General military questions thread

I’ve discussed this on another forum on how to fix the issues facing the F-22 Raptor fighter plane, although I would probably say this all the same: is there a way to fix that plane and make it the official next fighter jet of the US military instead of the F-35?
 
TheRomanSlayer said:
I’ve discussed this on another forum on how to fix the issues facing the F-22 Raptor fighter plane, although I would probably say this all the same: is there a way to fix that plane and make it the official next fighter jet of the US military instead of the F-35?
Click to expand...
The F-22 is maybe better in a straight fight between other jets but the F-35 is much more flexible and has the ability to share its sensors with other assets in the field making it a power multiplier also cheaper. Plus Ive seen plans for the F-35 to eventually fly with drones using its computers and sensor while they screen ahead. The F-22 is great for its singular role but its very much an argument of specialization vs generalization. Plus in a peer to peer conflict the ability for the F-35 B variant vertical take off and landing would really help with it being deployed on land also its easier to repair.

Really the main problem specifically for the US navy is they are drowning in Super hornets because congress basically forced them to buy even when they didnt want any more and the navy is being slow in it acquiring F35s. Though maybe they want to spend there budget elsewhere or are waiting for the price of the f35 to lower so they can buy more once the army and marines take the brunt of the starting price.
 
I'd say the F-22 serves a vital role in air supremacy, much as the Spitfire of World War II did, and thus should serve alongside the more versatile F-35 which fulfills the role of the cheaper Hurricane. The price tag is, alas, the price that must be paid to crush every other air force in the world (Europe has nothing to answer it, and the SU-57 and the J-20 are no match). Therefore, I see that as an entirely worthwhile investment as military might is often its own reward.

I myself would up F-22 numbers (either that or its successor) to about five hundred. They wouldn't be the mainstay or backbone of the USAF, but they'd be its sharpest sword.
 
The issues with the F-22 I've read are twofold:
- price, this being due to the very short production run;
- "not a pound for air to ground!" - I've also seen "not another pound for air to ground!";

If the Raptor cannot be made into a fighta-bomma and thus ensure a lower price due to larger numbers ordered, then making it the main plane of the AF is a no can do ...

Just my barely informed two cents :)
 
It is the dedicated air superiority fighter. Woth the F15 being the main of the AF and the F35 being the new third
 
Buba said:
Did the Scharnhorst sail with embarked seaplanes on its final sortie?
Click to expand...
It wouldn't have mattered if she did. The weather was so bad that the Luftwaffe was grounded. No one could use seaplanes.

The Royal Navy and Kriegsmarine were basically limited to radar (if the radar sets actually worked in that horrible weather ... which wasn't a given) and optical sights (which might be just Eyeball Mk.1 and a pair of binoculars).
 
I was thinking about those planes in the context of "Scharnhorst ISOT to Battle of Jutland/Dogger Bank", similar to all those Britwank fics/threads with Hood or '46 Home Fleet being ISOTed :)
Those Arado 196 would give the - Buba checks notes for difficult word - Luftstreitkräfte a leg up.

Of course, one could the route of the Hood to Doggerland ISOT where the tinclad was given a Walrus by the ROB in spite of not having one when it ate the Golden Twinkie. This including one of the crew miraculously gaining Mastery of the Force piloting skills.
 
Buba said:
I was thinking about those planes in the context of "Scharnhorst ISOT to Battle of Jutland/Dogger Bank", similar to all those Britwank fics/threads with Hood or '46 Home Fleet being ISOTed :)
Those Arado 196 would give the - Buba checks notes for difficult word - Luftstreitkräfte a leg up.

Of course, one could the route of the Hood to Doggerland ISOT where the tinclad was given a Walrus by the ROB in spite of not having one when it ate the Golden Twinkie. This including one of the crew miraculously gaining Mastery of the Force piloting skills.
Click to expand...
Your worst enemy is the weather.

On paper the Germans should have won Lofoten

Germany: 2 Battleships
Britain: 1 Battlecruiser, 9 Destroyers

End result: Two damaged battleships, one damaged battlecruiser, and 8 dead.

Not a single German 11" shell or British 15" shell hit what they were being aimed at. Mother Nature basically slapped both sides and said "Both sides lose."
 
