Modern War Planes: An open Opinion.

[YSSMAN]

^^^Someone hates America, lol...

 

[Joey D]

How can anyone hate American planes...unless you are a terrorist then I can see why. America has the most technologically advanced planes in the world. I mean who elses has aircraft that are almost invisible on radar and can drop smart bombs from way the hell up in the air and almost never get fragged?

Russia had MiG's but after the Cold War there wasn't much of a point for them to keep going, let alone money. But in present time America rules the airspace, there is pretty much no way around that.

 

[Famine]

I mean who elses has aircraft that are almost invisible on radar

Actually, one of the little ironies about the Cold War arms race is that the B2 and Nighthawk are invisible to American (shortwave) radar. The Russians - and by extension the Iraqis, Afghans and Iranians - use longwave radar which shows up Stealth technology much better, though it has to be said that they still don't show quite the same echo as regular planes and can be mistaken for flocks of birds.

 

[Joey D]

The Iraqi's still can't see the things, remember the Gulf War? I remember watching on CNN as the Iraqi's straffed the skies hoping to hit one of the planes. They had no idea who or what was bombing them, or where they were at.

I'm sure the F-22 has over come that though, I mean I'm sure they learned from their mistakes and fixed that little issue.

 

[Famine]

The Iraqi's still can't see the things, remember the Gulf War? I remember watching on CNN as the Iraqi's straffed the skies hoping to hit one of the planes. They had no idea who or what was bombing them, or where they were at.

I remember them downing an F117/A with a Russian longwave radar SAM battery (in Yugoslavia, I hasten to add - but the same weaponry is/was part of Saddam's arsenal).

 

[Joey D]

I forgot about that, but yes you are right it was tracked by a Cold War era radar from the 1950's.

 

[BMWteamPTG]

What about the A-10 Warthog? Now that is an awesome plane.

The pilot sits in a virtual bathtub of armor plating. Almost all critical systems are double or triple redundant. Nothings bringing down this plane.

Sad to see it on the way out though. :|

The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 900 pounds (400 kg) of titanium armor, referred to as a "titanium bathtub." The tub has been tested to withstand multiple strikes from 20mm cannon fire.

now thats protection...

an awesome plane

also, on the note of hating american fighters, most countires hate us anyways, so they would obviously hate our fighters too. but the MiG has always been an up to date rival of our navy's and air forces planes.

although, we usually have the upper hand

 

[Joey D]

Not to mention the only country the US would ever go to war with that would be able to get planes off the ground before we bombed the crap out of them would in fact be China.

 

[ExigeEvan]

The Iraqi's still can't see the things, remember the Gulf War? I remember watching on CNN as the Iraqi's straffed the skies hoping to hit one of the planes. They had no idea who or what was bombing them, or where they were at.

I remember someone at the time saying it wouldn't have mattered whether it was a stealth plane flying over or not, the Iraqi's didn't have much of a clue. Though I'm not sure how solid this statement is.

The main problems with stealth aircraft, prior to the F22 that is, is that they aren't very manouverable and wouldn't stand well in a air-to-air combat situation. The story of how the Nighthawk got it's F is still a mystery as it doesn't even carry air-to-air weapons. So if there ever was a war that had a defined front line and combat took place during the day, these planes would be little good if called out for a quick air strike in the middle of the day.

The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 900 pounds (400 kg) of titanium armor, referred to as a "titanium bathtub." The tub has been tested to withstand multiple strikes from 20mm cannon fire.

now thats protection...

Bet all the helicopter pilots wished they got the same treatment.

 

[Joey D]

The main problems with stealth aircraft, prior to the F22 that is, is that they aren't very manouverable and wouldn't stand well in a air-to-air combat situation. The story of how the Nighthawk got it's F is still a mystery as it doesn't even carry air-to-air weapons. So if there ever was a war that had a defined front line and combat took place during the day, these planes would be little good if called out for a quick air strike in the middle of the day.

