Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Two Seat Raptor?

Charlie: Excuse me Lieutenant...is there something wrong?
Maverick: Yes ma'am. The data on the MiG is innacurate.
Charlie: How's that, Lieutenant?
Maverick: Well, I just happened to see a MiG 28....
Goose: WE.....we
Maverick: Sorry....we...

A critical look is being taken at what some in the military tactical aviation field had long suspected - that being the prospect of a two-seat F-22 Raptor.

Now before any of you single-seat purists go off half-cocked, let me state flat out that as the Radar Intercept Officer son of a dedicated single-seat 4,000-hour-plus A-4 Skyhawk-250-missions over Vietnam father, I've heard all those names for the "Guy In Back" - "The loss of 200 lbs of gas" comes to mind, with my personal favorite being the Brit's "Talking Ballast".

But with the electronic battlespace of today, having two bodies - and two heads and two sets of eyes and two brains coupled with two mission f22_raptor_l2.jpgcapabilities in that cockpit makes a certain amount of sense. Particularly in light of the potential enemy air order of battle that may be in store for us in the future along with an increasingly complex and challenging airspace.

Aviation Week and Space Technology's David Fulghum has the below article out in the 1 Oct issue that talks about the value of two-seat fighters. Opinions (and arguments) abound regarding the value of such a move but can we really discount the consideration of a Raptor-version of the F-15E Strike Eagle or even the now-retired F-14D Super Tomcat (Supersonic Attack - No Escort Required said the patch) in light of what that additional capability brings to the warfighter's table? What we don't want, of course, is a step backwards in this digital-cockpit age. Fulghum states in his article "Recent operational experience with the F-22 produced an aural environment, described by participants as “spooky,” where aircrews seldom speak and move information by data link, which is faster and more accurate than talking."

However, with the advent of advanced radars such as Raytheon's APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar, which is standard equipment in the Block II versions of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, having this "spooky" cockpit environment of tactical decision making at the speed of thought could continue. The APG-69 provides the ability to decouple the cockpits so that the pilot can concentrate on an air-to-air mission while the rear-seat/GIB/WSO prosecutes a ground attack, both using specific elements of the radar simultaneously.

In addition to that capability, keep in mind the overarching need to make our scarce defense dollars go as far as they can and the fact that a single-mission platform is a thing of the past speaks well for a multi-crew/multi-mission 5th-generation platform that gives the Joint Commander a much more versatile toolkit from which to conduct air operations.

Bottom line, though, when you discount the tactical advantages of that second cockpit, what would you rather have? 30 seconds of a burner wave-off or a reliable drinking buddy who will stick with you all night?

Two-seat fighters take on multiple missions as bombing and network-attack combine

David A. Fulghum, Washington

Cyber, Kinetic War Collide: New two-seat strike fighters and electronic-attack aircraft are quickly emerging as a combat necessity.

That need heralds the beginning of a revolution for the military aviation that will likely see the end of large-platform bombers and intelligence-gathering aircraft.

Instead, military aviation will start looking like the Israeli Air Force, which abandoned bombers for fighter-size aircraft that can strike at strategic ranges.

Even hard-core, single-seat fighter pilots who have long considered a back-seater unnecessary and sometimes even a hindrance are changing their minds.

Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, the U.S. Air Force’s first deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, says that the ability to conduct simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground combat in addition to sophisticated electronic attack and, soon, information warfare, will keep two aircrewmen fully occupied.

The threat of cyber attack means, “We have to look at the fragility of the electromagnetic spectrum,” Deptula says. “We have to study the problem. But the manpower crunch is so great that any solution that requires more personnel is going to be a hard sell.” Nonetheless, he contends that there is great need for an airborne, self-regenerating network capability to recover quickly from electronic or computer attack and strike back.

Also on the Israeli model, the U.S. will seek to reduce its acknowledged over-reliance on network-centric warfare. This new generation of aircraft—often based on existing designs such as the F-15, F-16, F-18 and stealthy F-22—will have the ability to survive massive cyber and electromagnetic pulse attack and quickly create local area networks to begin gathering intelligence and generating counterattack missions.

Senior military officials say that new tandem designs, combined with advanced sensor packages and wideband data links, are at least doubling the capabilities of tactical aircraft. But all that will require two crewmen to conduct simultaneous air-to-air, air-to-ground and, possibly, cyber combat.

The shift is already underway. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are each either fielding or designing at least two new two-seat aircraft.


