Question for Army, edweird, devildog, etc. . . .

[Remington]

I was recently working on my garage and was lucky enough to look up and see two C-130's and three V-22 Osprey's flying in loose formation overhead. My question is: When did the Osprey's finally enter service? :confused: I remember not too long ago that they were still having problems with the aircraft (I also seem to remember several Marines being killed in a crash) during the hover-to-flight transition. Has the Osprey actually entered service, or were the three that I saw out running some kind of a test flight?

Thanks for the help!

[geekwarrior]

I was recently working on my garage and was lucky enough to look up and see two C-130's and three V-22 Osprey's flying in loose formation overhead. My question is: When did the Osprey's finally enter service? :confused: I remember not too long ago that they were still having problems with the aircraft (I also seem to remember several Marines being killed in a crash) during the hover-to-flight transition. Has the Osprey actually entered service, or were the three that I saw out running some kind of a test flight?

Thanks for the help!

:ninja: i thought they were scrubbed.

on another note, did you see they retired the F-14? :eek:

[edweird]

I was recently working on my garage and was lucky enough to look up and see two C-130's and three V-22 Osprey's flying in loose formation overhead. My question is: When did the Osprey's finally enter service? :confused: I remember not too long ago that they were still having problems with the aircraft (I also seem to remember several Marines being killed in a crash) during the hover-to-flight transition. Has the Osprey actually entered service, or were the three that I saw out running some kind of a test flight?

Thanks for the help!



The V-22's have been in operation for some time now... despite the body count the contract is just to big to kill and the airframes it is to replace are killing even more.

To answer the question on V22 service entrance:
Full Rate Production - First Quarter, 2001
IOC - USMC - 2001; US SOCOM - 2004

and if the ever present military industrial complex money pit makes your head hurt take a darvocet and take a gander at the V-22 money blackhole

estimated final unit delivery @ estimated 40.1 million a peice:

348 MV-22 (USMC)
50 CV-22 (USAF)
48 HV-22 (USN)

Warning... doing that math will make the baby jesus cry!


so I did it for you... cause crying baby jesui are my thing...
For a grand total of 17,840,000,000

[bleachit]

I was recently working on my garage and was lucky enough to look up and see two C-130's and three V-22 Osprey's flying in loose formation overhead.


this thread is useless without pics!




on another note, did you see they retired the F-14? :eek:


thats been in the works for a while now. once the JSF comes online expect to see all the good ones go away :(

f16, f15, a10 and probably a lot of hornets at least the early models. I cant imagine they would retire the super hornets already.

[geekwarrior]

f16, f15, a10 and probably a lot of hornets at least the early models. I cant imagine they would retire the super hornets already.

on the bright side, maybe the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels will switch to the F-22 :D
Saw that fly here at the March Airshow....nice


And to think the resale/value of older model Angels are bad, wonder what you can get for an A-10? I guess we probably sell them to other nations or park them somewere till WW3 :rolleyes:

[bleachit]

navy wont fly f22's and not enough of them for the thunderbirds... probably expect both to fly the jsf.

[geekwarrior]

navy wont fly f22's and not enough of them for the thunderbirds... probably expect both to fly the jsf.


yeah.

sigh...just dreaming, that would make an awsome show.

[edweird]

I think it will be a cold day in hell when we finally put the a-10 to bed... same thing with the B-52

the second the USAF puts in the mothball order for the a-10 the army will pick them up and figure out how to not bomb their own guys


as for the F-16 F-15 F-14 and F-18 they are all cold war era fighters... the job they were designed to do no longer exists in modern aircombat and can be done better and with less manpower...

the air superiority job that the F-15 and F-14 used to own is now the domain of the F-22... its just that damn good. Dunno if the navy is converting yet tho...

the multi role fighter role is obviously the domain of the JSF now... as they are looking to replace the F-18 F-16 and harrier with it.

Personally I see the proliferation of UCAV bombers as the next wave in air to ground weapons platforms... with surgical strikes being left to the small B1 and B2 fleets.




ok navy kids heres the navy plan for the JSF according to the govt watchdog defence site fas.org

US Navy

The requirement for carrier operations creates the largest differences between the Air Force and Navy version. The naval version has larger wing and tail control surfaces to enable low-speed approaches to aircraft carriers. Leadingedge flaps and foldable wing tip sections account for this increased wing area. The larger wing area also provides the Navy version with an increased payload capability. To support the stresses of carrier landings and catapult launches, the internal structure of this version is strengthened. In addition, the landing gear has longer stroke and higher load capacity, and of course an arresting hook is added. Compared to the F-18C, the F-35 has twice the range on internal fuel.. The design is also optimized for survivability, which is a key Navy requirement. Like the USAF version, the Navy version will incorporate an internal gun and sensors. This new fighter will be used by the Navy as a first-day-of-war attack fighter in conjunction with the F/A-18 Hornet. The Navy plans to purchase 480 JSF.

[bleachit]

Im not a fan of the a10 retirement, would be pretty sweet if the army took them up.

I knew I was forgetting one.. the harrier. Ive even heard rumors that the f-117 is approaching retirement.

everyone talks about these new fighters out of Europe and Russia... its my personal belief that our current gen of fighters can go toe to toe with them and come out on top. the f-15/16/18/14 may be old but they can still get the job done. plus our pilot training is pretty darn good.

[kosmo]

Edwierd is definitely right about it being a cold day in hell before the army loses its a-10 support. The air force had already considered mothballing them, and the army tried to take them. Then the air force decided they dont want the army getting any of their toys so they held on to them.

[Steelrat]

Long live the A-1 Skyraider!

In all seriousness, the airforce hates CAS. The only reason they fly it is because if they didn't, the army would. The marines are big believers in mud moving.

As for the Osprey, lets hope it works out. It has less internal volume than the Sea Knight, has no provision for onboard armament, and has problems with dustup when landing or taking off. I love the speed, but with no armament, it will need support, which means waiting around for the Cobras that are nowhere near as fast. Seems like they bought the equipment before they came up with a game plan.

Finally, I can't wait for the JSF to start flying. I think it will surprise a few people ;)

[geekwarrior]

everyone talks about these new fighters out of Europe and Russia... its my personal belief that our current gen of fighters can go toe to toe with them and come out on top. the f-15/16/18/14 may be old but they can still get the job done. plus our pilot training is pretty darn good.

I don't really pay attention to other nations aircraft...how do they compare to say the F-22? Or do we know all that much about capabilites?

I was reading a forum awhile back that said the British (Tornado I think?) could kick any of our planes in a dogfight, but that forum sounded a little biased.

[Steelrat]

I don't really pay attention to other nations aircraft...how do they compare to say the F-22? Or do we know all that much about capabilites?

I was reading a forum awhile back that said the British (Tornado I think?) could kick any of our planes in a dogfight, but that forum sounded a little biased.

The Tornado ADV, no way. It's a missle platform, pure and simple. The Brits love to think that their Eurofighter can take the -22, but they are sadly mistaken. Not that it's a bad machine, but it's not in the same league. I mean, just look at the -22 radar. It's getting an upgrade in the near future for side looking panels, and another upgrade that will allow it to use it's radar as a weapon to fry the electronics on enemy aircraft. Thats just crazy.

