fhapgood@world.std.com (Fred Hapgood) (06/19/91)
From: fhapgood@world.std.com (Fred Hapgood) I don't understand the logic by which the survivability of the ATF is defended. It is my impression that the *Patriot* can shoot down any plane flying now, _including_ the F-22! This might well be wrong -- there's a lot about the F-22 I don't know -- but it's obviously easier to get more functionality out of the antiair missile side than the manned fighter side. Surely in ten years, with all the work going on now in active missiles, millimeter radars, emissions tracking, IR and optical sensing, combined with the current state-of-the-art electronics, it will be impossible for an air superiority fighter, or for that matter a manned aircraft of any kind, to survive against a technically competent opponent. And if the assumed opponent is a third-world country like Cuba, who needs the F-22 to begin with?
eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (06/22/91)
From: eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
In article <1991Jun19.005806.8977@cbnews.cb.att.com> fhapgood@world.std.com (Fred Hapgood) writes:
I don't understand the logic by which the survivability of the
ATF is defended. It is my impression that the *Patriot* can
shoot down any plane flying now, _including_ the F-22!....
There are two fallacies here. First, there is a huge difference
between "can sometimes" and "always will." If, for example, the
defended area for missile system X is 60 nmi. radius against the F-15
and 10 nmi. against the F-22 which plane would you rather be flying?
Especially if you have munitions which can be targeted against system
X from 15 nmi? Proper employment of stealth aircraft, as we saw in
the Gulf, includes taking out defensive sites which may be too near to
the target you actually want to eliminate.
The second fallacy is assuming the bad guys (whoever they will be)
weapons in ten years time will be equivalent to our own in the same
time period. I think that the U.S., in its long range planning has to
take attacking against Patriots into account, we've sold them to too
many allies to be able to assume that they will all be friendly 10 or
20 years down the road. But with weapons systems such as the F-22
then would have to plan to defend against 1991 Patriot technology, but
not against the 2001 or 2011 version.
(Snap quiz: If you were SecDef, which allies would you be willing
to sell F-22's to? When playing this game at lunch we came up with
one probable and two maybes, but that we would try to push other
weapons instead. Could I interest you in some nice F-117's--low
milage, no scratches or dents and only used once? :-)
--
Robert I. Eachus
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...