[leeG]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Why is the Navy going back to a single engine fighter, oops I mean interceptor?

For maximum commonality with the Air Force's version and to save costs. I personally prefer two engines for a carrier fighter.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by leeG

For maximum commonality with the Air Force's version and to save costs. I personally prefer two engines for a carrier fighter.

I thought the Navy did as well. Is this payback for the F4?

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by kwiky

you 100% on that, maybe they just didnt admit to it, i find it hard to believe with both planes operating at the same base they would not have gone up against each other, maybe the USAF didnt want to admit the raptor isnt as superior as they thought or maybe the RAF wanted to keep telling everyone how great the typhoon is, i dont know and i dont care really, i just dont think we know what happened, the only people who do know sure as hell wont be posting about it on internet forums


here is a photo that shows that both planes where operating at the same airbase




regards..........kwiky

This picture is definitely not at Nellis, and therefore not at Red Flag. Looks like it might be Tyndall AFB in Florida (or Eglin, but the first F-22 squadron is at Tyndall), where the Typhoon did accomplish some weapons testing.

And you are wrong on a second point: Lt Col Mike Shower, now an F-22 squadron commander in Alaska, has clearly said, in a forum post (not on this forum though) that as far as he knew, no engagements between the Typhoon and F-22 have ever taken place. It's possible it happened without his knowing, but I'd say he's as qualified as anyone to address this, certainly more than John Lake, the British aviation writer who keeps touting the Typhoon anywhere he can (and showing his ignorance of modern aerial warfare and aircraft design concepts in the process) and spreading all these rumors of engagements having occurred, etc... John Lake is just a writer, he's got zero hours in fighters (at least other than as a passenger), and I note that he is rather vague about his supposed "sources."

As a former F-16 pilot myself, I never admitted to the superiority of the F-15 or any other jet from the 4th generation over my own mount. Won some, lost some (more of the first than the second. To me the most dangerous adversary was always another F-16). But when it comes to the F-22, every pilot I've talked to so far (all US) that have engaged the F-22 have clearly stated they stood no chance against the Raptor. They all got the rear ends handed off to them. That is unprecedented in the history of air warfare. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. I'm not sure why anyone would think that a Typhoon, which is no more than an improved 4th generation fighter, would do any better. Is it that British pilots are that much better than US pilots? I know a few of them as well (though no Typhoon pilots), and I don't think any of them made any such statement, even if UK pilots certainly rank as some of the best in the world. Of note, a short interview of the US exchange pilot currently flying the Typhoon, I think it was in Air Forces Monthly, clearly left the inpression he was underwhelmed. He did say the maneuvrability was excellent, but that's about it. Granted, there are many things he can't say in public, but still. On the other hand, the few things that the UK exchange pilot currently flying the Raptor at Langley AFB had to say were clearly of a different nature. I don't have time to dig up the stuff from my archive right now, but I'll try for next time I post here. Very interesting what you can find out from open sources, even for those who don't have the chance to get first hand accounts.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter how good you are, if when you get airborne against an F-22, you see nothing, and hear nothing until you get called as "killed" without having a chance to do anything about it. You don't get a chance to dogfight, unless it's the specific training objective for the mission. And then, yes, at least you have a little bit of a chance, but you better hope you brought your helmet-mounted sight and high-angle-off-boresight missile with you. Now that's pretty awesome, and there's no way the Typhoon pilots can say the same thing (and I notice they don't).

By the way, in the news: the UK is looking at how much to curtail their buy of tranche-3 Typhoons...

FVD

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by leeG

For maximum commonality with the Air Force's version and to save costs. I personally prefer two engines for a carrier fighter.

Yes, I would agree. But there have been many single-engined Navy jets in the past, so this is nothing really new: F-9F, F-3, F-2, A-4, A-7, F-8 (loved by its pilots), and others. Nobody seemed to mind too much back then.

FVD

[kwiky]

thanks for taking the time to answer so thoroughly, as a Brit i suppose everyone would expect me to say the typhoon is the greatest thing ever but to be honest im not a fan, i think the US should of allowed its closest ally to buy some raptors to go with our f35's,

i really dont care which is the best between the raptor and the typhoon, they'll never come up against each other in a real fight (at least not with British and US pilots) so it doesnt matter, i hope they are both alot better than anything the enemy has (russia, china, anyone else we may fight in the future etc etc)

the one thing i do worry about is with everyone touting the Raptor as unbeatable, what happens to USA morale and public oppinion if one gets shot down, in a big war that could be very damaging i would imagine

regards........kwiky

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

FVD, if you know, and I assume you do, would you mind answering the question posed by Nimrod48 about whether and to what extent stealth technology has moved on from the problems claimed in the apparently 15-year-old story?