Buba said:
With all due respect - all this is related to my question about the Scharnhorst having planes embarked or not at the Battle of Nordkap HOW?
Click to expand...
It wouldn't have mattered. When you're that far North in late December every battle is a night battle.

Even if Scharnhorst had seaplanes embarked they weren't going anywhere because the crews wouldn't have been able to see much of anything except for navigation lights if someone had been stupid enough to violate OPSEC by using theirs.

During WWII naval aviation night ops usually weren't happening unless you really knew what you were doing.
 
Germans made AT 80mm gun PAW 600 used mortar barrel.
If somebody made infrantry gun using the same barrel,and later bigger 120 and 160mm guns,how would that change war? and would such infrantry guns be used in our times ?
 
ATP said:
Germans made AT 80mm gun PAW 600 used mortar barrel.
If somebody made infrantry gun using the same barrel,and later bigger 120 and 160mm guns,how would that change war? and would such infrantry guns be used in our times ?
Click to expand...
Not in any major way. After the war there was some interest, but in the end it was taken over by heavy recoilless guns, which can fire a 120mm or so HE, HEAT or HESH charge at medium velocity just as well, at a 1/3 or 1/2 of the weight of a 600kg "lightweight" gun.
There is a good reason why no one uses infantry guns anymore. Why use a barely mobile infantry gun, when you can have a SPG-9, Carl Gustav or even RPG-7 do something similar while being much, much lighter.
 
Last edited:
Marduk said:
Not in any major way. After the war there was some interest, but in the end it was taken over by heavy recoilless guns, which can fire a 120mm or so HE, HEAT or HESH charge at medium velocity just as well, at a 1/3 or 1/2 of the weight of a 600kg "lightweight" gun.
There is a good reason why no one uses infantry guns anymore. Why use a barely mobile infantry gun, when you can have a SPG-9, Carl Gustav or even RPG-7 do something similar while being much, much lighter.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
So,they could be used during WW2,maybe Korean war,but later would be abadonned ?
Could they change anything during WW2? for example,let british or american take Monte Cassino earlier ?
Or Okinawa in 1945?
 
ATP said:
Thanks.
So,they could be used during WW2,maybe Korean war,but later would be abadonned ?
Could they change anything during WW2? for example,let british or american take Monte Cassino earlier ?
Or Okinawa in 1945?
Click to expand...
As history shows, this is the kind of weapon more useful during defense rather than attack, obviously. If there was an invasion of Japan, the Japanese would be getting a lot of use out of them, especially with their terrain. And even then, its nothing revolutionary. It is a way to make lighter infantry\anti tank guns, which is kinda nice to infantry and their logistics, especially in mountainous or other restricted terrain, but they are shorter ranged than normal and stuck using HEAT for anti tank work, and they still are just towed guns. For the attacking side SPGs and tanks are generally much better.
Also recoilless guns were already used by both sides in Korea.
 
hyperspacewizard said:
The F-22 is maybe better in a straight fight between other jets but the F-35 is much more flexible and has the ability to share its sensors with other assets in the field making it a power multiplier also cheaper. Plus Ive seen plans for the F-35 to eventually fly with drones using its computers and sensor while they screen ahead. The F-22 is great for its singular role but its very much an argument of specialization vs generalization. Plus in a peer to peer conflict the ability for the F-35 B variant vertical take off and landing would really help with it being deployed on land also its easier to repair.

Really the main problem specifically for the US navy is they are drowning in Super hornets because congress basically forced them to buy even when they didnt want any more and the navy is being slow in it acquiring F35s. Though maybe they want to spend there budget elsewhere or are waiting for the price of the f35 to lower so they can buy more once the army and marines take the brunt of the starting price.
Click to expand...
I think the Navy wants to invest more into this. Navy’s F/A-XX Fighter Will be the ‘Quarterback’ for a Team of Unmanned Aircraft - USNI News

They might not buys as many F-35s if the F/AXX comes out to be a way better pick.
 
Just a question though: what are the problems the Porsche Tiger faced, and could the Germans have been able to solve the technical issues facing the Porsche Tiger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top