You'll primarily hear two big stories about the Eurofighter. First, that one of them took out two F-15s in a mock dogfight. No one knows the detail of the engagement, and should anyone really be surprised that a brand new fighter took out a couple of fighters that entered service in the 70s? Secondly, you'll hear bragging from the brits that their Eurofighters that the USAF is paying to have in dissimilar air combat with the -22 are kicking the -22s butt in dogfights. The -22 is not cleared for the 9X or the HMD, so that is a limiting factor. Also, there has been no confirmation of anything, so at this point it is pure rumor. Just keep in mind that the -22 is much, much, MUCH more than a good dogfighter. The raptor can play the "contemt of engagement" with ANY aircraft out there right now.

[bleachit]

and seriously, do you think the USAF is going to reveal all the tricks of the 22 before its operational?

(its not operational yet, is it?)

as far as the russians... they are maneuverable and have long range missles.. I think they are a bit overrated.

[Remington]

this thread is useless without pics!

I tried taking some pictures with my phone, but it was too cloudy/overcast so you can't make anything out. :( You'll just have to take my word for it. :p

[Army]

Osprey is an answer to an unasked question. 60's do the same job better.

Russian interceptor/fighter aircraft are thunderously fast, marvelously manueverable....especially the Sukhoi designs....obviously lifted from US designs, have limited avionics, poor fuel management(which limits warfighting payload), and are maintenance nightmares.

Other than that, the Cobra manuever is kewl!

[bleachit]

Osprey is an answer to an unasked question. 60's do the same job better.

Russian interceptor/fighter aircraft are thunderously fast, marvelously manueverable....especially the Sukhoi designs....obviously lifted from US designs, have limited avionics, poor fuel management(which limits warfighting payload), and are maintenance nightmares.

Other than that, the Cobra manuever is kewl!


its like putting big tires on your sedan with some nice spinners.


sure it looks "nice", but not very practical.

[edweird]

yeah the su fighters cobra maneuver is neato... but the f22 wont be dogfighing with them, instead it should be putting missiles in the air from the horizion independantly targeted at the whole su formation.

and yes the F-22 is in operation... I dont know if its seen combat yet tho

[MoeMag]

yeah the su fighters cobra maneuver is neato... but the f22 wont be dogfighing with them, instead it should be putting missiles in the air from the horizion independantly targeted at the whole su formation.

and yes the F-22 is in operation... I dont know if its seen combat yet tho

Hey, just thought i would tell you, I had a blast today sitting out at the end of the runway on my truck for a while. Watched what looked like a bunch of noob pilots in f-16 b or d's doing touch and goes. Looks like fun! could have sat there all day if it wasnt for being 106*f.

-If they phase out the f-16's maybe i can pick one up in a few years. Like those guys that have the 4 f-18's in town.

[txaggie08]

the second the USAF puts in the mothball order for the a-10 the army will pick them up and figure out how to not bomb their own guys




Thanks to the whining by the airforce, the Army is banned from having fixed wing close air support aircraft. Thats why they built the apaches originaly. the airforce will never give up the a-10's, simply because its going to be the last straw in there usefulness except the b-52. WE need an airforce like we need a hole in the head. The NAvy has enough missles floating around the oceans, they dont do anyhting with strat. defense. The army could take over the close air support, and with the range of modern planes, carrier based aircraft are more effective. Most munitions are guided now, and are moving more and more that way, so a carpet bombing campaign, while still somewhat effective, is well within the grasp of he army. The b-2 and f-117 squadron strengths are much to high, we just dont need that many. The b-1 is useless. But no, we have to watch the USEFUL branches lose recruits so the airforce can pretend its important.....


Coincidentaly, I had an American Naval history class at A&M last fall with the son of an engineer on the osprey project(hes some form of supervisor....). He had some interesting comments on why the body coutn was so high.


BTW, the sukhoi is NOT a rip off of the american design. if im not mistaken the latest is a canard wing.....


I would say that the days of CAM are almost dead. We will still see some need, but almost all fighting is done on the edge of the radar now. If you get close enough to see an enemy aircraft, you screwed up.


BTW, im a history major at A&M, planning to go to grad school for mil. History, yall are talking my favorite subject :)

[bleachit]

the canard design is just an updated su27. actually a lot of the design features on the su27 and later were taken from the X-31 which is an American design.

[pennywise]

Thanks to the whining by the airforce, the Army is banned from having fixed wing close air support aircraft. Thats why they built the apaches originaly. the airforce will never give up the a-10's, simply because its going to be the last straw in there usefulness except the b-52. WE need an airforce like we need a hole in the head. The NAvy has enough missles floating around the oceans, they dont do anyhting with strat. defense. The army could take over the close air support, and with the range of modern planes, carrier based aircraft are more effective. Most munitions are guided now, and are moving more and more that way, so a carpet bombing campaign, while still somewhat effective, is well within the grasp of he army. The b-2 and f-117 squadron strengths are much to high, we just dont need that many. The b-1 is useless. But no, we have to watch the USEFUL branches lose recruits so the airforce can pretend its important.....


Coincidentaly, I had an American Naval history class at A&M last fall with the son of an engineer on the osprey project(hes some form of supervisor....). He had some interesting comments on why the body coutn was so high.


BTW, the sukhoi is NOT a rip off of the american design. if im not mistaken the latest is a canard wing.....


I would say that the days of CAM are almost dead. We will still see some need, but almost all fighting is done on the edge of the radar now. If you get close enough to see an enemy aircraft, you screwed up.


BTW, im a history major at A&M, planning to go to grad school for mil. History, yall are talking my favorite subject :)You want to talk about useless, how about having separate services that do the same damn thing--ground pounders. Why not combine the Army and Marines--makes more sense than not having an Air Force. I personally don't see the need for 4 separate services anyway--nevermind the Coast Guard--they're just Navy Lite.
Consolidation would benefit everyone. This is my train of thought after having served 8 years in the Air Force and working with all of the other branches numerous times.

[Mango]

This is the most interesting thread I've seen on AO in a long time! :)

Fort Dix is right new to the school I teach at, and many of my students are Military brats. I see all kinds of neat stuff flying overhead. The coolest was two Jets (no idea what they were, I guess air superiority fighters) doing maneuvers, the sounds were incredible. Hearing them scream across the sky gave me goosebumps. I was very thankful they didn't aggro on me.

[thecavemankevin]

i agree with mango, i've enjoyed reading this thread very much. I know very little about most of this stuff other than the basics. I've never been in the military nor will be, but i still love military history and Discovery Military channel is by far my current fav. Thanx guys for the great read and while i was doing so i was looking up specs and pics of most of these:

F-14 Tomcat which of course we are familiar with from Top Gun with Tom Cruise (rather ironic, the name Tomcat for both the plane and Tom/Katty) :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/F-14.jpg

thought this pic was just too cool to pass
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/F14Missile.jpg
The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a United States Navy supersonic, twin-engine, swing-wing, two-seat variable geometry wing aircraft. It also performed tactical reconnaissance and close air support[2]. It was built for the VFAX/VFX Naval Fighter (Attack) Experimental requirement for an agile air superiority fighter and also incorporate the AIM-54 Phoenix missile as a fleet air defense interceptor against bombers and missiles. The F-14 Tomcat was the first and best known of the new highly successful generation of US teen-series air superiority fighters which were designed incorporating the experience of air combat in Vietnam against Migs.

It entered service in 1972 with the USN, replacing the F-4 Phantom II, and the abortive F-111B. It was later exported to the Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF) in 1976. The USN is replacing the F-14 with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in 2006. The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) will remain the only air arm flying F-14s.
wikipedia urself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14)


F-15 Eagle
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/USAF_F15.jpg
The largest operator of the F-15 is the United States Air Force.

