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

[Drake Tungsten]

This may be your worst performance in a thread in years Asher

QFT

[Kuciwalker]

I can't believe you guys have fallen so hard for his inane troll.

There's no way he's actually this dumb.

[Elok]

Yeah, seriously, Asher, from where I'm sitting you do look pretty silly. Sorry.

Pat: The only advantages typically mentioned for UAVs are lower price and no risk to human pilots. Aren't there others? Just off the top of my head, a more compact frame that would be harder to hit, and the ability to pull off maneuvers that would make an actual in-cockpit human pilot black out at once. Balanced out by a slight lag from the sat relays and such, of course. No?

[Elok]

There's no way he's actually this dumb.

This is the sort of line one should be careful with. The potential for people of all kinds to make jackasses out of themselves is nearly boundless. Especially when talking about a subject on which one is ignorant. Not that I doubt he's trolling, but his sounding ludicrous wouldn't necessarily prove anything.

[Drake Tungsten]

There's no way he's actually this dumb.

I'm not so sure.

[Asher]

I'll just idly note no one has demonstrated why UAVs can't fire air to air missiles.

[Asher]

Its time for you to leave the thread little root, adults are talking

So, anyone up for a serious discussion now that this childish rant has been extinguished?

A serious discussion would be you backing up your claim that the Avenger can never fire air to air missiles. It's a reasonable assumption that an airplane with a payload capability can be equipped with more than one kind of missile, if they so choose.

FWIW, the military is actively testing the Avenger's predecessor with air-to-sir Stinger missiles. Which obviously indicates Patty's claims that UAVs can't do air to air combat is not true.

[Asher]

So now that we have established that it indeed doesn't carry air to air ordinance, we can move on.

A quick googling now that I'm home from work shows that the Predator can carry Stinger missiles, and the Reaper can carry Stingers, Sidewinders, and AMRAAM missiles. Seeing as the Avenger is the successor to the Reaper, which is the successor to the Predator, I'd say your claims of it never supporting air-to-air ordinance are as dumb as everyone in this thread who believed you know anything about the military, despite serving in it.

Edit: Apparently General Atomics has even run ads showing the Reaper loaded out with two Sidewinders:

http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_13.html

The Stinger AAM has also been evaluated as a store, but it does not appear that this configuration has been fielded since there has been no operational need for it to this time. There has been some thought of carriage of the bigger Sidewinder, or even the long-range AIM-120 AMRAAM, as stores. The AMRAAM would require that the Reaper carry an improved radar with AMRAAM targeting and control capabilities. General Atomics has published ads showing the Reaper armed with twin 225 kilogram guided bombs, eight Hellfires, and two Sidewinders, demonstrating just how much of a punch the machine can pack.

[Kuciwalker]

I'll just idly note no one has demonstrated why UAVs can't fire air to air missiles.

You're either lying, blind, or being disingenuous. One of Lonestar's comments:

The Predator-C still has the tell-tale satellite uplink bulge where you would put a air defense radar. Damn thing isn't going to be sporting anything other than short ranged heatseekers. Let's hope the weather is clear! And that the OPFOR doesn't jam our comms!

[Kuciwalker]

A serious discussion would be you backing up your claim that the Avenger can never fire air to air missiles. It's a reasonable assumption that an airplane with a payload capability can be equipped with more than one kind of missile, if they so choose.

Asher, the troll isn't funny anymore, if it ever was. If you REALLY ARE THIS STUPID just go away please.

The very best possible interpretation of your posts is that you are trying to score points off of imprecise claims when answer to the basic question - is the Avenger a potential replacement for the F-22 in an air superiority role - is obvious.

The problem with that is that no one is impressed by your e-penis.

[Asher]

You're either lying, blind, or being disingenuous. One of Lonestar's comments:

Uh. I'm not talking to Lonestar, am I Kuci...

I'm referring to Patty's insistence that drones can't do air to air. Not to mention that even Lonestar is wrong here, as there exist plans to test AMRAAMs on the things as well.

[Asher]

Asher, the troll isn't funny anymore, if it ever was. If you REALLY ARE THIS STUPID just go away please.

The very best possible interpretation of your posts is that you are trying to score points off of imprecise claims when answer to the basic question - is the Avenger a potential replacement for the F-22 in an air superiority role - is obvious.

The problem with that is that no one is impressed by your e-penis.

Kuci, this is the second time this week you've completely failed at basic reading.

I never said the Avenger is to replace the F-22 in an air superiority role. That was never in discussion. In fact, I said very specifically:

The F-22 is obviously a more advanced aircraft, but that's a double-edged sword. It is way too expensive for what it can provide, and it's as simple as that. I doubt the US would need more than 150 of these for air superiority purposes, so they're set.

This clearly demonstrates the need for a very high-tech air superiority fighter. But the numbers needed for that are tiny and the quantity already exist. Thus, there's no need for the F-22 program to continue.

My argument is that UAVs are here to replace the F-22 as far as budget and new orders are concerned. No one is saying the F-22s are to be mothballed and replaced by UAVs, the F-22s serve their niche purpose and that's all. The UAVs today CAN do air to air, which is my point, but that DOES NOT MEAN I'm saying they are AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS.

Patty is very specifically claiming UAVs cannot shoot at other aircraft, that they are simply ground attack planes. He is utterly wrong.

Reading is key -- do more of it.

[Asher]

In summary, the problems in this thread are as follows:

- Patty demonstrates gross ignorance over military subject matter again
- Kuci demonstrates in his eagerness to try to correct people he can fail at the basics (eg, reading comprehension)

A mixture of the two results in a cluster**** of stupidity as people ignore what is said and instead construct an impressive array of strawmen.

I think if Kuci reads more carefully and Patty does some research into the matter, they'd see the light here, namely that:
1. The Avenger is not to replace the F-22 as an air superiority fighter
2. The Avenger is to "replace" the F-22 in budgetary terms, because we have sufficient F-22s for the air superiority role and UAVs are far more cost effective in other ways (and they CAN EVEN DO air to air combat, even if not in an air superiority role)

It's not that complicated.

[Patroklos]

Wow, I disappear for a few hours and Asher completely self destructs

[Kuciwalker]

Uh. I'm not talking to Lonestar, am I Kuci...

Ahh, so disingenuous in this case. It wasn't Patty that backed up the claim, it was someone else, so you could pretend it didn't happen vis-a-vis Patty.