Comments on: Boeing Unveils the Stealth Eagle

By: rwh88

rwh88 — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:29:24 +0000

You guys all sound realy dumb right now. How many of you have first hand experience with what you are talking about? Reading here say off the internet doesn’t count.

By: Bronco46

Bronco46 — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:29:06 +0000

We need to remember that China is not standing still on advanced aircraft procurement. The US needs to make we have enough advanced aircraft to deal with a China, or even Russian scenario.
I’m not sure patch jobs like this, should account for a significant number of your force structure. The F-15 was however always counted on to work with the raptor to kill targets.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:39:29 +0000

when you think about it all this aguing of fighters forgets the biggest fact; stealth. with current sams and air to air missles a plane like the rafale, su30, or f15k wouldnt last a second. it doesnt really matter how agile a plane is if it doesnt have stealth. the f15se is a great choice for people like isreal, sk, etc because they would fighet defensive wars against less advanced nations (iran, nk, etc) BUT the usa needs a stealther plane to offensively project its power into china/russia/etc. also remeber every penny put into this under obamas budget cut happy gates is less for the more capable F35… patience and you get thousands of very good planes or rush and get a higher number of decent planes (which cant avoid serious sams). GREAT export fighter but not so great for a rich nation like america (with 40+% of the world defence spending; more than russia,china, and eu combined)…

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:19:21 +0000

so china isnt really building up its forces? russia isnt creating new fighters? the af needs to be giant to take on the amounts of cheap low quality chinese “fighters”…

By: I_think_I_Know_Something

I_think_I_Know_Something — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:16:39 +0000

We should not be sacrificing our ability to achieve air DOMINANCE! We either have dominance or we don’t. We can’t sorta, kinda have air dominance. If the F-15SE is not the best fighter in the world then we shouldn’t be using it for our air dominance role. If we can’t afford all the AF wants we should be sacrificing capability elsewhere. Air dominance is the most important role and hardest to achieve mission for our air force.
Do we really need an all stealth AF? If our future conflicts are going to be like Iraq or Afganistan, do we really need stealth fighters to do CAS and tactical bombing when we have air DOMINANCE? Does this Hi-Lo mix strategy make sense today? It seems like it should be a mix of 3 different types of roles. One for complete air dominance, one for 1st day of war multirole and air defense suppression stealth fighter, and one cheaper multirole fighter for everything else.
With enough of the right aircraft to achieve and maintain air DOMINANCE almost any legacy/4th gen aircraft can fill the CAS and tactical bombing roles.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:20:28 +0000

ProjectThor was the self professed ex SF soldier(if there is such a thing).
THANKYOU!!!
Someone remembers me!
/Looks offended
You make a great point Drake its hard to even remember what drone tech was like in 2001 immagine it in another 10 yrs. O.o

By: Valcan

Valcan — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:13:24 +0000

@Valcan:
You better accept reality and what others wrote in reality. I didn’t write about buying Rafales or phasing out A-10’s, so it’s entirely laughable to imply it (like you did).
You overestimate your mental powers if you think that you can read others’ minds.
Posted by: Sven Ortmann at April 20, 2009 02:12 PM
—————————-
Ok i thought you were saying we needed to replace our A-10’s with rafale for ground attack…ok so nm. But seriously what is the main force drawing fighter construction up so high? Is it the multi tasking? Stealth? or a combination of many, many, factors.
Im not saying the Rafale isnt a good aircratf im just saying it isnt something i nessesarily believe we need atm especialy at 160mil a pop. F35 can take care of that with a few modifications it could be even better but we all know it will continue to evolve like all aircraft, weapons systems.
—————————————
“You better accept reality and what others wrote in reality.“
Now seriously.….….WTF are you ppl talking about?!?!?!
When have i ever claimed to be a SF guy? Are you guys on crack?
I think that pretty soon most ground attack roles will be filled by drones and such with pilots doing most of the air to air training.
With reguards to my comments on the A-10. I wasnt saying the A-10 should never be replaced just that there is no manned attack platform to beat it. If were going to replace the A-10 and im not saying we should at all. That we should focus on a more robust and powerful drone platform.
Now if any of yall can seriously tell me what about that makes no sence? Iseriously might hug you.

By: Drake1

Drake1 — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:06:50 +0000

ProjectThor was the self professed ex SF soldier(if there is such a thing).
It’s scary how fast UASs are taking over the close air support role. Fix the bandwidth and situation awareness issues, and they may just start taking over the air superiority role.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:58:31 +0000

And ive always figured the best ppl for ground attack where like the marines in the navy, Other ground forces. Control and operation of the A-10 and other ground attack assets are best controled there. Let the Airforce control air superiority and heavy bombers and such.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:55:25 +0000

Um what? whos Vulcan…and i never claimed to be SF?…
/head explodes for the confusion
Now im not saying we dont need unmanned vehicles far from it i think we need them bad from the predator to the Mule. Unmanned systems could reinforce and back up manned troops on the ground at sea and in the air at many many task.
What I worry about most in reguards to these systems isnt there effectivness or there trust worthiness but there vulnerability to hackers.