The first F-15A flight was made in July 1972, and the first flight of the two-seat F-15B (formerly TF-15A) was made in July 1973. The first Eagle (F-15B) was delivered in November 1974. In January 1976, the first Eagle destined for a combat squadron was delivered. These initial aircraft carried the Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) APG-63 radar.

The single-seat F-15C and two-seat F-15D models entered the Air Force inventory beginning in 1979. These new models have Production Eagle Package (PEP 2000) improvements, including 2,000 lb (900 kg) of additional internal fuel, provision for carrying exterior conformal fuel tanks and increased maximum takeoff weight of up to 68,000 lb (30 700 kg).


Kill record:
As of 2005, the F-15 in all air forces has a combined kill record of 104 (this seemed rather low to me...???) kills to zero losses in air combat (at least as confirmed by its users, and excluding the case of a Japanese F-15J that shot down another F-15J in 1995 due to an AIM-9 Sidewinder safety malfunction during air-to-air combat training with live weapons). The US and Israel maintain that to date, the air superiority versions of the F-15 (F-15A/B/C/D models) have never been shot down by an enemy.

Over half of the F-15's kills were made by Israeli Air Force pilots. In 1979–81 during Israeli-Lebanese border disputes, F-15As downed 13 Syrian MiG-21 'Fishbeds' and 2 Syrian MiG-25 'Foxbats', the latter being the aircraft the F-15 was designed to kill. In the 1982 Lebanon War, the Israeli F-15s shot down 40 Syrian jet fighters (23 MiG-21s and 17 MiG-23 'Floggers') and 1 Syrian SA.342L Gazelle helicopter. In 1985 during Syrian/Israeli skirmishes, Israel reported the downing of 2 Syrian MiG-23s by F-15s.

Satellite killer:
From January 1984 to September 1986, an F-15A was used as a launch platform for five ASM-135 ASAT missiles. The F-15A went into a supersonic climb and released the ASAT missile at an altitude of 11.6 km. The F-15A computer was updated to control the zoom-climb and missile release. The third test flight involved a retired communications satellite in a 555 km orbit, which was successfully destroyed by sheer kinetic energy. The pilot, USAF Major Wilbert D. "Doug" Pearson, became the first pilot ever to down a satellite.

The ASAT missile was designed to be a standoff anti-satellite weapon, with an undetected first stage (the F-15A).


F-16 Falcon Of course many of us grew up watching Iron Eagle...then the less than good sequal etc.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/F-16C01.jpg

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a modern multi-role jet fighter aircraft designed in the United States. Designed as a lightweight fighter, it evolved into a successful multi-role aircraft. The F-16 was developed by General Dynamics. In 1993 General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to the Lockheed Corporation, now Lockheed Martin. The Falcon's versatility is a paramount reason it was a success on the export market, and is serving 24 countries.[1] It is the largest and probably most significant Western fighter program, with over 4000 aircraft built. Though no longer produced for the United States Air Force, it is still produced for export.

The Fighting Falcon is regarded as a superb dogfighter, with innovations such as the bubble canopy, side-mounted control stick, and reclined seat. It was also the first US fighter aircraft to match the English Electric Lightning's ability to execute 9 g turns. Although the F-16's official name is "Fighting Falcon", it is known to its pilots as the "Viper," the General Dynamics codename for the project during its early development.[2] Viper was also the name of the space fighter in Battlestar Galactica, which was very popular with fighter pilots at the time that the F-16 was being deployed


Combat service:
Due to their ubiquity, the F-16s have participated in numerous conflicts, most of them in the Middle East.

In 1981, four Israeli F-16s participated in a raid that destroyed Osiraq, an Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad. During the same year, the Israeli Air Force obtained the first shoot downs for the entire F-16 series, shooting down a Syrian Mi-8 helicopter and a MiG-21 jet. The following year, during Operation Peace for Galilee (Lebanon War) Israeli F-16s engaged on numerous occasions with Syrian aircraft, ending up victorious at all times. F-16s were also used afterwards in their ground-attack role for strikes against targets in Lebanon.

During the Afghan war, Pakistan Air Force F-16's shot down numerous Soviet and Afghan ground attack and transport aircraft (the exact number is classified).[5] The same border clashes also saw the first combat loss of a Fighting Falcon, when an aircraft was shot down by its own wingman, a case of friendly fire later traced back to a faulty AAM.[6]

In Operation Desert Storm of 1991, 249 USAF F-16s flew over 13,000 sorties in strikes against Iraq, the most of any Coalition aircraft, with five lost in combat. F-16s returned to Iraq in force in 1998 as part of the Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign and again in the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom invasion, flying ground support and SEAD missions. F-16s were also employed by NATO during Bosnian peacekeeping operations in 1994-95 (one was lost to a SAM, resulting in the evasion and recovery of Captain Scott O'Grady), in the 1999 Operation Allied Force in Yugoslavia (during which one was lost to ground fire), and by the United States in Afghanistan since 2001. Two air-to-air victories were scored by USAF F-16's in Operation Southern Watch, four in Bosnia, and two in Operation Allied Force (one by a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16).

On June 7, 2006, F-16s carried out two airstrikes which killed Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, using two 500 lb. bombs to destroy the al-Qaeda safehouse he was in.

Wiki-urself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Falcon)

[bleachit]

the kill record is rather low because air to air engagements has declined greatly since WWII. part of the is because production of aircraft isnt what it was since then either. on top of that, the idea of air superiority is acheived much more easily now a days and you arent seeing two "super powers" axis vs allies.

[thecavemankevin]

F-18 Super Hornet

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/FA-18_Hornet_breaking_sound_barrier_%287_July_1999%29 .jpg
caption said F-18 breaking the sound barrier

The Super Hornet is a variant on the F/A-18C/D Hornet. There are enough differences though sharing the same general layout and some systems that it has been called by many an essentially all-new aircraft. The fighter is colloquially referred to as the "Rhino" (for its prodigious nose), also "Superbug" and "Tankbug" for tanker variants. The Super Hornet was ordered from McDonnell Douglas in 1992, first flew in November 1995, made its first carrier landing in 1997 and entered service in 1999. Current versions include the F/A-18E single-seater and F/A-18F two-seater.

Currently, the Navy's F-14 squadrons have converted to the Super Hornet, which is also taking on the missions of the retired A-6 Intruder, S-3 Viking, and KA-6D. It is now the "high" part of the "hi-lo" mix (with F-18C's in the "low" role), and will continue to do so as legacy Hornets are replaced by the JSF. An electronic warfare variant, the EF-18G, will replace the aging EA-6B Prowler.

wiki-urself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet)




F-22 Raptor

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/FA-22_Raptor.jpg

The F-22 Raptor is a stealth fighter aircraft built by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. It was originally envisioned as an air superiority fighter, but is equipped for ground attack, electronic attack, and signals intelligence roles as well. Long in development, the aircraft was also known as the prototype YF-22 and as the F/A-22 for three years before formally entering United States Air Force service in December 2005 as the F-22A.

wiki-urself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F22)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/F-22F119.JPG





F-35 Lightning(FJA)

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/f35/f35-6.jpg

The F-35 Lightning II, formerly known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), is a military fighter aircraft whose development was funded by the United States, the United Kingdom, and other partner governments; and which was designed and built by an industry team led by Lockheed Martin that includes Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and Smiths Aerospace. The F-35 is expected to enter U.S. service in 2011.

