Military advancements

They are talking about that, but it kinda poses the question: should we get a plane for the next years, or a longer term solution.

And F-15Js haven't really replaced the F-4s yet. I see them on base, but the F-4s are the ones lining up on the runway. I dunno what is up with that. When ever I see a F-15, its a F-15E with an american flag on the tail.

PERHAPS, they are secretly being piloted by japanese. A chinese fighter is less likely to harass an american aircraft. Of course, I'm joking about this... mostly..

Well honestly the false-flag policy isn't too far-fetched. I've been reading The Great Betrayal and the Rhodesian Selous Scouts mastered using enemy vehicles and such to make an impossible war possible.

I can easily see the Japanese pulling something like that with the American's 'OK' just because it keeps the Chinese a little less antsy

We don't really need such a big armed forces right now during the big global financial crisis as everyone is too busy shittin themselves with money trobulesinstead of killin each other. Nations should justdivert funding from military and put it into law enforcements and such.

also, in the 21st century, wars are more low intensity as nations are all globalised with current technologies and the internet. Wars such as WW1 and WW2 are waged due to the lack of trust and communication between world powers.

In these low intensity wars, armies don't have to be in their millions to fight battles,or huge lumbering armoured divisions to pound their enemies to paste. they have to be small and precise like a scalpel like small unit tactics and precision strikes, not massed tank charges or city killing air attacks of WW2.

I think we need to stop thinking about the next giant break though, instead focus on what we have and improve it. After all the F-15 ACTIVE is not as advanced as an F-22 but the Raptor is just too damn expensive to even look at however the ACTIVE variant provides a huge tactical advantage both economically and militarily. It's like how the Ruskies came out with the Su-47 when the Su-27 is more than adapted for modern warfare. People think "more money we spend better it be ooga ooga" but the bottom line is just that, too much cash with too little to spend with our economy up to its shoulders in shit. Probably the only economical thing we've got that's had a massive effect in economy, military, and physiological use is the M1 Abrams wither it be the A1 or A2 variants.

First off, neither the F-15s/MTD or the Su-47 were built with op status remotely in mind.
The F-15s/MTD (ACTIVE) was like the YF-16 CCV, it was a testbed for alternative maneuvers, though focused on STOL performance. Needless to say the s/MTD hadn't room for the gun with the starboard canard actuator. The F-15 airframe could potentially benefit from the improved performance of canards, but in general the F-15E/K/SG is already so advanced it's almost like a Raptor inside a F-15's skin.
As for the Su-47, like the Northrop X-29, it was purely designed to test the concept of forward-swept wings and the capabilities of their composite technology. While the Su-47 would have made a fucking brilliant and dominatingly capable fighter, it was never intended for production nor would it have been practical. Indeed, to prevent the wings from twisting themselves off their roots they had to limit airspeed to around 900kt.

I agree with you, however I was simply stating that the F-15MTD is a far more logical design and easily has military potential with little modification. Not to mention you can still take the F-15s that are already in active military service and modify them to have the parts of an ACTIVE variant. Not to mention they're already extremely fast aircraft already with twin F100 Engines.
Just as well if you look at modern military equipment it's all rooted back to some extremely early variant of the craft/gun/vehicle/tool and the M1A2 Abrams goes all the way back to the M1 Sherman believe it or not. That's how most of the modern crap we have today exists, it's all evolved rather than have been created. Just look closely at these pictures and you'll see all the the advancements have come from experience.




Frankly this is why we need to focus on advancing what we have rather than these piece of crap F-22s that are only really to show how big we think our dicks are.

Ummm...how much about AC do you actually know...like I said, the starboard canard actuator for the s/MTD occupies the gun's space, and I don't see the USAF returning to the SUU-23/30 or GEPOD. And besides, they cannot just be 'retrofitted' to existing airframes. For one, the Eagles are already so old they're breaking apart in midair. and even on the Strikes, it would be horrendously expensive to rebuild the forward engine nacelles to hold [let alone support the lift generated by] the canards. sort of like the F-16. The CFT capability is fundamental to the airframe construction, Greece, Israel, Singapore, and the UAE have it but ours don't. It would be cost prohibitive to modify them. And I might not have been entirely clear, but what is needed is not more maneuverability. Already the Eagle, even with CFT's and bomb pylons is pretty agile. the USAF needs more Strieks configured like the Korean and Singaporean Eagles. I don't see the F-15K/SG loosing an A2A engagement with anything other than a F-22 or [if they're actually building it] the Sukhoi T-50. Also, make sure which F-100 you're talking about. We still have Eagles with the 22,000lb variants instead of the 29,000lb ones. And then even with just a A2A loadout they don't get 1:1 T/W

And BTW, the Raptor/JSF isn't so much about international dick-waving as bribes and lobbyists in DC.

