter training. They are noobs to all the others pilots dumbass. So yes the USAF will put a noob into the Raptor
Uh, no. The USAF does not put noobs in Raptors. The USAF might put noobs in the Raptor training program, but that probably involves months of simulator training and training in an F-16 or F-15 before students can fly the F-22.
-
They are when they have not done any previous fighter training. They are noobs to all the others pilots dumbass. So yes the USAF will put a noob into the Raptor
Uh, no. The USAF does not put noobs into Raptors. The USAF puts noobs in the Raptor training program, which probably involves months of simulator training and training in an F-16.
They are still noobs dumbass
-
They are still noobs dumbass
Like I said, everthing is relative. The point is that pilots have to go through a lot of training and testing before they are put into fighters, let alone Raptors.
-
First and ONLY warning folks...stay on topic or this goes to Fight Club.
-
I wouldn;t worry to much .I'm done with this.