The F-35 is a multi-role strike fighter, a plane that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air-to-air combat. Stealth technology makes the plane hard to detect as it approaches X-band short-range tracking radar, although it is much more easily spotted by X-band to its rear, and is not stealthy to L band long-range radar.

wiki-urself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II)





v-22 Osprey

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Aircraft.osprey.678pix.jpg

The V-22 Osprey is a joint service, multi-mission military aircraft with vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capability. It is designed to perform VTOL missions like a conventional helicopter while also having the long-range cruise abilities of a twin turboprop aircraft.

The Osprey is the world's first production tiltrotor aircraft with a 38 ft (12 m) rotor, engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wing tip. It typically operates as a helicopter with its nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal) for takeoff and landing. Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90 degrees in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a high-speed, fuel-efficient turboprop airplane. STOL, rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45 degrees. For compact storage aboard a ship, the wing rotates (about the z-axis), and the proprotors fold in a sequence that takes between 90 and 120 seconds.

wiki-urself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22)

[Steelrat]

Osprey is an answer to an unasked question. 60's do the same job better.

Russian interceptor/fighter aircraft are thunderously fast, marvelously manueverable....especially the Sukhoi designs....obviously lifted from US designs, have limited avionics, poor fuel management(which limits warfighting payload), and are maintenance nightmares.

Other than that, the Cobra manuever is kewl!

I saw a great video of the Raptor doing a bunch of cobras, and more! Everyone seems to go ga-ga over the low-speed manueverability of the 27 and 37, but low speed manuevers are an act of desperation. Air combat is all about energy, and if you are turning at low speed, you have given up all your energy, and are dead meat. Plus, with the HOBS heaters and HMD, any US fighter can take the 27/37 in a dogfight. OUR advantage comes into play in BVR.

[warbeak2099]

You guys make a good point that dog-fighting and air-to-air combat has become quite scarce since WWII. Yes the F-14 can better engage multiple targets than the F-18. But that's not usefull anymore right? I tend to disagree.


The next threat that our Airforce and Navy will have is China. In fact, I consider them a threat right now. They are operating with the newest Russian aircraft right now and are developing new technology nonstop. I'd like to really know without all the arrogant American chanting that our stuff is "the shiz", can our new technology effectively fight what we're going to have to go up against in the near future? Can the F-18 really be useful when it can only engage 2 targets at a time and the F-14 can engage 8? Can the F-22 really be useful when it is so expensive that we only have a handful of them? I think R&D spending has gotten out of control. Pretty soon, we'll have the best technology sure, but the enemy will have such an advantage in numbers, that our tech advantage will be far outweighed. There is a line and I think we've crossed it. I mean, you see how Rumsfeldt and Congress are so incredibly tightfisted with military spending. Sure they'll let us have a 80 million dollar plane, but they'll probably only approve the purchase of maybe 5 of them. Meanwhile, the Chinese are stockpiling whole squadrons full of the latest tech from Russia. I'm a little concerned. Anyone disagree?

[geekwarrior]

You guys make a good point that dog-fighting and air-to-air combat has become quite scarce since WWII. Yes the F-14 can better engage multiple targets than the F-18. But that's not usefull anymore right? I tend to disagree.


The next threat that our Airforce and Navy will have is China. In fact, I consider them a threat right now. They are operating with the newest Russian aircraft right now and are developing new technology nonstop. I'd like to really know without all the arrogant American chanting that our stuff is "the shiz", can our new technology effectively fight what we're going to have to go up against in the near future? Can the F-18 really be useful when it can only engage 2 targets at a time and the F-14 can engage 8? Can the F-22 really be useful when it is so expensive that we only have a handful of them? I think R&D spending has gotten out of control. Pretty soon, we'll have the best technology sure, but the enemy will have such an advantage in numbers, that our tech advantage will be far outweighed. There is a line and I think we've crossed it. I mean, you see how Rumsfeldt and Congress are so incredibly tightfisted with military spending. Sure they'll let us have a 22 billion dollar plane, but they'll probably only approve the purchase of maybe 5 of them. Meanwhile, the Chinese are stockpiling whole squadrons full of the latest tech from Russia. I'm a little concerned. Anyone disagree?

I fear that the US isn't going to be a superpower for much longer. Scary thought, especially if China takes our place. The world thinks the USA is bad as a superpower? They'll change there minds when China takes over.....there morales/culture is much more ruthless than ours. Dont mean to be a doomsday sayer but I think best times are behind us.

[txaggie08]

You want to talk about useless, how about having separate services that do the same damn thing--ground pounders. Why not combine the Army and Marines--makes more sense than not having an Air Force. I personally don't see the need for 4 separate services anyway--nevermind the Coast Guard--they're just Navy Lite.
Consolidation would benefit everyone. This is my train of thought after having served 8 years in the Air Force and working with all of the other branches numerous times.


"navy lite" does more than the navy would be willing to do, thats why there given a seperate service. They limit there recruiting factors.

AS far as the marines......thats debatable.

[txaggie08]

I fear that the US isn't going to be a superpower for much longer.



What in the world makes you think that? we still have a much more powerful economy, and the potential for a more powerful military, than any country in the world can muster.......

[Caffiend]

Thanks to the whining by the airforce, the Army is banned from having fixed wing close air support aircraft. Thats why they built the apaches originaly. the airforce will never give up the a-10's, simply because its going to be the last straw in there usefulness except the b-52. WE need an airforce like we need a hole in the head. The NAvy has enough missles floating around the oceans, they dont do anyhting with strat. defense. The army could take over the close air support, and with the range of modern planes, carrier based aircraft are more effective. Most munitions are guided now, and are moving more and more that way, so a carpet bombing campaign, while still somewhat effective, is well within the grasp of he army. The b-2 and f-117 squadron strengths are much to high, we just dont need that many. The b-1 is useless. But no, we have to watch the USEFUL branches lose recruits so the airforce can pretend its important.....



Wow, just wow... do you have any idea what the Air Force does more than anything? (I'll give you a hint, it's not precision guided/carpet bombing missions, or CAS support missions.) Don't worry about recruiting, the AF and Coast Guard have more restictions for entering so people automatically get bumped to the "USEFUL branches". And before you ask, yes, I'm biased, I'm in the Air Force.

Pennywise, I don't think consolidation of all services would be the right answer, that would be a logistical nightmare...besides, there's a reason the AF seperated from the Army :D

Ed, don't show them the math, that's just sad, just like when I order hundred dollar bolts or light LENSES that cost $700...man I'm in the wrong job.

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

You want to talk about useless, how about having separate services that do the same damn thing--ground pounders. Why not combine the Army and Marines--makes more sense than not having an Air Force. I personally don't see the need for 4 separate services anyway--nevermind the Coast Guard--they're just Navy Lite.

Sry me friend but it won't happen. Yes Marines are capable of fighting on the air, land and sea. But there is three reasons that keep us around. First off if you look at our consitiuation (sry dead tired) it states that their will always be a Army, Navy, and Air Force. It doesn't state anything about the Marines being a active military branch. So why are we still around you might ask? Simple fact to go to war or send U.S. Forces to other parts of the world you must go through Congress to get a declearation or what ever, US Marines don't need to go through congress at all for anything. What this boils down to is that the President can point his finger at the globe and tell the the marines to go there. Second reason we need a Marine Corps is the experence of sea to land operations, which itself is a big task to complete. Remember when the army tried their luck with it in WWII. The Army itself is not equiped to deal with beach landings anymore. Third reason granted this doesn't happen anymore but Marines are stationed on naval vessels as added protection/ and a downed pilot "Force"

The downside of not being reconized as a Force is that Marine Force Recon and Snipers are not allowed to take place in the SOC (the special force command, or whatever I forgot)

I'm kind of glad that the V-22 is coming out to replace the CH-46 on the Marine corps side. The 46 is to old and tired. I remember talking to some Air wing mechanic bubba's about the 46 and they said it was hard enough just keeping them flying in training operations.