--Pinch Paisley

The Navy is fielding the first Boeing Block 2 F/A-18F Super Hornets with VFA-213 at NAS Oceana, Va., while the first production EA-18G Growler electronic-attack aircraft flew last month.

Lockheed Martin officials privately say they are looking at two two-seat concepts. The first is a new version of the F-22 with a large wing—redesigned from the FB-22 concept—for more fuel. But unlike the bomber wing, it will allow supersonic cruise. A fuselage plug will add the second seat and a larger weapons bay that could include advanced, long-range missile designs. The company estimates the second seat would add only about 10% to the airframe cost.

It could become an option for the 2018 USAF bomber competition.

There is also a competition to put active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars in the Air Force’s two-seat, F-15E fleet, to be awarded in late October.

Another competition is to come in November to put AESA radars in F-16s. Lockheed Martin officials also believe that there are at least two more blocks of advanced F-16 designs that could provide new capabilities, including advanced radars and electronic attack. They note that while USAF uses its two-seat aircraft for training, Israel, Singapore (see p. 50) and other foreign users put a weapon systems officer in the back seat for specialized attack and reconnaissance missions.

All of these new designs are wrapped around increasingly sophisticated versions of the AESA radar that can triple the range of conventional radars.

Depending on the size of array and target, it varies from around 100 mi. for an F-16-size array to more than 150 mi. for an F-15 which will carry the largest, fighter-sized AESA array. That’s slightly more than the F-22. However, because the Raptor is stealthy, it can get closer to the target for a more detailed look.

Other electronic-surveillance sensors can again double the range. Specifically, if a target is within line of sight, it can be seen and identified from details as minute as the target’s vibration, the movement of a mechanically scanned antenna or virtually any electronic emission. As the range shortens, ever lower power emitters (walkie-talkie-type radios) and smaller flying objects (stealthy cruise missiles) can be detected with a collection of multispectral clues.

Airborne AESAs combined with electronic-attack and surveillance systems are themselves becoming tools in increasingly sophisticated network attack.

The Air Warfare Center is testing developmental airborne network-attack capabilities, says Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force, which has been tapped for cyber warfare operations and shares Barksdale AFB, La., with the new Cyber Warfare Command. Some of the star graduates and experienced instructors from the Air Weapons School are preparing to introduce airborne network attack into Red, Blue and Black Flag exercises, he says. Black Flag is a new arena for specialists to experiment with new technologies in a combat environment and decide where the Air Force should invest its resources.

“We are actually starting to practice with these [tactical network-attack] capabilities,” Elder says. “With enough testing, we’ll get the confidence” to bring them into the exercises. Tactical home for the operation capability will be “basically stealth platforms” like F-22, F-35 and B-2, but it will also include space, bombers, fighters and large intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, he says. Some of the early work on such projects includes the Suter series, involving the RC-135 Rivet Joint and EC-130 Compass Call. “And one of the platforms we did a lot of work with was the [E-8] Joint Stars,” Elder adds.

A quickly developing international market is likely. “I’ve got people coming to me that don’t really know what an AESA radar is, but they do know they want it for their air force,” says a radar developer at the Air Force Association show in Washington last week.

The move is sure to generate budget wars between the services budgeteers (who are trying to trim defense spending) and operational commanders (who want the added capability) because two-seat aircraft cost more, as does the training and retention of weapon systems officers. Advocates contend that with the same numbers of aircraft, two-seaters can perform more combat tasks than single-seaters and more easily split up to cover a larger airspace (because each can do air-to-air and air-to-ground combat simultaneously).

These two-seat, integrated multi-sensor designs “will be very useful in irregular war, but there will have to be a very disciplined approach” to crew coordination, says Maj. Gen. Allen Peck, a veteran F-15 fighter pilot, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Development and Education Center and vice commander of the Air University. “If you’re not careful, two guys may end up doing the work of one.”

Recent operational experience with the F-22 produced an aural environment, described by participants as “spooky,” where aircrews seldom speak and move information by data link, which is faster and more accurate than talking.

There are other technology factors—and an overarching threat—that drive planners to two-seat solutions. AESA allows the pinpointing of small air and ground targets. Integration of sensors and access to offboard intelligence sources allow the rapid accumulation of real-time data for simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. And, the world’s air forces realize they’re vulnerable to computer-network and electronic attack, say Deptula and Elder.

