Avenger -- Why UAVs are great and F-22s suck

[Serb]

Your point is stupid. 747s can carry AAMs. So can helicopters. That doesn't make either suitable for air-to-air combat.

Exactly!

[Asher]

A remotely controled WWI biplane can do air to air. And a swarm of hundred such aircrafts will still be cheaper that a single modern jet fighter. Does it make it a cost-effective solution for air superiority task?

I never made that claim.

I'm merely disproving Patty's claim that the UAVs CANNOT DO AIR TO AIR. That is all!

They can! Everyone here agrees, including you -- my favourite Russian!

It was a facetious throw-away comment that Patty managed to take seriously WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING WRONG. As a result, this bloodbath ensued!

[Patroklos]

Thanks. You admit defeat, this thread can rest.

Add to your list of words to look up from this thread "can" (given your inablility to take the written word at face value I shoule have said "could be capabe") and "is," then tell us what you discover about what that mans about what the reality is right now

I didn't have to prove the Reaper was as capable as the F-22, which is a patently ridiculous statement considering the cost differential!

You certanily do, since you suggest we should cut the F-22 program short and instead replace that mission requirement with UAVs. You can do that either with a one for one equivlent capability airframe or multipe to one airframes via cost. So, which is it, are Avenger equal to F-22s or can we buy enough Avengers to fullfill the same role of an F-22 for less/same dollars?

This is assuming it has air to air abilities of course, which they don't.

You asked which capabilities did it have, not anything about the effectiveness of each one.

Wow, not that I didn't see this coming but it looked like you might have dodged this blindingly obious logic failure on your part. Does a 9 year old community league running back have the same capabilities as an NFL running back?

I replied it had AAM capability. You said it didn't. Hilarity ensued while you tried to pretend I self-destructed until about a hundred posts later where you finally subtly admit it can fire AAM, but is probably not very effective. Which is to say you were wrong in your correction saying it can't.

Again, Asher reading comprehension fail. Can be /= is.

I'm merely disproving Patty's claim that the UAVs CANNOT DO AIR TO AIR.

I never made any such claim. Unfortunetly for you Asher, this thread is not long enough for people to not be willing to search for quotes. Why don't you quote what was actually said?

HINT:

No current UAV is designed for or capable of air to air warfare.

Which is true. That says nothing about future UAVs that we know about or our ability to modify current ones to do so in the future, as my sources said was being investigated.

[Asher]

Read the original post again, Patty.

You said it can't do air to air. It can. So simple.

Let it rest.

[Asher]

Summary:

Patty:

So what capability of the F-22 does this have again?

Asher:

- Flies in the AIR
- Drops WEAPONS on to GROUND
- Fires WEAPONS at other AIRCRAFT
- A single UAV is far more useful than most Navy boats.

Patty:

- Fires WEAPONS at other AIRCRAFT

No, it does not.

The problem here is yes, yes the UAVs do have the capability to fire weapons at other aircraft.

You're pretending like this was an argument about replacing F-22s, or pretending it was an argument about effectiveness. It wasn't. You asked what capabilities it has, I facetiously and with ample clues of its facetiousness, provided a list of the capabilities these planes share.

It's really that simple. You disagreed that UAVs are capable of firing AAM. Now you've changed your tune. Full circle, case closed.

[Asher]

I never made any such claim.

You are a liar, and your shoes are all wrong.

Look at my previous post. Refresh your memory?

[Patroklos]

The problem here is yes, yes the UAVs do have the capability to fire weapons at other aircraft.

Find me one instance of a UAV firing a weapon on other aircraft. Good luck! The sad thing is, even if you could it doesn't prove your point in any relevant terms.

I will also point you back to the solid state laser ballistic defense analogy. It, like so many others, crushes you

It's really that simple. You disagreed that UAVs are capable of firing AAM. Now you've changed your tune. Full circle, case closed.

Asher, nobody reading this thread has in any way come to the same conclusions as you besides Mobius. who actually agrees with DanS who is broadly in agreement with me. Your position is no more tenable now than it was in the first iteration. The fact that you have abandoned the core of your initial agreement to unsuccessfully nit-pick is testament to this.

I really don't care if you think you are correct or not, but since every intelligent poster has agreed with me across the board concerning issues discussed, I really see no more justification to include you in the conversation

Does the Avenger have any of the capabilities of the F-22? No. Do other UAVs? No. If you have a problem with that take it up with Global Security and the Air Force, I provided contact info to help you along your way.

[Asher]

Does the Avenger have any of the capabilities of the F-22? No. Case closed.

Yes, it does. Both fly in the air. Both are capable of firing air-to-air weapons. Both are capable of firing air-to-ground weapons.

See, we're back full circle.

Now unless you want to make the claim that the F-22 or Avenger does not fly in the air, your statement is demonstrably wrong.

I didn't want to spell out the root problem, because the entertainment value here is tremendous, but it has worn out its welcome. The problem, quite clearly, is we have different definitions of capabilities.

You are talking about EQUIVALENT EFFECTIVENESS CAPABILITIES, I am merely talking about CAPABILITIES.

Capability means the quality of being capable. So you can break down the capabilities of both aircraft and find commonality. Which is precisely what my post did.

The facetiousness of the post should have been VERY OBVIOUS.

- Flies in the AIR
- Drops WEAPONS on to GROUND
- Fires WEAPONS at other AIRCRAFT
- A single UAV is far more useful than most Navy boats.

Those are common capabilities.

[Sirotnikov]

While possibly being technically correct, Asher's logic fails on a larger premise. Put plainly in computer terms: If an iPhone is somehow incredibly able to launch Avid or Photoshop, it does not become a graphics editing platform.

Asher wins on the technical semanticality (air to air missiles can be connected to some AUVs), because he technically never claimed AUV's are a viable air-to-air platform, but Patty is still correct, since AUV's aren't air-to-air platforms yet.

Yet another thread wasted in 5 pages of Asher practicing, admittedly sharp nit-picking and googling skills, to annoy people who actually know stuff about subject of matter.

Yay, Poly OT.

[Asher]

While possibly being technically correct, Asher's logic fails on a larger premise. Put plainly in computer terms: If an iPhone is somehow incredibly able to launch Avid or Photoshop, it does not become a graphics editing platform.

Actually, yes, it does.

It just doesn't become a very practical one.

I was a laywer in my past life, BTW.

[Sirotnikov]

You're a semantics king, baby.

If only semantics could beat Al-Qaeda /China

[Asher]

You're a semantics king, baby.

If only semantics could beat Al-Qaeda /China

You don't need to beat China. They're no threat. Be friends.

Canada has already beat Al Qaeda with stealth nation technology.

[Sirotnikov]

You can only be a stealth nation in the shadow of other countries taking a visible role. When these run out - you're history.

And I also don't think a 20th century style military confrontation with China is likely. They're too smart.

[Asher]

You can only be a stealth nation in the shadow of other countries taking a visible role. When these run out - you're history.

As with Civ, the key to success is a good starting position. Canada had a much better pick than Israel.

It's strategery.

[Sirotnikov]

As with Civ, the key to success is a good starting position. Canada had a much better pick than Israel.

It's strategery.

Not to mention we're too damn stubborn and opinionated for our own good.

But your point on starting positions holds good ground. We are in a horrible mess. We had either this place that was chosen 3000 years ago, and a horrible mess even then, or much worse ****holes like Uganda, Sibiria's "Jewish Provnice" or possible some crap in South America.
We also tried central europe for a while, but that um... erm... that didn't work out.