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

[DanS]

There is no connection mentioned or alluded to in the article.

At the end of the article, it goes into some detail about zero-sum fears.

[Asher]

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

We haven't established that at all.

Why do you make such a ridiculous assumption?

Ignored the rest of your post, as it is likely to be as worthless as how this started.

The F-22 is designed to go in and take out antiair defenses and be an air superiority fighter, yes?

Why can't these drones take out antiair defenses? How can a swarm of drones not take out another aircraft?

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. Makes sense, cut the cord and move on to practical solutions.

You've not at all identified why the F-22 is critical in any way. You just keep saying that drones can't shoot air to air missiles (which, even if true currently, is obviously not an inherent limitation in a pilotless plane so irrelevant to this long-term discussion).

Aircraft are simply launching platforms for missiles and bombs. You're just upset because suddenly the concept of air warfare just got less exciting for you.

[Elok]

Asher, you might want to read the rest of that post. He doesn't sound at all upset about "less exciting" warfare, in fact he admits that UAVs are the way of the future. All he's saying, IIUC, is that the current generation of UAVs cannot fulfill the roles of the Raptor. He probably could have done this better by giving examples of roles the Raptor can fill and the Avenger can't, but you've done a pretty good job of pissing him off.

[Asher]

As far as I can tell, there's virtually no information on Avenger available so his statements about its capabilities are just worthless.

Further, given how fast the technology is advancing any limitation he whines about now is likely a very moot point anyway.

It's just a knee-jerk reaction from a traditionalist who wants to put off the days of UAV and robotic warfare til after he retires. For instance, the emphasis that it "cannot fire air-to-air ordinance". Even if so now -- and I've seen nothing to tell us this is the case -- there's nothing inherently limiting about the Avenger design that prevents it ever from engaging in air to air combat. If it doesn't support air-to-air right now, that's just because it's been designed with air-to-ground in mind initially and in no way implies it is incapable of air to air.

[Lonestar]

UAV funding goes up. F-22 funding goes down. This isn't a coincidence, I assure you.

F-22 purchases were going to be capped at 183 anyway, they've been saying so for years. Only a moron would say "adding 4 planes to the program instead of agreeing to build another 60" would think it means "F-22 funding goes down."

Or Serb.


The Avenger is not a 5th Generation air superiority fighter that can still fight if we lose our ****ing comms(in other words, manned). It's asinine to compare the two programs like this.

[Asher]

The Avenger is not a 5th Generation air superiority fighter that can still fight if we lose our ****ing comms(in other words, manned). It's asinine to compare the two programs like this.

The F-22 is not a small, cheap aircraft that can still fight if we lose our ****ing pilots (in other words, unmanned).

But they still fly in the air and shoot ****. Same thing.

Getting rid of military employees.

Your jobs are #1 at risk for getting outsourced to robots. Get used to it, like it, and get on the right side of the fence. Don't fight it, get transferred to UAV ops.

[Patroklos]

We haven't established that at all.

Yeah, I guess the OP article just forgot about an entire category of warfare when listing its attributes.

Nothing supports your assessment, period.

Ignored the rest of your post, as it is likely to be as worthless as how this started.

Or in other words, as is usual when you venture in the the military sphere, you have found yourself arguing from a position of ignorance and are simply too childish to admit it or at least just stop posting.

As a perfect example...

The F-22 is designed to go in and take out antiair defenses and be an air superiority fighter, yes?

No. The AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER was designed with almost no ground attack capability what so ever and most definetly not the robust strike roll of nuetralizing air defenses.

Why can't these drones take out antiair defenses? How can a swarm of drones not take out another aircraft?

Who said it couldn't be used to attack air defenses? Has there evern been a single demonstration of this drone swarm in the entiretly of known aviation history? Just because something is theoretically possible to do does not mean we are in a position to do so now or the immediate future.

But it will indeed happen, about the time the F-22 is reaching the end of its service life

But I will let you go ahead and provide the evidence that this is in fact viable today and thus warrants immediately reducing our manned aviation assets.