Israeli defense officials, who have created the model that the U.S. is looking to for guidance, first revealed their intention to Aviation Week & Space Technology last year to back away from overreliance on network-centric warfare. Part of the solution, the Israeli Defense Forces contends, is to keep more manned aircraft in its inventory and keep them longer than planned. That doesn’t mean abandoning plans for the heavy use of unmanned surveillance and combat aircraft, but it does mean the modernization and continuing purchase of advanced manned strikefighters, such as the F-15 and F-16 family and, eventually, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Comments

Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
rolex replica-
rolex replica watches-
best replica watches-
watches-
diamond watches-
replica watches-
rolex watches-
watches online-
timex watches-
ladies watch-
luxury watch-
wrist watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
ladies watch-
men's watch-
wrist watches-
replica watches-
fine watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
replica rolex watches-
rolex watch-

Posted by: luxury watch at April 21, 2009 05:14 AM


style techniques is used with the therapist holding smooth stones and applying essential oils to work away muscle tension.Deep Tissue Massage – focuses on the deeper layers of muscle tissue. It is designed to reach the deep sections of thick muscles, specifically the individual muscle fibres.Remedial Massage [url=http://www.bestmassage.net.cn]massage in beijing[/url]works to heat muscles and tendons that are damaged, impaired or knotted. It holistically treats the whole body and traces the discomfort back to the original cause. It uses specialised techniques to support and speed up the body's own repair mechanisms. The massage is applied directly to the skin usually with an oil lubricant. Passive stretching moves are also employed.Shiatsu – is a traditional hands-on Japanese ‘healing therapy’ originating from the Japanese amma therapeutic massage. It is quite an intense form of massage [url=http://www.shanghaimassage8.com.cn]massage shanghai[/url]whereby the therapist uses thumbs, elbows, forearms, feet and knees to apply pressure on the body. This is combined with stretches, joint rotations and joint manipulation to give an all-over treatment.Swedish Massage [url=http://www.shanghaimassage8.com.cn]shanghai massage[/url] – is a system of long strokes, kneading, friction, tapping, percussion, vibration and shaking motions that apply pressure between muscles and bones, rubbing in the same direction as the flow of blood returning to the heart. Swedish Massage[url=http://www.shanghaimassage18.com.cn]massage shanghai[/url] feels good, is relaxing and invigorating. Welcome to Replicasaaa.com. We strive to bring you the best online shopping experience. http://www.replicasaaai.com is exclusively positioned to present to you the newest and hottest in styles and trends. [url=http://www.replicasaaa.com/china-replica-handbag.html]china replica handbag[/url]Customer Service Hours of Operation 7 Days/Week Any questions or comments. Please feel free to contact us Contact us for more details before you buy from us if you are not sure about the material or size. Otherwise we do not accept your wrong material or size returning request. Due to the time difference and our working load,[url=http://www.replicasaaa.com/fashion-handbags.html]fashion handbags[/url]our email might be read by us within 12~24 hours after you sent it. We appreciate your patience. If you did not get reply from us for a long time, please check your junk mail box [url=http://www.sicheatingelements.cn]sic heating elements[/url]

Posted by: shanghai escort at November 12, 2008 01:03 AM


Biggest wholesale web (www.sportshoesDiy.com) is a professional brand handbag and brand name Sport shoes supplier in China.We provide more than 9000 products available, variety of brands.All new styles and designs found in retail stores always available! In our web[url=http://www.sportshoesdiy.com]authentic Jordan shoes[/url] , you can see many different picture , the picture is practicality , and have more colour give you to choose . We supply the overseas retail and wholesale, the price and postage are rarely cheap. Authentic merchandise sold in our department stores! Serial numbers eligible card embossed on or in each handbag and sports shoes! Tags enclosed and attached to each handbag or sports shoes[url=http://www.sportshoesdiy.com]authentic nike shoes[/url]! You will receive the item selected from pictures viewed on our web ! Our handbags [url=http://www.sportshoesdiy.com]shox tn shoes[/url]and sport shoes are guaranteed AAA+++ quality! Our packaging are guaranteed safe arrivals! We are happy to locate special orders for you, just become our member, then send us an email with a picture or contact with us by MSN. Integrated manufacture in all-model guillotines with full completion of precise production, [url=http://www.guowang.com/en/eabout.html]paper cutting machine[/url]standard techniques, advanced facilities and elite research & development team. The company tops his products in China ranging from basic digital series to the uplifting computerized series covering worldwide preference at each level. The products [url=http://www.bhbzjx.cn/BagMakingMachine.html]bag making machine[/url]are well accredited by several certifications (ISO management certificate, TUV CE certificate and etc.) suitable for various market requirements to guarantee customers full confidence in quality as well as service. Systematic working is always embarked on every process, [url=http://www.baihaopm.com/eproduct.htm]Bag making Machine[/url]every staff. Simplified sales is perfectly followed by his own sales branch (Eureka)in Shanghai to facilitate commercial contacts intended to guarantee customers enjoying fastest reach of products and service in most economic way.