I wish they don't through them old Tank Busters away its the only plane in the US aresnal that a gun was designed first and the aircraft was built around it. Look at the front landing gear notice its offset vs the rest. And it carry's the biggest payload for how small that plane is. Plus those B-52's are starting to be outfitted with crusise missles last I heard.

On the side note of the US doing away/transforming with equipment. The UH-1 "Huey" is going under another transformation. There adding another set of blades to it :( lost its cool sound. You could hear the thing miles away and would know that a Huey was coming for you. And the Cobra is going through another Transformation as well don't really know whats really going on with this one but rumors have it that its getting that crazy gun mount where as the pilot looks the gun moves with it. Humvee's, 5 tons, Abrams, M16's and varients, SAW's, AT-4's, MK19's, and Bradleys are next on the chopping block.\

Semper Fi
Joel Schmitz

[geekwarrior]

wow, M16's and Abrams are being retired too? I'd like to see there replacements :headbang:

[geekwarrior]

What in the world makes you think that? we still have a much more powerful economy, and the potential for a more powerful military, than any country in the world can muster.......

the potential, but I don't think the desire. Also, this nation is turning more and more to socialism, which cant be good. China is growing fast, and if we had a war with them, they have the numbers on us. Sides, we are already being invaded and overthrown, but its a peaceful (so to speak) invasion. Its called illegal immigration, and its coming to a neighborhood near you. :ninja:

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

wow, M16's and Abrams are being retired too? I'd like to see there replacements :headbang:

Actually Marines are holding on to their new M16A4's but the Army is or was looking at a interchangable system for their small arms. Yes the Abrams is one of the best tanks out in the combat world but it has a very huge disadvantage, weight. Look at the countries that we are going into (Iraq) a third world country its failing infrastucture such as bridages can't hold tanks, roads are just getting trashed, plus the huge logistical issue of transporting these bad boys. 1 C130 to 1 Abrams.

Edit: do we have enough rounds of ammo to go at war with the chininese?

[bleachit]

b52s already have the cruise missles and have used them in combat. ALCM's.

China may out number us, but we still have a massive load of nukes on top of our conventional forces. never misundersestimate the power of the carpet bombings. the b1, I believe, has a larger bomb load than the b52. can still cause a lot of damage to massive troop concentrations.


on top of that, the ac130 spectre gunship. can really turn a day bad for those on the receiving end.


now all we need is space based laser.


speaking of which, anyone see the new pop sci? not spaced based, but pretty interesting what may be coming.


edit: thoughts on war with China, all we have to do is stop trade with them and their economy will come to a screeching halt. victory US.

[Fred]

M1 is being phased out because there is no need anymore for a Main Battle Tank... its a truly amazing piece of machinery and an awesome weapon... but there are cheaper ways of blowing large holes in armored targets these days... :(

My dad worked on tanks in the early 80s... civilian engineer for the Army...

[Steelrat]

Actually Marines are holding on to their new M16A4's but the Army is or was looking at a interchangable system for their small arms. Yes the Abrams is one of the best tanks out in the combat world but it has a very huge disadvantage, weight. Look at the countries that we are going into (Iraq) a third world country its failing infrastucture such as bridages can't hold tanks, roads are just getting trashed, plus the huge logistical issue of transporting these bad boys. 1 C130 to 1 Abrams.

Edit: do we have enough rounds of ammo to go at war with the chininese?

The army was looking at the XM8, which was just a remodeled H&K G36. Unfortunately, parts of it apparently had a tendency to melt, something the G36 also supposedly has a problem with. The special forces selected the FN SCAR, but that is just for the special forces community. M16 is still soldiering on just fine, but it would be nice to start looking for a next-gen weapon. Pulse rifle, anyone?

As for the M-1, if anything, Iraq has vindicated the M-1. Unlike the light armor, the M-1s have proven able to stick themselves in the middle of urban combat and provide point0blank fire support while shrugging off almost everything thrown at them. God help us if we DIDN'T have the Abrams during the conflict. The concept of using the mobile gun system (MGS) to replace the heavy armor was beyond moronic. If anything, I think a great future armored vehicle would have massive all-around armor with a large caliber main gun capable of firing true high-explosive rounds.

[Steelrat]

M1 is being phased out because there is no need anymore for a Main Battle Tank... its a truly amazing piece of machinery and an awesome weapon... but there are cheaper ways of blowing large holes in armored targets these days... :(

My dad worked on tanks in the early 80s... civilian engineer for the Army...

No longer any need for main battle tanks? Better tell Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Korea, India, Pakistan, France, UK, etc etc. As long as the OTHER guy has MBTs, WE will need MBTs. Plus, as I mentioned in my post above, the M-1 has proven very valuable in urban combat.

What do you think we would use in it's place? ATGMs aren't the answer to everything.

[thecavemankevin]

wow, M16's and Abrams are being retired too? I'd like to see there replacements :headbang:

meet the XM8
http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/2005-01-13/U28P27T1D258135F26DT20050113080900.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/xm8-poster.jpg

The XM8 is the project name for a lightweight assault rifle system that was under development by the United States Army from the late 1990s to early 2000s. The Army worked with the small arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch (H&K) to develop the system to its requirements in the aftermath of the OICW contract, for which H&K had been a subcontracter to ATK. Although there were high hopes that the XM8 would become the Army's new standard infantry rifle, the project was put on hold in mid 2005, and was formally cancelled on October 31, 2005.

General Dynamics was involved in latter stages and H&K had plans to produce the rifle at a plant in Georgia. H&K was British owned at the start of the project, but was later bought back by a group of German investors. Engineering work was done at facilties in the United States and Germany.

wiki-urself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8)

so what is going to replace the XM8....i dont know? Guess the Army was more of a Sirius radio fan huh?

on a side note, is it me or is the M4 the sexiest gun alive?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Casing.jpg/800px-Casing.jpg

[thecavemankevin]

edit: thoughts on war with China, all we have to do is stop trade with them and their economy will come to a screeching halt. victory US.

and guess who elses economy will come to a screeching hault......Ours!! :clap:

Where do you think Walmart along with most major manufacturer/retailers get their crap from? If and more likely when China revalues their $$ we are in serious trouble

[bleachit]

I think our economy can do with out cheap plastic toys and small low quality American flags.

if the war becomes very large, our car industry will just go back into full production of a ton of vehicles for war and offset any losses our economy suffers.

[thecavemankevin]

I think our economy can do with out cheap plastic toys and small low quality American flags.

if the war becomes very large, our car industry will just go back into full production of a ton of vehicles for war and offset any losses our economy suffers.

hope those cars and tanks can run on water cause it would surprise me if the middle east sided with china in a dispute

[rkjunior303]

That show on Discovery was on last night, Futureweapons... They have some amazing stuff coming out.

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

http://dx.ampednews.com/images/content/6/content/0017/BallLauncher.jpg
BFG3000 baby for those kill em all types

[FooTemps]

http://dx.ampednews.com/images/content/6/content/0017/BallLauncher.jpg
BFG3000 baby for those kill em all types
lawl.