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. Makes sense, cut the cord and move on to practical solutions.

Except thats not what was said before. The postition was that you believed F-22 numbers were being cut so that UAVs could developed with the money saved (more DanS than you) and that UAVs were ready to fill the capability gap that such an airframe gap would cause. As you just stated above, niether is the case, and any F-22 end number is merely due to an assessment of how many F-22s are needed to fullfuill the mission reqirements independant of anything in the UAV world.

You've not at all identified why the F-22 is critical in any way. You just keep saying that drones can't shoot air to air missiles (which, even if true currently, is obviously not an inherent limitation in a pilotless plane so irrelevant to this long-term discussion).

And there you go, you reveal the ridiculousness of your own arguement at the same time you pretend you are supporting it.

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

No know UAV currently being designed is capable of air to air warfare.

You assumption that UAV air to air warfare is going to transpire in the immediate future is just that, an assumption that is also unfounded.

You assumption that when UAV air to air warfare is achieved that those machines will provide the same or better air superiority capabilites is also just that, and assumption that is also unfounded.

How about this Asher, why don't you find us a source that predicts this brave new future you pretend we are on the cusp of and that none of denies, just for reference? Thrn, how about you find one that predicts it is the next five years or so which would then justify a cutting of current airframe procurement in favor or UAVs?

Aircraft are simply launching platforms for missiles and bombs. You're just upset because suddenly the concept of air warfare just got less exciting for you.

I hate airdales, the sooner they can be replaced by glorified video games the better. Why would I care about how "fun" air warfare is?

For instance, the emphasis that it "cannot fire air-to-air ordinance". Even if so now -- and I've seen nothing to tell us this is the case -- there's nothing inherently limiting about the Avenger design that prevents it ever from engaging in air to air combat.

Now you are just getting pathetic, which your decent into unwarranted personal attacks makes even more so.

You do know the Avenger does not have air search radar for air to air warfare, right? You do understand it was not designed to be manueverable for air to air warfare, right? You do understand that nowhere on the searchable internet has anything claimed it was designed for or expected to conduct air to air warfare, right?

But actually, those questions are way to advanced for you to worry about right now, we are still waiting for you to explain to us why the simple fact that it has jet propulsion means it must have air to air capabilities. Pleas, do tell

[Asher]

Yeah, I guess the OP article just forgot about an entire category of warfare when listing its attributes.

Nothing supports your assessment, period.

Link to a reliable source that the Avenger is and will forever be incapable of launching air to air missiles?

No. The AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER was designed with almost no ground attack capability what so ever and most definetly not the robust strike roll of nuetralizing air defenses.

Thanks for walking into this one. Either you or your "don't ask don't tell" bunkmate in Lonestar was arguing just last week that the F-22's ability to enter a warzone and take out the air defenses was why the F-35's lesser stealth was a big mistake.

All the more reason to axe the F-22 if it is ONLY useful in an "air superiority" role in a climate where you're far more likely to be fighting insurgents in the ME than you are an organized air force.

Again, ignored the rest. Bull**** threshhold reached. To increase the amount of time I spent reading your posts, consider more consistent arguments with less bull****.

I do not think you have the requisite knowledge to make any claims over what is or is not possible via networked control of aircraft. The claim that it is not possible for UAVs do attack air targets is wrong on its face to anyone with an understanding for how these UAVs work. It is more precise to say that currently deployed UAVs have been developed for the purposes of ground strikes, not that it is not possible to perform air to air combat as well.

In summary, you need to demonstrate why it is impossible for the Avenger to ever be equipped for air to air combat. You cannot and you will not do that, because it is a matter of a new avionics loadout with a new missile loadout. There is nothing inherent in the designs of these UAVs that'd prevent them from launching, for example, a Sidewinder.

[Lonestar]

The F-22 is not a small, cheap aircraft that can still fight if we lose our ****ing pilots (in other words, unmanned).

But they still fly in the air and shoot ****. Same thing.