Posted by: shanghai escort at November 12, 2008 01:01 AM


热风循环烘箱[url=http://www.nbuico.com/product-list-info-58.html]烘箱[/url]经过多次升级换代已达到了国内外先进水平。CT系列热风循环烘箱为第一代产品,平均热效率达30%左右,采用离心式风机,箱体外循环,手工控温的方式。经多次改造,形成了CT-C系列热风循环烘箱[url=http://www.nbuico.com/product-list-info-51.html]烘道[/url],该系列热风循环烘箱全部采用轴流风机[url=http://www.nbuico.com/product-list-info-46.html]固化炉[/url],配用了自动恒温控制系统,并备有电脑控制系统供选择。热效率达70%左右,CT-C系列热风循环烘箱是利用蒸汽或电为热源,用轴流风机对热交换器对流换热的方式加热空气

Posted by: shanghai escort at November 12, 2008 01:00 AM


1、热锻它主要是对工件加热到一定溫度后(根据材质不同加热温度也不同),通過冲床[url=http://www.cldhj.com/about.html]对焊机[/url]、锻床或其他形式把工件锻压成其他形狀。例如:表壳、表胚、拉手、模具附件、厨房餐具用品、工艺品、标准件、紧固件、机械零件加工、铜锁、铆钉、钢钎、钎具的热挤压[url=http://www.cnxskj.com.cn]pvc管[/url] 等等。 2、热配合它主要是指不同种金属之间或金属与非金属之间通过对金属的加热,利用热扩張或热熔解的原理使两者连接在一起。例如:電脑散热器的铜芯与铝片、喇叭网的埋值焊接、钢塑管的复合[url=http://www.cnxskj.com.cn]钢塑管[/url] 、铝箔的封口(牙膏皮)、电机转子、电热管封口等等。 3、熔炼它主要是指通过对金属[url=http://www.cnxskj.com.cn]ppr管[/url] 的高温,把金属化成液体,主要适用于铁、钢、铜、铝、锌以及各种贵重金属。如金、银的熔化。 我国的塑料机械[url=http://www.bhbzjx.cn]制袋机[/url]工业兴起于’50年代。改革开放前,大多数企业集中在原轻工和机械系统,规模较小、装备落后、技术力量薄弱。技术上主要以对引进样机进行测绘仿制为手段,产品品种少、工艺水平低、标准不一、模具开发能力低、配套能力差,缺乏成套供应能力。 改革开放后,随着塑料工业的高速发展,市场对塑料成型加工设备的需求大幅度提高。许多企业通过与国外同类企业进行合资、合作和购买生产制造许可证等方式,从国外引进先进技术和设计并进行消化吸收,使得我国塑料机械产业有了一个明显的跃升,产品开始初步满足塑料加工[url=http://www.fushi8.net.cn]制袋机[/url]工业的一般需求。 进入90年代,由于塑料新型[url=http://www.zhengdongcn.com/103.htm]无纺布制袋机[/url]材料的不断涌现,塑料[url=http://www.wanyuanbj.com/product.html]无纺布制袋机[/url]的应用领域已从一般民用、农用向几乎所有工业领域,如汽车、家电、建筑、包装、装演、通讯、计算机等产业快速扩展。塑料机械生产企业也打破了原大部分局限于轻工、机械及化工系统的格局,迅速在各个工业系统及军工和乡镇企业中蓬勃兴起,并依托塑料工业的重点发展地区,产品门类与之相适应,从而形成了较为明显的区域结构布局。如注射成型机的生产相对集中在广东南部,浙江的杭州、宁波一带,上海及江苏的无锡等地;挤出生产线相对集中在东部的山东、上海,中部的武汉及豫南,北部的北京、大连等城市;塑料编织设备[url=http://www.rahuaxin.com/zdj.html]边封制袋机,凸版印刷机,环保制袋机[/url]主要集中在江苏常州和甘肃兰州两地;同向双螺杆挤出机则主要在江苏的南京、甘肃兰州及大连;混配设备主要江苏张家港和辽宁的部分地区;挤出成型机和注射成型机的关键部件螺杆和机筒则大部在浙江的舟山和江苏的南京;而各类模具则以浙江黄岩地区以及安徽一些地区较为集中。 经过从“六五”开始到目前这段近20年时间的发展,我国塑料机械工业已经初具规模,并业已形成一支为塑料加工工业提供必备的装备,在轻工机械领域中排行首位、在整个机械[url=http://www.chinajsyj.cn]印刷机[/url] 工业中渐显其重要性的不可忽视的力量。

