Don't kid yourself, Healz. Current generation UAS/UAV/UCAV allow for virtual autonomy. Only mission parameters are input and the execution is much more highly autonomous than you might suspect. In fact, the largest hurdle to turning them loose is politics and blue-on-blue casualties. These are not just fancy RC airplanes.
>>"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."<<
LOL
I bet if we tried hard enough, we could buy a couple SU-27's. Now THAT would be a fun aggressor.
What I wouldn't give to be there when the Typhoon goes up against the F22. At BVR the F22 will have a clear advantage but in the visual arena it should be close.
I would say the within visual and a guns fight, the Typhoon will have the advantage. Reports are that the F-15 is more maneuverable than F-22. Only advantage is thrust vectoring. So high off bore axis shots may be the dance of the day.
I would say the within visual and a guns fight, the Typhoon will have the advantage. Reports are that the F-15 is more maneuverable than F-22. Only advantage is thrust vectoring. So high off bore axis shots may be the dance of the day.
I hope we never made the same aerial doctrine mistakes we made in viet nam i.e. to name a few, completely disreguarding maneuverability, and eliminating guns from fighters, but I have to believe that maneuverability visual or not will rarely carry the day in 21st century air combat.
That is until any adversary perfects electronic counter measures and EMP pulses to the degree that any avionics, guidance or electronic weapons systems are usless.
Didn't wish to imply that the F-22 was a dog. Far from it. However, it's abilities brought about by thrust vectoring, AIM-9X and helmet synthetic vision/HUD make normal tactics both by it and against it different. Latest flight exercises resulted in an F-22 simulated loss. However, adversaries were prebriefed on F-22 tactics and flight profiles beforehand. It's not invincible, surely, but it does raise the loss ration a bit, eh?
you can always tell a mep drawn by a Cornishman- we label Cornwall and England separately
and the way i see it in the current climate of trying to avoid blue on blue all but eliminates BVR in all but the biggest conflicts, if the aircraft you're shooting at hasn't been identified as the enemy but you fire a missile at it from many miles away and it turns out to be an airliner or something then it's political suicide, most of the time the PILOT not an automated computer would have to get a visual ID before firing, and they're talking up the F-22, but aren't they saying all this stuff already about the much cheaper F-35? i agree that America especially needs a dedicated air superiority fighter, but do you not think they're talking it up a little too much because they've realised that the F-35's capabilities aren't that far behind and they need to justify the expense of the F-22?
Good question. Perhaps they might be. I remain as I said a little bit sceptical about their abilities to tell you the truth. We have heard a lot about some successful missions but what were the failures like...
These software delays postponed the deployment of the first wing to Japan. Going on from this the Japenese are looking to replace their F4's and are seriously looking at Typhoon amongst other candidates.
Congress has banned the export of the F22 which was Japans first choice prompting their review of other types.
Japan has always been a US client for aircraft and are probably one of the few countries that could afford some F22's. If they do go for a European aircraft then this is a trend that might continue.
Good question. Perhaps they might be. I remain as I said a little bit sceptical about their abilities to tell you the truth. We have heard a lot about some successful missions but what were the failures like...