And how can you compare a Sherman to an Abrams? It's like comparing a Bristol F.2 to a Mitsubishi F-2. Of course it's evolved! The Tesla Roadster rolls on 4 wheels just like the Model-T, but you wouldn't go so far as to say that they're similar, would you? Technlogy advances, on both sides. EOD.

Indeed, losing a gun would be a very bad thing, and we learned that in Vietnam with the F4 PHANTOM II. Now my major obviously isn't aviation though I have flown planes and tend to build shit myself I still think it's plenty a logical reason to aim towards what an F-15 or even F-16 is capable of rather than the F-22. And as you said yourself many modern F-15 variants are highly capable aircraft so I don't see much point in using an F-22, far too expensive to number one build and number two lose. Not to mention some of this crap I've heard about F-22s having bad glue isn't too friendly on my ears either.

I do think that a few L/O fighters for 'inital wave' SEAD/high-value ops and air-superiority is a good idea, but not in the numbers being talked about. And the JSF...whohoo that's a big stinker. Massively over budget and far behind schedule. Think about how much range and speed the Rhino (SH) could gain if they could put just a little money into fixing the 'stores separation issue' that made them toe-out the pylons.

But it is looking like the ANG is going to get Super Hornets. They should get new-build F-16s. The block60 is such an advanced aircraft it's silly.

A supposed production s/MTD might not need to lose it's gun. A friend in Germnay supplied me with a CG rendering of a F-15, and where the ammo drum is. The ammo drum sits vertically right behind the cockpit/avionics bay, about under the airbrake hinge. There might be room, given a semi-conformal fairing, to have the gun mounted ventrally (ala MiG-21).

I will jump in and add a new weapon to the mix seeing as this threads been revived again.

No longer will weapon reliability be a problem in the U.S; Ak-47 just give up now all you had was reliability and that just went out the window.



The HK416

This weapon is just great from what I’ve seen it’s just an amazing gun I really haven’t seen too much on problems. With the Xm-8 out of the picture I say this gun or a variant will be the M4 †˜s replacement. Though with the FN SCAR out there it could do it in though I personally like the HK416 better, it’s only from what little I’ve seen from it.

First what I was talking about is tactical advantage on the battle field not who will use them. The only reason the Ak can compete with the M4 is because the M4 is a bitch to maintain and can fail often. With that problem solved Ak is about to get it’s ass kicked completely. Point it has a big round not necessarily a powerful round, the NATO round tumbles causing massive damage a better bullet.

one thing you forget about the Chinese army...if they could mobilize all there available forces, who ever they face are royally fucked. They have over half a BILLION soldiers that are active service ready. even with there low tech AK47 knock off, they would still walk over any army that stood in there way, just because of the sheer size of it.

I dunno...The IDF with enough logistics...I would not want to go against the IDF with half a billion. Plus, the IDF's AF pilots actually have to serve in the ground forces and are very attuned to the needs of the soldiers they support from the air. The IDF's fighters are unmatched overall, China especially, unless they've ripped-off the Su-47 as well, have nothing to compare to the F-16I and F-15I.

Ohhhhhh so they got a lot of soldiers yeah they can just use the Russian strategy in WW2 "if we throw enough men at them we will win". I think we all know it doesn’t work like that there are things called bombs and machine guns that make how many men you have matter less and less.

During WW2 Americans had a great rifle called the Garand, 8 round clips (Ping) full power .30 cartridges... Great!

Britain seeing how effective and kick ass the Assault Rifle Germany developed during WW2 was (STG-44 7.92 X33 short rounds) decided to develop the EM2 which used intermediate 7MM cartridges (This couldve been the NATO standard round) which were highly effective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfield_EM2

But oh noes... America designed an entirely new rifle called the M14 which had a 20 round box magazine and full power NATO standard 7.62 rounds that you COULDNT fire effectively fully automatically. *Good job*

Italy after WW2 developed a Garand with a 20 round box magazine in 7.62MM NATO standard. :)

Vietnam came around years later and they decided: Hmmmm the Soviets have better shit than us (AK47, Which looks suspiciously like a STG-44) what is we gonna do?

The M16 was made which used 5.56MM rounds I.E an intermediate cartridge! :) "A soldier can carry nearly twice as much 5.56 mm ammunition as 7.62 mm for the same weight". :D

Many people within the military think that the 5.56 round lacks punch seeing as modern body armours are starting to cope with it... What oh what is needed now?

Maybe a 6.8MM or a 7MM round would do the trick? *Sigh*

The future? Made in USA: