Raptors in the Mach Loop!

a reply to: Michet

There is precedent for lo level terrain flying to avoid missile engagement from enemy fighters in trail. Diving for the ground is one way of clogging any seekers 'look down' tracking feature with signal return clutter from the ground. Chasing a fighter down to lo level to maintain the fight usually results in both of them flying as close to the ground as possible.

This occurred a lot in WWII over germany, in Vietnam and the 6 day war in The middle East. There is footage.

The lesson learned from these engagements was having an ability to fly that low using terrain as cover levels the playing field, keeps pilots busy avoiding terrain instead of engaging the enemy, making the use of weapons more difficult to bring a solution. The lead plane might even duck away from radar and visual, if skilled or lucky.

So they set up a training exercise to familiarize pilots with it. Little room for error, Scary as f***.

The object of stealth is to exclude pilots from hiding from radar because they are invisible.

The opening salvo over Baghdad in the first gulf war bore that out. Still, the stealth 'fighters' role wasn't to engage the enemy fighters, there were none. The role of the F117 was to drop bombs…

Dropping bombs at night from radar invisible bombers is covered now by the B2 spirit and lo level B1 (with terrain avoidance guidance computers). The need to deploy stealth technology at night to invade other countries and bomb them like the First Gulf war isn't really necessary anymore. We have cruise missiles, drones and other assets for that.

So we don't need a stealth fighter, a stealth bomber or a lo level fighter bomber… making the very expensive raptors into hangar queens somewhere, waiting to be employed, or pushed into roles they aren't specifically designed for.

Thats the gist of it. Of course waiting for the ATS wrecking crew to ridicule that with a lot of necessary talk about improvements, ongoing developments and new features.

Nm.

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Sammamishman

If they fly that low they can be heard and spotted. If you can see it, you can kill it. Misallocation of resources.

Not if you're busy pooping in your pants!

As for the vid, that flying is way more impressive than it looks...I can just imagine what 2 seconds of the wrong "nudge" on the controls would do in that proximity!

Thats why they train lo level. Eyes are up, focusing on terrain, not in the cockpit focusing on weapons. In a fur ball, after missile stores are expended, the fight becomes close in, with guns. $tealth doesn't matter after that.

What they used to call 'seat of the pants flying'. Plenty of lo level footage survives from WWII. In the beginning in here…

Theres also a famous missile shoot down of a north vietnames ace, the fight went on for some time ending with the vietnamese pilot diving for the ground to extend and get away , the sidewinder missile employed lost the target for a moment until it got below the target and was abel to reacquire the heat signature when it climbed above the sky line.

Abut a minute in here, famous kill.

a reply to: intrptr

It's called Murphy's law is it not? Anything that can go wrong, will. Would you want your pilots to be helpless when something like the doors on the missile launchers get stuck open? It's a useful skill to have in a fighter even if it's already a stealth.

a reply to: misterhistory
Thats one possible outcome. Except being such a 'hi value' asset, the ideas is to fire all your missiles beyond visual range, isn't it? Then return to base, rearm and return to the arena?

Like other warfare logic from bygone eras, the original concept was to destroy all the Soviet fighters before they could acquire their target.

Aircraft carriers, tank busters, and stealth aside, the current theaters of warfare aren't just sit off shore and endlessly pound the rubble. Especially in covert warfare using proxies to wage guerrilla insurgencies.

a reply to: intrptr

Depends, what if you're deep in enemy territory, where outside visual range is 500+ miles inland, still a long time to be in enemy airspace. Obviously I'm thinking like what the idea behind the F22 was, infiltration into Russia or just Asia in general. There really isn't any other thing I could think of to go with the all stealth fleet we seem to be going into. These aircraft can't be built with the idea of the wars we've been fighting lately, but that's just one non-pilot/non-military/non-government man's opinion.

a reply to: misterhistory

Survivability. Currently non-stealthy airframes measure their combat survival in missions. Within 15 years at the outside, it will be measured in minutes.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's if we go toe to toe with the likes of China and Russia. Don't see that in cases of fighting people who fight each other within and across borders over minor differences in religion because God told them to do so.

a reply to: misterhistory

S400 antiaircraft systems are growing outside of Russia, as are Russian air to air missiles, and other combat systems. The USAF average age of our fighter fleet is growing with no replacements in sight for most of them.

a reply to: misterhistory

These aircraft can't be built with the idea of the wars we've been fighting lately, but that's just one non-pilot/non-military/non-government man's opinion.

