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

[Kuciwalker]

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:

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.

If the UAVs fill a different role from the F-22 then they aren't replacing it, period. Once we've bought as many tanks as we think we need, that doesn't mean all future rifle purchases are replacing them. If we decided we needed more air superiority fighters, we would end up buying more F-22s. So the F-22 hasn't been replaced.

[Asher]

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.

Kuci, NO ONE backed up the claim that UAVs can't fire air-to-air. Lonestar said they COULD, not that they COULD NOT.

Third time this week you've failed basic reading comprehension.

[Asher]

If the UAVs fill a different role from the F-22 then they aren't replacing it, period.

They are in the context of acquisition budgeting, which is the context that you keep ignoring or misunderstanding.

So the F-22 hasn't been replaced.

It has in budget terms. There will be no new orders for the F-22, that money is going elsewhere. Some might say commitments towards new F-22s are being replaced by funding to, say, the UAVs.

Read this thread again, this time very carefully. I never, ever said the UAVs are to replace the F-22 in the air superiority role.

[Asher]

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

You're completely delusional. You just spent many posts arguing that UAVs can't do air-to-air, yet it is obvious that current UAVs can fire Stingers, and they're even looking at equipping them with AMRAAMs.

You have once again displayed you actually know very little in terms of high-level military planning, and you're still making this desperate attempt to save face by pretending like I "self-destructed" by proving your statements wrong?

[Patroklos]

Fact is, pilotless airplanes are coming and they're coming faster than you want to admit.

I know that you need to believe this in order for you to justify your ego, but this is not what was said.

I again suggest you leave this thread, you posting in it serves no other purpose but to top an astonishing example of your stuborn ignorance.

[Krill]

Kuci, NO ONE backed up the claim that UAVs can't fire air-to-air. Lonestar said they COULD, not that they COULD NOT.

Third time this week you've failed basic reading comprehension.

Has Kuci stated experimenting with drugs or something?

[Asher]

I know that you need to believe this in order for you to justify your ego, but this is not what was said.

I again suggest you leave this thread, you posting in it serves no other purpose but to top an astonishing example of your stuborn ignorance.

Let's get real here. You've made several statements that have been demonstrably wrong, and you want me to **** off because it exposes you as someone who is all talk with no real knowledge of high-level military planning.

I've done nothing in this thread but make statements people have misconstrued -- which is their problem -- and factual statements that have contradicted your assertions. It's clear why you want me to leave this thread.



You can't honestly believe people are stupid enough to buy into this **** you're spewing. You just spent most of this thread arguing UAVs can't do air combat, and when shown evidence otherwise you then just keep asking me to leave the thread. Pretty obvious what you're up to. Man up, admit you were wrong.

[Patroklos]

I see you have now taken on the "myself against the world" mantle. Good luck with that

[DanS]

To summarize the good points in this thread... The Avenger is not built for air superiority, but it demonstrates that UAV design cycles are incredibly short. You could have a half-dozen UAV design cycles for every manned fighter design cycle. Also, it shows that UAVs are comparatively very inexpensive. The result of all of this is that our adversaries could quickly obsolete our F-22 force. In anticipation of this, we should stay several steps ahead by winding down F-22 as quickly as possible and building our own air superiority UAV force.

Among the objections to this are the fact that these UAVs can be jammed. However, there's nothing to say that they couldn't have limited autonomy or could communicate through other methods.

On the clear plus side for UAVs, they do not need to accommodate human physiology.

[TCO]

UAVs have been the next big thing for at least 10 years. Maybe they are finally here or not. But all I hear from Asher (and Dan) seems to be sort of a game player, read an article view. I trust Patty to have a least a little gefuhl for what things are really like in operations, how far away advancements are, etc.

I think a better argument against the advanced fighters is not so much the UAVs, but the lack of need for better fighters at this time. Just fire up the production line and make the old versions a bit longer.

[TCO]

Same thing applies with the DDG1000, LCS, etc. And the Virginia class submarines were a travesty. Given that they took 637s and 688s and retired them early. When we were already dominant. **** Lockheed. And **** the "industrial base" argument.

[DanS]

I see that Lonestar is in full agreement with the expertise of Patroklos.

[DanS]

**** Lockheed. And **** the "industrial base" argument.

Agreed. We need to dismember the congressional porkmobile on defense procurement, if for no other reason than they use these inane arguments.

[Tuberski]

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.

I like the BK you are doing in this thread.

You have learned well.

ACK!

[Asher]

I see you have now taken on the "myself against the world" mantle. Good luck with that

It's not myself against the world. It's me vs you, and I won.

You still aren't manning up that you were wrong about UAV and their AAM capabilities.