By the way, I am convinced your insights and knowledge would be much easier to take, at least for me, if you eliminate the sarcasm.

Au contraire, I believe sarcasm is appropriate when someone enters an argument against stealth (what else could it have been? Think about it for a nanosecond) by digging up a 15 year old story. It's not as if we didn't know, by now, that the B-2 had flown 30-hour-plus combat missions in the Balkans (yes, sometimes in bad wheather, and against pretty sophisticated defenses - we did lose an F-117 and an F-16 after all), and Iraq/Afghanistan.

People have a tendency to shoot from the hip first and maybe, just maybe, think later. That's bad. The other way around would be good.

And oh, yes, vast progress has been made on coatings, both durability and ease of application. But the article was just ludicrous to start with in its exageration of the problem, even at the time of the article (in the very, very early days of the B-2). Typical BS reporting in the press, as so often happens. Sensationalism sells, the truth doesn't. The list of DoD programs the press has vilified is endless (including the F-15, F-14, B-1, C-5, C-17, M-1 Abrams, M-2 Bradley, Super carriers, Patriot missile, F-18, AH-64, and so on). On rare occasions, it's justified (e.g. the Sgt York anti-aircraft system in the 80s), but in 99% of the cases it's BS.

Can't get into any more details than that. But notice F-22s often stay overnight on uncovered ramps, even in Alsaka, and then fly missions the next day. That should tell you something about where we stand in this respect.

FVD

[Cavtanker]

Don't forget the MRAP on that list!

[Old Crow]

Thanks for the info FVD. I still do not agree about the propriety of sarcasm; in my view it simply lowers one to the level of the guy who is speaking from ignorance, but that is just a matter of opinion.

Regarding the aircraft coating, if you can say (and I'm guessing you may not be free to do so), is it now at a stage where the coating matches the life of the airframe or does it require replacement/replenishment during service and, if so, how often?

[trex0770]

FVD, thanks for the info.! A bit of sarcasm never killed anyone although in this politically sensitive world it might bunch up a few panties. I appreciate your insight and information as an insider as opposed to all the opinions and conjecture that we seem to get from the media! I swear sometimes our military feeds these stories to the press, knowing they'll report things sight unseen, so our enemies don't know the truth about our capabilities.

I had uncles who were pilots and my father was in SF. Their descriptions of battles they were involved in and events they lived through (in Vietnam) were so different than what I've read reported (researched?) by the media. It sometimes felt like I was learning about 2 different situations when in reality they were the same. IMHO, the movie "The Green Berets" showed it best (not that the movie itself was all that great) as David Janssen's character undergoes a transformation in his opinions after living through the things that the soldiers fighting the war did.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. Keep up the good work!!!

[Rush104]

Getting back to your original point, OC. The Navy's last attempt at fielding a stealth aircraft was the A-12. It was cancelled due to massive cost overruns related to weight increases, structural integrity issues, and radar development problems. One thing NOT addressed is the difficulty that would have been experienced trying to maintain this beast at sea.
Like the B-2, the A-12 probably would have needed a climate controlled area in order to properly effect maintenance and repairs to the stealth skin/coatings. Not a problem if one of the hangar bays on a carrier can be closed and dedicated to stealth aircraft maintenance; however this is not practical. Closing off one hangar bay for an extended period of time would have negatively affected maintenance for the other aircraft by denying much needed maintenance space. It also would have hampered the overall operational effectiveness of the carrier by negatively affecting the movement of aircraft from the hangar bays to the flight deck. And, how would the stealth materials have stood up to being exposed to salt laden air for an extended amount of time? This kind of environment takes a heavy toll on conventional aircraft; it would have been even worse on the fragile stealth materials of the day (not to mention the tolls that would have been extracted by cat launches and arrested landings). This would probably have led to too many airframes being down at once for maintenance issues, which would have been unacceptable from an operational standpoint.
No doubt many advances have been made in stealth materials technology since the A-12 was cancelled. And, the F-35 may finally give the Navy a stealth aircraft that is on par with what the Air Force has. But, first it has to enter service, get deployed at sea for extended periods, and have a maintenance history established before we can see if it really will perform to the standards being claimed for it.