Posted by: shanghai escort at November 12, 2008 01:00 AM


继续“70后”兰董和“90后炫富女”小柯之后,近期网络再度冒出一个自称“猫主人”的炫富女,她让自己的宠物猫睡LV的包[url=http://www.lvbao8.com.cn/lvbao.html]lv包[/url],并且请赵薇(听歌)造型师为自己的猫做造型正规厂家备有专业开槽机,槽口两边光滑整洁,无爆边现象。 侧面修边部分颜色是否与正面一致、封边部分有没有油性擦过的痕迹,因为劣质封边条修出来的边,[url=http://www.86jg.com/kaicaoji.html]开槽机[/url]如果用油擦过 ...把太阳能发电蓄电应用到广告灯箱上,作为其现有荧光灯[url=http://www.tian-rui.com.cn]广告灯箱[/url]、白炽灯光源的替代品,一可以节省能源;二有益于环境保护;三便于安装维护;四减少运营成本。是最为安全节能的绿色环保新举措,是践行国家“节能减排”基本国策的最新贡献。对于黏度较大的物料,一般的喷雾干燥器喷嘴容易堵塞,通常的解决办法就是降低含固量,降低黏度;常州市[url=http://www.wxspraydrying.com/pwgz.html]喷雾干燥[/url]干燥设备有限公司专门针对黏度高的中药浸膏、植物提取物(素 ...

Posted by: shanghai escort at November 12, 2008 12:59 AM


Cheap metin2 gold can also be used at the appropriate time! 4-5 in class when the Timberwolves should be killed, but I think the Timberwolves seemed to brush less, like a fault, this time there's two ways upgrading, 1 Slowly killing small wolf, 2 for technical operation of fixing the wolf, snow wolf, I kill four wolves linked to the two 1-2 can kill, can not be lucky to see (experience not out) 4 killing snow wolf 1 Only 19 percent in the experience of fixing the wolf probably about 12 percent bar, did not remember. So you have to Buy metin2 gold timely added!

Posted by: metin2 gold at August 9, 2008 03:06 AM


You can also buy potbs Doubloon to solve the problem! But we are all intelligent people; know the history of Spain with treasures Fleet.


Posted by: buy potbs Doubloon at August 9, 2008 03:05 AM


This would serve to bring in, but too tough to agents, can not apply. In any case you can be adopted to achieve Xiah Online Gold!

Posted by: Xiah Online Gold at August 9, 2008 03:04 AM


In fact, we take the risk on the island for what, mesos, what the plan is, is not happy? Of course, you can buy cheap mesos in my game, not blindly upgrading; if training wash your face as its own estimates BOSS can see a mirror.

Posted by: mesos at August 9, 2008 03:04 AM


But I know it was a good game in people's mind. I could remember the thing which I asked the other role sold the cheap last chaos gold to me to buy last chaos gold. And then I play lots of different role, when I saw the beautiful role, I was very happy. I like the feeling that everybody wear own beautiful cloth. One time I saw a girl, wearing a white skirt.

Posted by: cheap last chaos gold at August 6, 2008 02:26 AM


I want to discuss my attainment shallowly about this game. Earned money, exercising rank and doing best quality equipment, these were very important part of this game. Let me say the gaia gold, I used the buy gaia gold usually, of course the cheap gaia gold is the lowest price in this game, because only you have the more money and best quality equipment, you can exercise rank easy.

Posted by: gaia gold at August 6, 2008 02:22 AM


I had only a little lunia gold and the remedy was not enough, but I still to add the blood to our cavalier which were battling, we saw the enemy became more and more fearfulness, at last my best friend dead. At this time I needed the more lunia war gold to buy blood to save my best friend. I couldnt go to save my friend, because the enemy was coming and carrying off his lunia online gold.

Posted by: lunia gold at August 6, 2008 02:18 AM


Plain and simple... This Raptor will dominate now.

