On Jun 14, 9:33*am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in messagenews:d2126a32-ded7-424d-921c-
Thankfully our planners would not rely exclusively on your dumb plan
as it is so easily defeated.
I have no "dumb plan", 2pid. All I point out is that the F-22 is not a
SEAD weapon, as you proposed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then why are they working to develop a HARM missile that will
fit in the internal bay?
They have, according to your citation thaey have "increasingly
expressed interest" in developing one. That's far different than
"working to develop".
Some other weapon will also be required against fixed missile sites.
But not the F-22.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Certainly a better choice than the F-16 which can only standoff hoping
to get a radar fix. Sending 'em in close invites significant losses.
You try to sound so tough and so knowledgable. LoL!
2pid, did you read that the S-300 AA system can PICK UP STEALTH
AIRCRAFT?
Duh.
But they're cheap...so WTH.
No, 2pid, lives are valuable. You're drawing yet another stoopid
conclusion.
Sssshhhhtard doesn't seem to think pilots lives are worth the money.
2pid is way off base, as usual.
Mobile ones are a bigger problem requiring hunt and destroy.
After they turn it on, yes?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hopefully before they turn it on. *Speaking of that...
AA systems will be spread all over and networked. What does that mean?
It means that even assuming a radar-based system, which many of the
newer ones aren't, one site will radiate and even if you kill that
site the shots will come from a different site, or even a should-fired
weapon.
Imbecile.
do you know how many preemptive HARMS were fired
in Iraq and how successful that strategy was?
"While launching HARMs preemptively may be an effective and necessary
tactic, it not an efficient tactic. More importantly, reliance on this
tactic may be an
indication of intelligence and targeting cycle shortfalls that may
need to be addressed."
So the report concludes it was effective but wasteful.
Happy reading.www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21141.pdf
Things you overlooked in your citation:
There appear to be very few countries capable of seriously challenging
U.S. air forces in air-to-air combat.
[Ever heard THAT one before, dum-dum?]
No U.S. aircraft has been lost to an enemy aircraft since 1991.
[Which proves that the next-generation air-superiority fighter was not
needed]
DOD finds some air defenses difficult to suppress or destroy. Many
analysts say that emerging air defense technologies and tactics will
prove
more threatening and more difficult to counter than current systems.
[So a new HARM will likely not be any more effective.]
Shoulder-fired missiles continue to pose a problem for today’s
SEAD forces.
[These can and will be all over the battlefield.]
The Russian SA-20, still under development, has
been likened to the U.S. Patriot PAC-2 missile, but with an even
longer range and a *radar
capable of detecting stealthy aircraft*.
[Emphasis mine.]
"Preemptive shots" is an issue for all weapons systems, 2pid. That's
why later models of the M-16 were limited to three-round bursts.
But I'm sure that you knew that. ;-)
BTW, based on your citation there is absolutely no reason to believe
that a HARM in an F-22 will be any more effective than one on an F-16.
They still have to radiate to pick it up, and as your citation states
IR is becoming more common.
Duh.
Is the F-16 suited for that?
It's what we have, like it or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank-you Donald Rumsfeld. *I didn't know you were an admirer
of his. * We go to war with the weapons we
have, and when some sshhhtard only worried about the current
battlefields with little regard for possible future conflicts,
we're left with this.
2pid, YOUR OWN CITATION counters your position. That assumes you even
understood what it said, which isn't likely.
Duh.
They get litup, they will get shot down.
Against Iran? GMAFB.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rus...air-defences/2...
Looks like a tricky proposition for an F-16 to get in range
even with JSOWs.
It looks like the F-22 will as well.
According to Russian missile makers, the new S300 has anti-stealth
capability and can shoot down combat aircraft, cruise missiles, as
well as ballistic missiles in an anti-ballistic missile mode.
http://www.cdi.org/russia/272-14.cfm
So you'd rather risk a $350 million dollar aircraft performing a
mission it was not designed for? And one that even with a new, smaller
HARM will likely be no better than the current technology? Lol
You're one 'smart' cookie!
Say, how about an unmanned vehicle, 2pid? Have you ever considered
that?
Nope. You're too busy trying to justify the unjustifiable.
So is a new HARM in the F-22s future?
Still searching for a mission for the F-22 I see. Maybe it is SEAD.
Lol
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...p?channel=awst....
Apparently it is....so much for your limited role.
Gosh, 2pid. So sue me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tell it to the killed or captured F-16 pilots.
Jingoism noted. You have not come close to proving that a new HARM on
a $350 million dollar aircraft will be any more effective than the
current HARM on a EA-6B or an F-16, or that any pilot's lives will be
saved.
You also overlook one other small detail: when you decide to commit
the military you will have some losses. That does not mean that I do
not value their lives, or that the command structure doesn't value
their lives, but simply means that I understand that this is part of
the deal. If you can't accept that, then do not plan on committing the
military.
This is not about a video game, 2pid. With a video game, imbeciles can
say about whatever they want and their opinion is as 'valid' as the
next. In a shooting war, training and experience counts. LoL!