Does that mean all special forces should get gravity guns?

[txaggie08]

.besides, there's a reason the AF seperated from the Army :D



Its reason for splitting, and the onyl roll it was needed for as a seperate entity was SAC. Guess what, SAC isnt needed.

[warpspyder]

Pretty soon, we'll have the best technology sure, but the enemy will have such an advantage in numbers, that our tech advantage will be far outweighed.

Mass production is the F-16's MO. The US government (when it's needed to) has shown the ability to mass a large aerial combat force on short notice. We have the technology and the ability to do it, now we just need a "credible" threat.

Someone in the pentagon gets spooked by something, and you'll see our numbers start to grow. Keep in mind the US military knows far more about what other country's are doing then we could ever possibly speculate. I'm sure if there was reason to be concerned they'd already be looking into it :D

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

we still have more planes then china anyways. Remember Davis-Monthan Air Force base "the Boneyard"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/boneyard.html

costs about a dollar a day to run but saves the governement something like 14 million dollars a year in replacment parts

[Steelrat]

we still have more planes then china anyways. Remember Davis-Monthan Air Force base "the Boneyard"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/boneyard.html

costs about a dollar a day to run but saves the governement something like 14 million dollars a year in replacment parts

We'd wipe the floor with the Chinese AF. The days of our AF being at a numerical disadvantage ended with the cold war. Forget the boneyard, we wouldn't even need to use it.

Air combat is not all about numbers and dogfighting. No one really has the the support our air force does, including AWACS, JSTARS, Rivet Joints, etc etc, as well as our tanker fleet. Plus, you have to figure in the constant cruise missle strikes on Chinese air assets, B-2 JDAM strikes, and so on. I'd be much more worried about their air defenses than their air force.

[bleachit]

I'd be much more worried about their air defenses than their air force.


AAAAAANNNDDDD thats why we need our stealth technology.

[Steelrat]

AAAAAANNNDDDD thats why we need our stealth technology.

Thats ONE of the reasons ;)

[Recon by Fire]

Yes Marines are capable of fighting on the air, land and sea. .... Remember when the army tried their luck with it in WWII. The Army itself is not equiped to deal with beach landings anymore. Third reason granted this doesn't happen anymore but Marines are stationed on naval vessels as added protection/ and a downed pilot "Force"

The downside of not being reconized as a Force is that Marine Force Recon and Snipers are not allowed to take place in the SOC (the special force command, or whatever I forgot)


The Army is also a land, sea, air orginization! They have more aircraft than the Air Force and more shipsctually than the Navy! Now most Army units do not train for maritime operations, but we certainly sure did. But yes, the Army has done away for the most part as a beach landing force. "Tried their luck in WWII"? Seems to me D-Day was rather successful! Army also does downed aviator missions, again we were part of an aviation brigade and this was a major mission for us.

There has also been recent changes and I do believe that USMC Force Recon, (not sure about FAST) and such fall under SOC (Special Operations Command) now or soon will.


:cheers:

[Caffiend]

Its reason for splitting, and the onyl roll it was needed for as a seperate entity was SAC. Guess what, SAC isnt needed.

I'm guessing when you say SAC, you mean Strategic Air Command and if that's what you mean, your right, SAC hasn't been around since the late 80's/early 90's (I'm guessing, a bit before my time.)


AAAAAANNNDDDD thats why we need our stealth technology.
Thats ONE of the reasons ;)


And another reason would be it's freaking COOL! :ninja:

[Caffiend]

The Army is also a land, sea, air orginization! They have more aircraft than the Air Force and more shipsctually than the Navy!

I find that hard to believe, care to share where you got those facts?

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

I find that hard to believe, care to share where you got those facts?

Also when in the last 2 years has the army be capable of beach landings last time I check they where only able to cross rivers not oceans.

But its nice to hear that they let Force Recon in and its about time also they been target painters to long.

And those worried about the Marine Corp taking up defense budget ha only about 20 billion a year which is not even a quarter of the defense budget.

And I'm thanking god this hunk of junk is the first to get replaced
http://www.hk94.com/images/m249b.jpg
Good Idea on Paper, Bad Idea in Reality.

Funny note was talking to some Army bubba's in the bar tonight and they hate the Marine Corps for the fact all we do is break **** and leave. LOL :D

[pennywise]

They have more aircraft than the Air Force
I don't think so. Do you know how many different types of airframes are in the Air Force's inventory? How many types of helos does the Army have--because that's the only airframe that they have.

[rkjunior303]

We'd wipe the floor with the Chinese AF. The days of our AF being at a numerical disadvantage ended with the cold war. Forget the boneyard, we wouldn't even need to use it.

Air combat is not all about numbers and dogfighting. No one really has the the support our air force does, including AWACS, JSTARS, Rivet Joints, etc etc, as well as our tanker fleet. Plus, you have to figure in the constant cruise missle strikes on Chinese air assets, B-2 JDAM strikes, and so on. I'd be much more worried about their air defenses than their air force.


Hell, all we'd need is ONE of those AEGIS cruisers in the pacific.....

[Recon by Fire]

Say what you will, and sorry I don't happen to have a nifty graph to post for you. Not that you would suddenly believe me anyway. But the Army has a ton or aircraft (mostly rotary wing of course) and ships (most would be considered more boats than ships likely but they still have some large cargo ships also). The Army is a big orginization with lots of toys!

Just as in comparison, when the Japanese sank the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor, who were among the majority of the casualties aboard the ship? Navy or Marines? Neither, it was Army! They simply have more; more men, more equipment, etc...


And that crappy XM8 rifle plan was scrapped long ago too.

[bleachit]

I have actually heard, dont remember where... maybe from an Army recruiter, that the Army does have more aircraft than the Air Force.


how else are they gonna move all their stuff that blows other stuff up?

[kosmo]

I work for the military,

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cause some Air Farcemen believe anything they hear.

/I had something applicable to say, but I forgot what it was.
//copy and paste
///That army recruiter was counting UAVs as airframes. Dont listen to him, its all propaganda.

[thecavemankevin]

I work for the military,

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cause some Air Farcemen believe anything they hear.

/I had something applicable to say, but I forgot what it was.
//copy and paste
///That army recruiter was counting UAVs as airframes. Dont listen to him, its all propaganda.

I ask, so since you are "in the know" then why not enlighten us with your vast array of knowledge since you are soooo much better than us.



and i answer......


Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.


:tard:

[FooTemps]

way to kill a meme kev

[Steelrat]

Well, he IS right about the aircraft. The army only has a few light utility planes. They must be adding in UAVs and helicopters. Sounds like typical recruiter BS.

Lets talk about a real debacle now: The FCS program. What a waste of time and money that turd is. Everyone else is fielding larger and more capable tanks, and 52 cal plus SP arty, and we come up with 20 ton crap to replace our heavy forces, just because they deploy faster. Our artillery sucks enough as it is. I mean, its pathetic that the Iraqi South African howitzers outranged our 109s.

[kosmo]

Artillery is dead. The jobs it used to do are more effectively handled by mortars, mlrs, or aircraft. The only role it has left is counter-fire, which doesnt really need super technology and armored sparty.

[txaggie08]

I work for the military,

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cause some Air Farcemen believe anything they hear.

/I had something applicable to say, but I forgot what it was.
//copy and paste
///That army recruiter was counting UAVs as airframes. Dont listen to him, its all propaganda.