Posted by: Shadow at October 11, 2007 03:35 PM


Being lucky enough to be part of the F-22 Combined Test Force at Edwards AFB CA when it was tested for years before going operational I feel I can comment on the topic of a two seat F-22. Originally, the A/F had two seat F-22’s in the design phase during the weapon system acquisition. We were planning to test both versions of the F-22. However, like most high dollar defense contracts, costs played a big part in the final decision makings. You must remember, in today’s purchasing of aircraft, it is not always what you want that you get, but what you can afford. As the program matured and metal was bent to initiate the build process, politics came into play in a big way and the entire program faced uncertainty as the political process influenced acquisition of this weapon system. Delays and cost over-runs also influenced these decisions too. As a result, we had a two seater on paper that was never built because cuts had to be made to the program to keep this weapon system “affordable”. Yes, there was a need, yes it was justified, and yes with a little foresight into tomorrow, the American tax payer would save money in the long run but that is NOT how the acquisition system works. Politics is the major factor that influences and impacts what we have to fly today and tomorrow. That said, I would really be surprised if the USAF wants another manned fighter type aircraft after the brother of the F-22, the F-35, is finally built and fielded. The current Iraqi War has given us the Global Hawk and the Predator where drone technology has advanced at warp speed. Based on this advancement and lessons learned, piloted fighter aircraft are at the door of where the navigator has gone. The costs of keeping a human in the cockpit is staggering. Think about what is there just for just the pilot, the avionics, the life support, the ejection systems, the canopy to mention a few. Figure in the costs of maintaining these systems. Don’t forget the cost of the pilot and his training. Eliminate these re-occurring cost from the weapon system and it just may bring the costs down to “respectable” levels and allow for more fuel, greater aloft time and range. Additionally, the limitations on the flight envelope are pilot generated. Do away with the pilot and the “machine” can now do much more than the human can tolerate or withstand. The technology is already here. It has been fine tuned and demonstrated. Drones have even successfully operated off an aircraft carrier. Perhaps it is now time to employ these advancements into the next generation aircraft that are 20 - 25 years out at best.

Posted by: Flight Tester at October 11, 2007 10:57 AM


Situational Awareness. Shows how old I am, been with drones/rpv's/uav's/ucav's since the early 80's, after stint as an airedale. I don't care how good the RC pilot on the ground is, computer programs, yeah right, uplinks/downlinks/secure links, cuban taxi drivers can blow them out of the water. If you are not there, you don't "know or feel" what you are looking at,period.

Trust me, "unmanned" anything, except armaments, is a fad. The capabilities today are no more than 30 years ago, just many, many times more expensive. Predator capabilities back then cost around $75K per airframe, and that was with the old Ferranti missile gyro costing some $12K.

1 versus 2 seats, horses for courses, or nowadays who in the blue suits and the funny shaped building you believe will be on the next source selection panel. Lockheed vs Northrop, B2 competition anyone?

Posted by: Slider at October 10, 2007 11:27 AM


Dear Sirs

This e-mail is coming from an armchair pilot and so I would not think my arguments would hold much weight.

The debate on single verse twin seat fighters has been going on for years and I do not think that there is a right or wrong answer to the question. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

A two seat F22 would be a truly remarkable aircraft, it would add a whole new dimension to the applications the aircraft could be applied to. It would also extend the aircrafts useful life span. It would allow for a more versatile platform in later years.
From what I have seen two seat aircraft seem to be more adaptable especially when being used in the electronic warfare role. They tend to be larger and therefore have more space for the equipment (take the F105G and the F4G for examples), the extra set crew member would be a definite help when handling the complex electronic attack / warfare systems.

Two seat aircraft do have the added cost of the pilot in the rear, in a cost worried Air force this does pose problems, I am not sure what pilots are being paid but lets say you have 100 F22 twin seat aircraft, that would be 100+ more pilots that need to be paid each month and this could run into some serious money at the end of the year.

A mix of the two variants would be a likely scenario. There is the possibility of some one selling the idea of a swing wing two seat version of the F-22 to the U.S. Navy to take up the role of the F-14. I still believe that there is a need for a long range fleet defense fighter for the navy, China is busy with long range bomber projects and Russia is flexing her muscles again. As good as the FA18E/F is they do not have the speed / endurance for long range bomber intercept missions, the longer missions are also the domain of the two seat aircraft, as fatigue sets in on a 6 hour + mission a guy in the back is most welcome to break the monotony. The F-22 armed with the AIM-120D and some version of the AIM-54 would be an astounding aircraft for fleet defense let alone if the Air Force used it to replace the State Side interceptor units (although this is beyond the budget).