No, they aren't the same. I suspect that if the Predator-C were to equipped with AAMs they would only be short ranged heatseekers, they are unlikely to be autonomous because no one wants a Robot to go on a killing spree, and it's still cheaper to get new pilots than have to put up more comms satellites.

Getting rid of military employees.

Your jobs are #1 at risk for getting outsourced to robots. Get used to it, like it, and get on the right side of the fence. Don't fight it, get transferred to UAV ops.

I got a guy in my shop in the NG whose a UAV dude. But my job doesn't entail shoot shoot bang bang, it entails arguing with telecoms and setting up secure links between government facilities. Not exactly robot stuff.

[Lonestar]

Link to a reliable source that the Avenger is and will forever be incapable of launching air to air missiles?

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!

Thanks for walking into this one. Either you or your "don't ask don't tell" bunkmate in Lonestar was arguing just last week that the F-22's ability to enter a warzone and take out the air defenses was why the F-35's lesser stealth was a big mistake.

Wouldn't have been me. I would have been arguing that the F-22's supercruise and high altitude that allows it to drop a bomb 50 miles away from the target is what makes it superior to the F-35 in attacking ground targets.

All the more reason to axe the F-22 if it is ONLY useful in an "air superiority" role in a climate where you're far more likely to be fighting insurgents in the ME than you are an organized air force.

Patrolklos is incorrect, the F-22 can be used in a ground attack roll, although the length of their internal bomb bay restricts the size and number of the bombs.

[Patroklos]

Link to a reliable source that the Avenger is and will forever be incapable of launching air to air missiles?

I say we just weld air to air missile launchers onto our sumbarines, problem solved. Scrap all the UAVs and manned fighters together!!!

Asher

Thanks for walking into this one. Either you or your "don't ask don't tell" bunkmate in Lonestar was arguing just last week that the F-22's ability to enter a warzone and take out the air defenses was why the F-35's lesser stealth was a big mistake.

Feel free to quote us. But no, in your futile search for imagined comments you will note we were talking about air to air warfare, NOT strike warfare. But please go ahead and amuse us with whatever irrelevancies you find with the search function.

All the more reason to axe the F-22 if it is ONLY useful in an "air superiority" role in a climate where you're far more likely to be fighting insurgents in the ME than you are an organized air force.

If thats how you feel, fine, but you will note that such a procurement decision will be based off of operational requirements for mission accplishment, or in other words a decision that will have nothing to do with UAVs one way or the other.

So, do you have anything relevant to your now throughly debunked UAV position or are you just going to continue flailing around?

Again, ignored the rest. Bull**** threshhold reached. To increase the amount of time I spent reading your posts, consider more consistent arguments with less bull****.

Asher, one of the few posters who leaves no doubt that he has been brow beaten before exiting a thread.

Patrolklos is incorrect, the F-22 can be used in a ground attack roll, although the length of their internal bomb bay restricts the size and number of the bombs.

I made no such claim, I said "almost no" ground attack ability and certainly nothing as robust to tackle anti air defense suppression of any modern military. I can add a laser pod and a JADAM to a cessna and it could carry out a ground attack mission in theory, that does not make it optimal. The F-35 will be a bomb truck of sorts, and a far more capable and versitile strike fighter than the current F-22 could ever hope to be.

I have no doubt that the F-22 could be modified into a kick ass strike aircraft just like we did to the F-15B to creath the F-15E, but it is not worth it.

[Asher]

You guys are both wrong, but in different ways.

Fact is, pilotless airplanes are coming and they're coming faster than you want to admit. There is nothing preventing UAVs fundamentally from being fitted with an air-to-air loadout, despite Patty's unsubstantiated cries otherwise.

[Patroklos]

Fact is, pilotless airplanes are coming

Correct, who is denying this?

and they're coming faster than you want to admit.

Source? Yeah, this would be the fourth odd time I've asked you this, oh well.

[Asher]

Source? Yeah, this would be the fourth odd time I've asked you this, oh well.

It is a combination of all of these sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

Oh, and also the fact that the F-22 is getting canned while the UAVs are getting more attention in a rapid fashion.

[Patroklos]

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?