You know more than we do becasue your thouroughly indoctrinated into the militaries way of thinking,......shure. I see your types around mil. History and science all the time, you dont know more because your a soldier, your just indoctrinated completely.

Interesting debate, I wish i could get a couple of my proffesors involved....

[Steelrat]

Artillery is dead. The jobs it used to do are more effectively handled by mortars, mlrs, or aircraft. The only role it has left is counter-fire, which doesnt really need super technology and armored sparty.

From my understanding, mortars just don't have the range of arty, and with aircraft, if they aren't on station, you gotta wait until they show up. MLRS is an area effect weapon, no way you can drop rockets anywhere near friendlies. As for counter-fire, how are we supposed to do that if our newest stuff only does 30km, and the bad guys are shooting 40km+?

[kosmo]

Mortars dont have long range capabilities, theyre for short range. If its longer than that, in order to get clearance of fire youre much more than likely going to have to wait for a lot of clearance to be signed off, in which time you might as well get aircraft anyway. If it isnt somewhere crowded or in a neighboring AO so you dont need to get clearance, its going to be a wide open area where MLRS would do a better job anyway. Counterfire is extremely difficult in the majority of the areas in Iraq because its all built up areas, and you cant counterfire into an entire neighborhood. Thats something Israel does, but not us. In Afghanistan is the only place left where we really need counterfire beyond the range of a mortar, and even then 99.9% of what is shot at us is 107mm rockets, which can only reach about 8k.

[Steelrat]

Mortars dont have long range capabilities, theyre for short range. If its longer than that, in order to get clearance of fire youre much more than likely going to have to wait for a lot of clearance to be signed off, in which time you might as well get aircraft anyway. If it isnt somewhere crowded or in a neighboring AO so you dont need to get clearance, its going to be a wide open area where MLRS would do a better job anyway. Counterfire is extremely difficult in the majority of the areas in Iraq because its all built up areas, and you cant counterfire into an entire neighborhood. Thats something Israel does, but not us. In Afghanistan is the only place left where we really need counterfire beyond the range of a mortar, and even then 99.9% of what is shot at us is 107mm rockets, which can only reach about 8k.


Well, you are talking specifically about use in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are essentially COIN missions. Lets not make the mistake of preparing for only one type of conflict again. If we configure all our forces for counter insurgency, what will happen if we have to fight a traditional conflict against, say, Chine or NK? When we are fighting something other than a low-intensity conflict, just watch how fast all the sign-offs for a fire mission disappear.

And I love mortars, no unit should be without them. Awesome short ranged and immediate support.

[geekwarrior]

And I love mortars, no unit should be without them. Awesome short ranged and immediate support.

which is why we need to have an effective one for paintbball!!

[kosmo]

No thats what Im saying is MLRS and aircraft can cover the traditional roles of artillery better than artillery can, and mortars are generally better for our current fight. In the rare instance artillery is needed, our little guns are more than good enough. Logistics for the 155s are a nightmare and just not worth it. Slap 50 tons of armor and engine on one and its even worse.

[Steelrat]

No thats what Im saying is MLRS and aircraft can cover the traditional roles of artillery better than artillery can, and mortars are generally better for our current fight. In the rare instance artillery is needed, our little guns are more than good enough. Logistics for the 155s are a nightmare and just not worth it. Slap 50 tons of armor and engine on one and its even worse.

Depending on aircraft is dangerous. In a low intensity conflict, you always seem to have some loitering around. Now try a full-on battle, with massed AAA and SAMs facing your aircraft. Depending on them is just going to get a lot of people killed. And again, MLRS is no replacement for artillery. It has its uses, but cannot fulfill all the roles of traditional artillery. In additonal to being able to fire more accurately, the MLRS really just has 2 types of "rounds." Can't do smoke, can't do illumination, etc etc.

[Recon by Fire]

Artillery is dead? Please inform the Artillery branch about this, we have heard the same incorrect statements concerning armor. :rolleyes:

[Caffiend]

Say what you will, and sorry I don't happen to have a nifty graph to post for you. Not that you would suddenly believe me anyway. But the Army has a ton or aircraft (mostly rotary wing of course) and ships (most would be considered more boats than ships likely but they still have some large cargo ships also). The Army is a big orginization with lots of toys!


I'm sure the Army is a big organization, but the AF and Navy aren't exactly book clubs...


Googled it, found this
Army has about 3,000 helo's (down from 7900 back in '91.)

AF has 2,400 Fighters, 200 bombers, 750 heavies (judging from a graph), 560 tankers, and about 1, 200 trainers for a total of 5110 aircraft.
Figures from here (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4010&sequence=4) I couldn't find numbers for the AF's helicopters. And I didn't count the UAV's the listed.

Wow, the Army was closer than I thought and I bet it was true back in'91. My mistake, but when you said aircraft, I wasn't counting helos, they aren't aircraft in my book. (Their wings go faster than their fuselage, that's just CRAZY!) :rofl:

[Steelrat]

I'm sure the Army is a big organization, but the AF and Navy aren't exactly book clubs...


Googled it, found this
Army has about 3,000 helo's (down from 7900 back in '91.)

AF has 2,400 Fighters, 200 bombers, 750 heavies (judging from a graph), 560 tankers, and about 1, 200 trainers for a total of 5110 aircraft.
Figures from here (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4010&sequence=4) I couldn't find numbers for the AF's helicopters. And I didn't count the UAV's the listed.

Wow, the Army was closer than I thought and I bet it was true back in'91. My mistake, but when you said aircraft, I wasn't counting helos, they aren't aircraft in my book. (Their wings go faster than their fuselage, that's just CRAZY!) :rofl:

Just think of helicopters as rotary-wing aircraft.

[txaggie08]

Helos have to be counted as aircraft since the army was banned from fixed wing attack aircraft programs thanks to our friends in the airforce, who promptly stop building close airsupport role fighters(with the exception fo the A-10, and theuy didnt want that).

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

Kosmo one thing I remember about being in the Corps and training in 29 Palms is when you hear "Fire for Effect" come over on the radio get small. Arty will still out beat planes, helicopters, and tanks for a precision mass of indirect fire that is accurate. In Iraq airframes are limited to there payload and overtasked. Tanks are very few in numbers they are mostly used for convoy's and only particpate in larger battles. Yes Arty batteries are a logistical nightmare. But with out heavy guns on the battlefield is like going to a baseball game with out a bat.

[kosmo]

Depending on aircraft is dangerous. In a low intensity conflict, you always seem to have some loitering around. Now try a full-on battle, with massed AAA and SAMs facing your aircraft. Depending on them is just going to get a lot of people killed. And again, MLRS is no replacement for artillery. It has its uses, but cannot fulfill all the roles of traditional artillery. In additonal to being able to fire more accurately, the MLRS really just has 2 types of "rounds." Can't do smoke, can't do illumination, etc etc.

In a full on battle with massed aa and sams facing our aircraft we can hit them with mlrs, cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, etc. Especially with ATACMS, youd need a lot less MLRS to do the job of traditional arty batallions because their range is so much greater. Mortars do smoke and illum just fine. Now Im not saying we dont need arty, Im saying we dont need the big guns. 105s do just fine. The logistics for them is 50 billion times easier than for 155s. They can handle area suppression decently, but no where near what mlrs can do. But then no traditional arty system can.


Artillery is dead? Please inform the Artillery branch about this, we have heard the same incorrect statements concerning armor.

I dont have to inform them, theyre well aware of the fact. Why do you think they cancelled crusader? Probably not because it was useful.