Two seat aircraft have proved their worth more times than single seat aircraft would like to admit, The F14 was adapted from an interceptor to perform ground attach mission and even performed Forward air controller missions. While this is not unique as various single seat aircraft have performed similar missions the length of these missions were longer. The “air superiority” F15 even spawned a two seat multirole version the F15E. The multi roll FA18 spawned a both the FA18D and the FA18F attack / night attack versions. The F16 spawned the F16B/D Viper for wild weasel missions.

Upgrading current generations will keep them in service but is it a situation you want, the enemy are not happy with current generations and are developing new aircraft. The design limitations of the F14/15/16/18 range are +/- 20years old it is now time to move on.
Politicians and Generals need to realize that there is an old saying “you cannot fight today’s war with yesterday’s equipment”. I would hate to see a situation arise that would be similar to the 1920’s / 1930’’s where everybody was complacent and placed their faith in out dated technology and by the time world war 2 was upon the USA they has to play catch up. This would not be possible in the modern environment, if you lose the ability of first strike and the technological edge; you have lost with very little hope of coming back.

I would be of the opinion that a large proportion of the pilots today would not mind having a second set of eyes in the aircraft but would have to say that with pride in mind most would resist this.

The F-22 has been crying for a two seat version from day one, Lockheed went as far as proposing a two seat version from the very outset, there were even drawing of a two seat version in Scale Modelers International (+/- 1991) depicting the two seat version. Generals killed this saying it was two expensive and it was not a toy to take people for rides with.

Time and money will tell if this even gets beyond the drawing, but I sure hope its does.

Posted by: Jonathan Coetzer at October 10, 2007 09:07 AM


By the way,the Suter system is our system,used by EC-130s,RC-135s,& F-16 Wild Weasels.They suspect that the Israelis used a variation of the Suter system.The Suter System is produced by BAE Systems & L-3 Communications.The Israeli 2-seat F-16 Sufa could have had it installed in its Dorsal Compartment.I'm not sure where you could install it in the F-15E. The HyperStealth(the name of the company that makes this) FA2 Digital Camouflage is just visual camouflage,just like the digital pattern on the new uniforms of our army & marines.Thrust vectoring has been tested on both F-16s & F-15s.I don't mean AV-8 Harrier STOVL/VTOL thrust-vectoring,I mean the ability to maneuver better in aerial combat.There are so many potential modifications for both F-16s & F-15s,but nobody wants to pay for them,even though their probably will never be enough F-22s or F-35s to replace the current F-16s & F-15s one-on-one.

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 8, 2007 12:16 AM


Personally I'm of the opinion of "wearing both a belt & suspenders." Lets have the "belt" of F-22s & F-35s & add to it the "suspenders of Suter equipped F-16s & F-15Es.How could that be so wrong? Let stealth work as advertised,but use the Suter Computer program to disable the enemy's air defense systems anyway.Apparently,according to the article I read,the Russians had to send technicians to Syria to find out what happened,& Iran is worried also about if their Russian supplied air defense system could be compromised by the Suter Computer program.Unfortunately,people with limited tunnel vision cannot see how it would be great to have a mix of both stealth & non-stealth aircraft.Their money is invested in one system & it has to be that system or else.

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 8, 2007 12:00 AM


Roy, even assuming the system of which you speak worked just as well as our stealth technology (against all opponents, not just a third tier middle eastern wannabe), it wouldn't save us any money. The bulk of the spending has already been done.

The expensive part of the F-22 is the R&D. The actual construction costs aren't THAT much greater than the costs for any comparable 4.5 generation fighter.

And that's assuming whatever tech you're praising works just as well as ours. I'm honestly not ready to christen it as a replacement for stealth based on an unconfirmed attack on an unconfirmed location against an unconfirmed target.

Posted by: Brian at October 7, 2007 06:02 PM


Of course I realize that my proposal to spend our money instead on cheaper F-16s,F-15Es,& F/A-18 Super Hornets instead of "super wow" F-22s & F-35s is blasphemy to the "Fundamentalist" F-22/F-35 Stealth Fanatics & that I might end up wrapped in a white sheet,buried up to my waist,& stoned for my "apostasy" while the F-22 fanatics scream,"F-22 Akbar,F-35 Akbar,UAV akbar."