And that right there is what some call competition between branches. The Air Force, Navy and Army all have different objectives and requirements. As soon as you try to combine them and produce one jet to fulfill them all there is this rivalry between them. The resulting hybrids are jacks of all trades, master of none. So they get different products but yearn to be in on whatever action there is.

The heavy bomber wants to fly off carriers and the fighters want to carry bombs kind of thing.

Who wants to stay home?

Get soomme!

Text

a reply to: intrptr


Yes, yes, we know your motivation. Down with the military. Waste of money. give it to the demanding masses.

Mountains are great 'stealth features'. That Raptor comes through super-sonic and it's gone before the dude with the man-pad picks himself off the ground....or is smacked via drone before the Raptor scoots by or seeing that Raptor can go super-sonic on the deck without afterburner whose flares are far hotter than his exhaust....


On the other hand, the higher he is, the more triangulation/ multiple ground radar sites he's exposed to.

So training our pilots for different scenarios is a 'waste of money'......my contempt.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That makes sense now. Thanks.

a reply to: intrptr

I can't really argue with that.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yes, yes, we know your motivation. Down with the military. Waste of money. give it to the demanding masses.

Anti war, not anti american.

And you're right, the military wastes everything, money especially.

a reply to: nwtrucker

That Raptor comes through super-sonic and it's gone before the dude with the man-pad picks himself off the ground…

Except the guys on the hill tops all have radios. They 'network' with those you know.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Want to know how to defeat a $ billion aircraft doing this terrain hugging flight profile?

One word; Barrage balloon...ok, two words.

a reply to: intrptr


That's assuming the EW hasn't jammed all those frequencies......Look, flying any platform into a combat scenario has risks. On the deck, at altitude....whatever.

One trains one's people for every possible scenario. "Hope for the best....plan for the worst." To argue NOT training based on a "risk" would give you an ill-prepared force and increases the chances your people lose their lives.

One huge advantage we've held over potential adversaries is our pilot training and experience. I, for one, would not abandon that advantage based your arguments
.

The Raptor is the fastest platform on the deck in the world. it is the hardest to achieve a lock on and is maneuverable as any other potential adversary. It's original designation was F/A. No, it's not the primary role currently designated for the Raptor. It may be the best on the deck plane we have, at least potentially.

Our air force is short of everything. Period.

To not train to maximize that potential is not how employ those advantages we enjoy. Training is cheap when compared to the consequences that result from the lack of that training.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Most of my family is from the Welsh Borderlands, originally (before that whole South America thing).

I've only seen Harriers on the Mach loop, but pictures and videos really don't do it justice.

The northern Welsh Highlands are some of the most otherworldly and beautiful places in the UK (aside from Northwest Scotland, but that place is Yosemite or Halong Bay levels of special), and seeing fighters running the valleys in person is like this utterly surreal juxtaposition, like if you were to put the Death Star trench run and Lord of The Rings in a blender.

For an aircraft enthusiast, it's an absolute bucket-list trip, and it's also not too far (by US standards) from Duxford, as well as some equally spectacular heritage railroads with a bunch of beautiful narrow and standard gauge steam power running through that same breathtaking scenery.

I was here a few times back in the 80s. Watching A-6's and F-14's going thru
Jedi Transition

originally posted by: Benzer
I was here a few times back in the 80s. Watching A-6's and F-14's going thru
Jedi Transition

Oh bugger,I drove that road last year and didn't know it was 'murica's answer to the mach loop.I stayed at Panamint springs and it seemed sooooooooooooo serene..................