[thecavemankevin]

Artillery is dead. The jobs it used to do are more effectively handled by mortars, mlrs, or aircraft. The only role it has left is counter-fire, which doesnt really need super technology and armored sparty.

Now i learn most of my stuff from google/history & mili channel so i dont have first hand knowledge like many of you.....but i dont think Arty is dead.

meet the excalibur (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m982-155.htm)


XM982 Excalibur
Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile

The Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile, also known as the M982 ER DPICM (Extended Range Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) Projectile, is the Army's fire and forget, smart munition. It provides capability to attack all three key target sets, soft and armored vehicles, and reinforced bunkers, out to ranges exceeding current 155mm family of artillery munitions.

Excalibur is a family of precision-guided, extended-range modular projectiles incorporating three unique payload capabilities divided into Block configurations. Block I consists of high-explosive, fragmenting, or penetrating unitary munitions to enhance traditional fire support operations with increased range, improved accuracy, and reduced collateral damage against personnel, light materiel, and structure targets. Block II consists of smart munitions to search, detect, acquire, and engage fleeting and short-dwell targets common to open-terrain battlefields. Block III consists of discriminating munitions to selectively identify and engage individual vehicular targets in urban environments by distinguishing specific target characteristics. Excalibur’s precision capabilities are intended to be used by Future Combat System (FCS) Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Cannon units to provide close support to maneuver units in urban or complex terrain. Digitized lightweight 155mm howitzer systems will be used to develop and test Excalibur’s capabilities before FCS NLOS Cannon is fielded.

The Excalibur development team combines U.S. guidance expertise with Swedish airframe experience. The projectile will employ Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided inertial guidance and navigation, free spinning base fins, four-axis canard airframe control, base bleed technology, and a trajectory glide to achieve increased accuracy and extended ranges beyond 30 km. The FCS NLOS Cannon will incorporate an inductive fuze setter to transfer target and fuze data to the integral fuze.

The Army plans to field the munition in 2006

http://i.guns.ru/forums/icons/attachments/14454.jpg

http://www.bellum.nu/armoury/excalibur.jpg

[Steelrat]

A guided artillery round is really nothing new. We've had Copperhead for about 2 decades or so. And we have had rocket assisted projectiles (RAP) for quite a while to. The trouble is that even with this new-fangled stuff, we are out ranged by almost everything out there. The Germans, the British, heck even the South Africans have artillery that outranges ours, and there are plenty of others that can shoot further than ours. There is no excuse for it, and it is an embarassment that our NEW fcs NLOS system traded range for the ability to fit in a C-130.

FCS is a joke anyways, since it began after the problems deploying for Kosovo. The main problem being that Kosovo was a very small low intensity conflict. Focusing our efforts on that kind of stuff is only going to lead to us getting our butts kicked in a major war. We already have light infantry and stryker units to deal with that stuff, lets try and maintain some semblance of heavy armor and artillery.

[Recon by Fire]

Well, not too surprising that the USAF has more aircraft than Army now, back when I was informed of the numbers in question, it was afterall back in late 80's.

Artty is alive and well though. Say what you wish. It is still widely used outside of civilians towns in Afghanistan and Iraq and is a mainstay of our combined arms doctrine. A friend of mine has a contract with the Army to provide howitzer recoil springs, he's done this for years. In the years between Gulf War 1 & 2 his annual profit would range from $150K-$400K a year (not a bad living, huh?). His profits currently since GW-2 are off the charts. Doesn't sound like an inidication that artillery is dead to me.

:cheers:

[Steelrat]

Well, not too surprising that the USAF has more aircraft than Army now, back when I was informed of the numbers in question, it was afterall back in late 80's.

Artty is alive and well though. Say what you wish. It is still widely used outside of civilians towns in Afghanistan and Iraq and is a mainstay of our combined arms doctrine. A friend of mine has a contract with the Army to provide howitzer recoil springs, he's done this for years. In the years between Gulf War 1 & 2 his annual profit would range from $150K-$400K a year (not a bad living, huh?). His profits currently since GW-2 are off the charts. Doesn't sound like an inidication that artillery is dead to me.

:cheers:

Yeah, but we're fighting guys using light mortars. I talked to guys who served in artillery during GW1 and 2, and they had to deal with the fact that some Iraqi artillery outranged them. Thats just pathetic.

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

Yeah, but we're fighting guys using light mortars. I talked to guys who served in artillery during GW1 and 2, and they had to deal with the fact that some Iraqi artillery outranged them. Thats just pathetic.

yeah but have you seen or heard of Iraqi's setting up long range arty?

[Steelrat]

yeah but have you seen or heard of Iraqi's setting up long range arty?


Now? No. I'm talking about the initial invasion, when they DID use artillery.

[SCpoloRicker]

Lol at Kev blowing the cliche. ;)

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

Now? No. I'm talking about the initial invasion, when they DID use artillery.

For those poor souls that did I'm sure they are buried in the sand somewhere.

[kosmo]

I give up. All of your peoples combined educations in googling/the history channel is obviously more than I could have ever hoped to learn serving 4 years in military intelligence, 2 of which in artillery units. I bow to your collective expertise in awe. Never mind the fact that the government and military obviously agree with me, which is why theyve developed light weight and easily deployable 155s and abandoned heavy armored artillery pieces. Its not like they have any experience in the whole war thing anyway.

[IronCore]

kosmo, how do you do counter fire exactly? just curious

[kosmo]

Theres radars that pick up and track incoming rounds and in theory will tell you right where they came from. Or you can do the old fashioned way of crater analysis, which is looking at the crater of the impacted rounds and getting an azimuth of where it came from. That doesnt tell you distance though so you need more than one crater to find where the lines intersect. Thats generally not acceptably accurate enough for counterfire though, especially in urban areas.

[Recon by Fire]

4 years! Oh geesh! My boots have more field time than you have time in service. LOL

[kosmo]

Good for you. My point still stands that the people who run the military are on my side with this one, and 4 years service is a lot more than reading something thru google.

[thecavemankevin]

um, i was the only one that said i knew most of my stuff through google/history channel so i dont know why your attacking him. Moreover my point stands, Arty for the US is not dead, just may not be used as much as in the past.


/but thats evolution for you
//
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

///
But trust me.... You don't.
/V
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

Good for you. My point still stands that the people who run the military are on my side with this one, and 4 years service is a lot more than reading something thru google.

sry I spent 4 years in the dirt. Higher ups will always say one thing and ground pounders will say another. Its FUBAR

[SCpoloRicker]

I think thats more SNAFU than FUBAR.

/WWII slang nazi

[Caffiend]

I think thats more SNAFU than FUBAR.

/WWII slang nazi

You are correct sir! (At least yours makes more sense :D )

[Steelrat]

Good for you. My point still stands that the people who run the military are on my side with this one, and 4 years service is a lot more than reading something thru google.

Then why are some military people trying to kill the whole FCS program? Isn't this the same military that was trying to swap out M-1s for strykers with a big turret?

And why are we the only military trying to replace our artillery with smaller, less capable units? Look at Germany, France, UK, Russia, etc etc. They are all going to larger caliber barrels and more capable units. What do we know that they don't?

The ONLY reason that the NLOS system is so small is because they want it to be C-130 transportable. THAT IS IT! It has nothing to do with capability, and everything to do with size. If they could give it a 59 caliber 155, they would do it, but it's just too damn small. Limiting our forces to crap that will fit on a C-130 means our guys are going to get nailed if we don't have 100% air superiority at all times.