the round thing that they seem to be spinning around. some kind of circular slide rule?

… it looks like the ship is flashing a gigantic middle finger!!! lol!

TA:WP was awesome. i like the way he died

Blackjacks for China!?
😮

wow….

Reconditioning F15 airframes plus modest updating costs 3-4 billion at most (see Fas entry on F 15).U.S navy already has rebuilt centre-section barrels for Hornets, the RAAF may do the same. Likewise, Tornado F3’s had centre-section replacements due to unexpectedly high fatigue. As a Raptor critic, reconditionong F 15 airframes and adding AESA and a ultra long range AAM would be the cheaper alternative to Raptor. Raptor would not be cancelled but cut to 100 units. This silver bullet force should be sufficient to secure air supremacy working alongside F15s. Money saved (not a choice with Iraq bills) could go towards next generation fighter development. Its important to remember a Rand study and Ben Rich’s comments that advanced experimental airframes in small numbers can be decisive; large airforces are not always necessary to achieve results (F 117 in Gulf War). Rand report suggests continously fielding secret new technology fighters in small numbers to win wars, maintaining U.S tech advantage, each generation replacing the next so other nations can’t match you. Have Blue and Area 51 imply that the U.S actually does this. If Raptor had been fielded as a small force of fifty airframes not needing to be easily maintained (like F 117 to begin with), would it not have fielded earlier before counters to it emerged. It would not need to be so advanced since it would not need to field threats 30 years fronm now. Another project would have taken its place. Mass ap[plication of high technology so it would have cost less as a program as well. Easily maintained stealth and a changing threat envronment that the Raptor had to survive, boosted Raptors cost and development timescale. Programs like EAP, Have Blue, Tacit Blue in small batches would make more sense. Frontline fighters should be affordable like F 16, leave high tech, high cost to small production lot platforms that continiously change raising U.S tech to a level no one can ever match. Use these assets as force multipliers for more affordable assets, not as programs so expensive, you cannot easily replace them should their technology fail.

i think that’s a really good point, perhaps using a small force of uber-planes to overwhelm enemy defenses on the first day of war, then the cheaper, lower-tech stuff can come in. beats spending tons on an all-uber fighter force.

but it’s with the benefit of hindsight… the Raptor was born in the days of the Big Bad USSR and USAF needed all the Raptors they could get. the original plan called for 750!! we may only need 100 Raptors now, but the money and time has been spent and the technology developed. we might as well make the most of it.

when the PAK-FA enters widespread service the i believe the Raptor’s existence will be vindicated, at least for deterrence and to maintain USAF’s customary superiority. F-15s will be no good.

otherwise i think it’s a good plan that can be applied for future fighter programs.

oh, and F-35 can’t supercruise. it doesn’t have a wing optimised for high-altitude supercruise; it’s designed more for tactical air support.

Forgot to add the SR 71 replacement may already exist as THAPP, reportedly this Northrop spanloader escorted F117s during Desert Storm providing BDA. Supposedly looks a little like the Horten flying wing, GD Cheeky Pete ATF proposal (led to A12). If true it would appear that all aspect stealth has resulted in a new operational regime for aerial reconnaisance; slow high altitude surveillance reliant on stealth rather than extreme speed, first generation stealth.

TR-3?

the spyplane B-2 would follow the same concept. although as SOC points out the small fleet would be kept very busy.

in all probability russian RWRs also have yet to advance to the extent where they can detect and lock on to LPI emissions from APG-77, especially when used in its low-power EMCON mode. in that sense the Raptor will have a much better idea of where the Sukhoi is than the Sukhoi(using IRST only) has of where the Raptor is. chances are the Raptor will see first, and shoot first. the only question left is whether the Sukhoi can jam the AMRAAM. hmm…..

Raptor and Typhoon are basically worlds apart – in radar, performance, agility, and stealthiness. the price tag for a Tranche 3 Typhoon will be much higher than Tranche 2 figures quoted here, and even that would not bring it to a level close to that of the Raptor. i would rather have 1 F/A-22A than 4 Typhoons.

of course, this is a moot point as long as the Raptor and Typhoon don’t end up fighting each other. the Typhoon is indeed good enough to beat the SU-35; with this analysis you could say the Raptor is overkill and the Typhoon is a bargain. but when the PAK-FA enters service and owns your Typhoons then you’d wish you ordered those Raptors even if you’d have ended up with fewer of them.