Wiki says this...

The "F-" designation has never been officially explained. There are several theories. The USAF has always been more proud of its fighters than its ground-attack aircraft, which are sometimes denigrated as "mud movers." Officials may have felt that they could more easily generate political and military support for the radical new aircraft if it were called a "fighter" rather than a bomber or attack plane. The "F-" designation may also have been part of the attempt to keep the Nighthawk secret (the program was classified until the late 1980s). During development the term 'LT', for Logistics Trainer, was often used.

 

[Canadian Speed]

Also, they have thermal means of tracking various stealth jets... I forget the name, as well as the Tamara anti-stealth radars. Then there are also those that are looking into the effects the waves sent out by cell phones may have on detecting the stealth bombers. Apparently the plane's underside reflects the waves back toa source, which can then detect the planes location accuratly within 10 meters. It's punch and counter punch in the war world... Nothing stays "the best" for very long before the other side finds a way to stop it from being so... Honneslty though, the futur of military aviation will liekly be helicopters any how due to the various tasks they can be used for... At least that's how I see it going...

 

[Joey D]

That's why the F-117 and the B2 bomber use heat dispurtion. It eliminates (to a point) with heat tracking.

But helicopters aren't as useful as planes because they fly low and slow. There is a much better chance of them getting shot down. The next evolution is un-manned crafts. Which will pretty much make war like a big video game.

 

[Canadian Speed]

The way the missle systems have been developped the vehicle's speed means very little. It's point, click and forget about it... Engaging enemies from literaly hundreds of miles away.

As a side not. The copter I was talking about at the start was the MH-53 Pavelow...

 

[ExigeEvan]

Wiki says this...

The "F-" designation has never been officially explained. There are several theories. The USAF has always been more proud of its fighters than its ground-attack aircraft, which are sometimes denigrated as "mud movers." Officials may have felt that they could more easily generate political and military support for the radical new aircraft if it were called a "fighter" rather than a bomber or attack plane. The "F-" designation may also have been part of the attempt to keep the Nighthawk secret (the program was classified until the late 1980s). During development the term 'LT', for Logistics Trainer, was often used.

I actually looked up that article when wondering where the F came from... It continues...
Also a recent televised documentary quoted a senior member of the F-117A development team as saying that the top-notch fighter pilots required to fly the new aircraft were more easily attracted to an F- plane, as opposed to a B- or A- aircraft. There has been something of a class distinction between fighter and bomber crews, particularly in the days of the Strategic Air Command (1945-1991), and flying one type often limited a pilot's prospects for flying the other.
Which makes sense aswell. But is still unusual.

 

[Joey D]

Ya it is weird that they would give the bomber a F notation. And I can't believe I missed the rest of the article...me = dumbass.

 

[Keef]

Maybe they gave it the F designation because it only has 1 person on board to do everything. If there is more than one person they could resort to the planes role, like the F-14 or F-4. They are both fighters in name and purpose, but had 2 people.

 

[Electric.......]

I forgot to sys that only american plane i like is the A-10,but the reasons have been already said.
I mean,a small army attack plane that can eat 300+ anti aircraft shells and still land safely gets my respect.

 

[Joey D]

Care to explain why you don't like planes like the F-22 Raptor, F-18 Hornet, F-16 Falcon, and others?

 

[BMWteamPTG]

the F-117 is a fighter in comparison to the B-2 bomber (the stealth bomber) the F-117 has the capabilities to fire missles like any other fighter jet, its just that theyre held internally.

the B-2 is a true bomber with a large bomb bay and it deploys the bombs in the normal way (click, drop).

 

[YSSMAN]

...Back when I wrote a paper about US Military Aircraft in 1998-1999 for my 6th Grade project, the book I used from the local library explained that the F-designation stood for "Fighter", B-designation for "Bomber", A-designation for "Assult", and C-designation for "Carrier". So multi-purpose aircraft like the F/A-18 are meant to serve double duty, hence the name F-117A.

Origionally I belive the F-117A was designed to be a fighter, but after the potential of the stealth technology was realised and bombing systems became small enough to be a part of dual-purpose planes, they decided to go with the assult option if needed. I have also herd theories that the F-117 is just a tad too brittle for full-combat situations, so it is generally used for bombing runs more often than dogfighting situations.

But if you look at the F-planes noted above...

F-22 Raptor, F-18 Hornet, F-16 Falcon, and others

...All can be equipped with systems suitable for bombing and fighting missions. Depends on the plane, pilot, and place I suppose...

 

[ExigeEvan]

the F-117 is a fighter in comparison to the B-2 bomber (the stealth bomber) the F-117 has the capabilities to fire missles like any other fighter jet, its just that theyre held internally.

the B-2 is a true bomber with a large bomb bay and it deploys the bombs in the normal way (click, drop).

Nighthawk pilots are trained to use AIM-9s but they have never actually been loaded with missiles or ever used them, according to Wikipedia.

...Back when I wrote a paper about US Military Aircraft in 1998-1999 for my 6th Grade project, the book I used from the local library explained that the F-designation stood for "Fighter", B-designation for "Bomber", A-designation for "Assult", and C-designation for "Carrier". So multi-purpose aircraft like the F/A-18 are meant to serve double duty, hence the name F-117A.

I was under the impression that a letter after the numbers denotes the variant, not the role.

...All can be equipped with systems suitable for bombing and fighting missions. Depends on the plane, pilot, and place I suppose...

The F-22 has very limited air to ground capability AFAIK. The F-18 is actually the F/A-18, it's is completely multi role. The F-16 was originally an all out fighter, but like the F-15 and F-14 eventually was adapted for ground attack.

 

[Electric.......]

Care to explain why you don't like planes like the F-22 Raptor, F-18 Hornet, F-16 Falcon, and others?

F 22: Overpriced. And almost useless in dogfight.Sure,the thing will kill anything in BVR,but what if it goes into a dogfight with,say,a Su-35? Or god forbid that an Indian(If there was a war between Us and India) Su-30 MKI flies in...Answer: 200+milion $,vaporised.
F-18: MiG 29

(from wikipedia):The most recent event involving the MiG-29 occurred during the military exercise of nations under the Five Power Defense Arrangement, namely Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and United Kingdom. Malaysian MiG-29s, upgraded with recent Russian and Western technology, fought mock air battles with Australian F/A-18A Hornets. The MiGs succeeded in downing all of the Australian Hornets during simulated air combat battles in both medium and short range combat. The Malaysians used AA-10, AA-12 and AA-11 missiles, against Australia's AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. It has been reported that Malaysian AA-11 Archer missiles have a better warhead, longer range and a better IR sensor.

Guess you'll say that Australian Pilots can't fly?(NHF)

F-16: Mig 29'D again,and wikipedia again: Many pundits such as the Federation of American Scientists recognize that in an individual dogfight, the MiG-29 is potentially better than the F-15 Eagle or F-16 Falcon.

Not to mention that the Japanese version of it,the Mitsubishi F-2,will destroy it in dogfight.


And many ex-Soviet planes don't have FBW tehnology,yet they are more stable and manouverable.
What does this mean?

This means that for every US military aircraft,Europe,Russia,and even China(ok,so far they are copying everyone,but the way thing started to roll....) can make a figter jet which is capable of same,or even better performance,for a lower price.


This is just my opinion,and you might not like it.So if you don't,well you can:

1. Call me a communist (But Patriot Act screams communism more than the ex-USSR comminst party)

2. Call me a terrorist.

3. Accept my opinion and live on.

Peace.

 

[ExigeEvan]

F 22: Overpriced. And almost useless in dogfight.Sure,the thing will kill anything in BVR,but what if it goes into a dogfight with,say,a Su-35? Or god forbid that an Indian(If there was a war between Us and India) Su-30 MKI flies in...Answer: 200+milion $,vaporised.
F-18: MiG 29

I don't get why you think the F-22 will do so badly. It is one of the most manouverable planes ever, it is also one of the fastest planes ever aswell.

 

[Electric.......]

Listen,the F 22 WILL kill.But only when it comes to BVR.
But if we go in the dogfight....http://www.alert5.com/2006/04/fa-18f-guns-down-f-22a-update.html

Now imagine if a MiG-29 or Su-35 instead of the F/A-18.....

I think this proves my point.

And if 3rd world war ever happens in near future(if we exclude the "Everyone nukes everyone scenario",) then the F22 will become impractical,because of its price and maintain cost.

I think so because in a real war,you don't wan't th have something that has extremely high cost to maintain....


Not to mention,the technology to detect stealth planes has probably been developed,or is nearing it's completion somewhere in Russia or China,(yes you can say that I may be wrong,but...)will make the F22's best ace turn into nothing.and yes,the f22 has excellent manouverability,but with upcoming Su-37/47,and Eurofigter(which also has stealth capabilities and comes very close in manouverability),I'd beter find a way of decreasing F22's cost to something less pricey soon.....

 

[DQuaN]

Mig-25 Foxbat. It's not THAT advanced, and was never any good in a dogfight. But that's not what it was built for.....

Mach 3.8 clean!!!

When it opens up those engine nozzles, it's basically saying "look at the size of my 🤬"!!

 

[Electric.......]

👍 to DQuaN.

 

[Kent]

Electric...
I would buy into what you say if "bias" didn't come across.
Something about how ALL of the US planes are are worse or at best equal to the competition (and more expensive) makes me wonder about what is your opinion and what is fact.
Plus, the real fact of the matter is that you revealed just how biased you are when you tried to acknowledge and write-off your own biases at the end of post #52.
(I suppose you've got something for nations other than America? )

I will say this though...
You've got the F22 all wrong.

First off, you never mentioned that the F22 is the ONLY plane in the world capable of Sustained Super-Sonic Flight WithOut AfterBurners.

Do you have any clue what kind of advantage that is?
I mean, that puts it in a league of it's own basically.

Every plane you compare it to will have to run all of its fuel up just to tag-along while the F22 makes a mach-retreat.
Then when the other guy uses up all of his fuel to chase and eventually has to turn back for the sake of re-fueling- BAM it's over. The F22 turns around while still carrying twice as much fuel (since it never used it's after burners) and makes the kill while the other plane tries to run or move without enough fuel to sustain its activity.

And regarding the Foxbat...
Lacking abilities in everything except flat-out speed + incredible take off runway lengths = good for demonstrations and record attempts but not wars, long range missions or dogfights.

BTW, the pilots are the most important part and in that one I will always put my money on the UK and US pilots. 👍

 

[DQuaN]

I have always liked reading about the XB-70 "Valkyrie"

It was an awesome plane and a real shame that it never went into service.

 

[Electric.......]

Only plane with super sonic cruise without afterburners..

Well all I'll say is this: either someone else will make the same thing,or the plane will become obsolete,because like I said,the technology that uncovres stealth planes 100% is in or is already completed.

And could you explain to me why the F/A-18 shot down the raptor in that exercise?

I don't think that was pilot's luck.

Besides.When it comes to war,you want to have a cheap,but capable weapon,and not something with sky-high maintain cost.
Why? So you can spend more money for the development of the next weapon.

Despite all things that the F22 has,those aren't exactly things that will make it "Invincible".
It may be "invincible" now,but very soon a some aircrafts that will otperform it will come,and they won't be american.

 

[DQuaN]

ONLY plane in the world capable of Sustained Super-Sonic Flight WithOut AfterBurners.

Ever heard of Concorde?