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 7, 2007 07:31 AM


Can you do an article on the Suter Electronic Warfare System that was used by Israel to defeat Syria's Russian Anti-Aircraft Missile System.According to Strategypage.com,it was used by "NON-STEALTH" Israeli planes to defeat Syria's anti-air systems.Don't let the American Military-Industrial Complex hear about this,or else people will question the need for 1 seat/2 seat F-22s &/or F-35s. Still being built,today,F-16s,F-15Es,& F-18 Super Hornets armed with this electronics counter-measures system must be a lot cheaper than the billions of dollars that we are pissing down the hole with our "stealth" fighters.How about adding on top of this HyperStealth KA2 Digital Camouflage on the newly,still being built,F-16s,F-15E's,& F-18 Super Hornets & thrust vectoring to boot,what the hell do we need F-22s & F-35s for.Simplicity trumps "'advanced(?)' stealth" technology & how much money would we save doing this?

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 7, 2007 07:14 AM



WOW! WITH AN F-22 2-PLACE MACHINE WE CAN OFFICIALLY HAVE A BILLION DOLLAR FIGHTER AND, GIVEN THE RATE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE F-22 BY LOCKHEED, IT WILL ONLY TAKE 40 YEARS!

HOWEVER,THE WE NEED NOT WORRY, HILLARY AND BILL WILL ELIMINATE THE MILITARY (EXCEPT FOR AIR FORCE ONE AND THE PRESIDENTAL HELICOPTER)

Posted by: DICK ATKINS at October 6, 2007 06:49 PM


Few may remember but back many years the Shah of Iran said "I can barely afford the F-4's, How can I pay for the f-14A's" So Pres.Nixon told him to raise the price of OIL...so there....

Posted by: .R.A. Ways at October 6, 2007 03:16 PM


Few may remember but back many years the Shah of Iran said "I can barely afford the F-4's, How can I pay for the f-14A's" So Pres.Nixon told him to raise the price of OIL...so there....

Posted by: .ra. ways at October 6, 2007 03:14 PM


please after reading this manuscript and you cannot post the the machines there is no need we informed you that we are in need of machine towork. ibeawuchi10@yahoo.com no 10 nwala by omuma road aba abia nigeria .west africa

Posted by: ferdinand ogbta ibe at October 6, 2007 12:12 PM


I liked the F-23 also when it was competing against the F-22.I read on Wikipedia though that the problem with the F-23 was how the missiles would be stacked inside it,sort of like a magazine,& that if one missile misfired or was unable to be fired,the missiles above it couldn't be used because the dud missile would be blocking their deployment.I don't know about that,I never remember either plane,F-23 &/or F-22,being evaluated on weapons firing.

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 6, 2007 09:17 AM


The idea of two versions of the F22 and other next generation fighters is not a bad idea considering that budget constraints may mean fewer airframes. So being able to simultaneously conduct diverse combat roles with less aircraft is a good idea. The British were on the right track when they decided to make a two seater version of the Eurofighter as well.

Posted by: Cameron Gill at October 6, 2007 08:24 AM


The only reason the two seat concept came about was because in the 50's technology did not allow a single pilot to operate the necessary equipment. We swung back to single seat when technology allowed. There's only 2 reasons to go 2 seat; one, if we intend to operate within the threat envelope, and two, if we intend to operate low to the ground. Our weapons and sensors allow us to employ well outside the threat envelope and at high altitude. UCAVs will operate inside the threat envelope when required. And since UCAVs don't have judgement yet, manned combat aircraft will be around a bit longer (though, not much longer...)

Posted by: Mark at October 5, 2007 04:56 PM


I really liked the F-23 (as a spectator) and was rooting for it to win the fly-off against the F-22. The latter won, but that's OK since it's a great plane also - or is it? Would the F-23 have worked two-seat?

Posted by: Neil B. at October 5, 2007 03:18 PM


In the quote from the movie "Top Gun" at the beginning of the article, please correct the spelling of the word "innacurate". The correct spelling is "inaccurate". :-)

Posted by: James Jennerson at October 5, 2007 12:48 PM


In the quote from the movie "Top Gun" at the begining of the article, please correct the spelling of "innacurate". It is correctly spelled "inaccurate". :-)

Posted by: James at October 5, 2007 12:44 PM


Great idea. Lets drive the cost up some more. What the heck, we are only selling our future with the outlandish cost of new weapons systems as it is.

Posted by: Mike at October 5, 2007 11:15 AM


In combat two heads are better than one. Tomcats were the air superiority leaders. Drones have their uses but people are not yet replaceable.

Posted by: James L Childress at October 5, 2007 11:05 AM


Why not fly it from the ground and save all that weight and ESS stuff. Get to the bar quicker!

Posted by: Pablo at October 5, 2007 09:12 AM


Two seat F22? Sounds like flying with your wife!... why would you want someone second guessing you, but I do agree with a drinking buddy who can take the grenade in the one's good looking, one's not so hot scenario at the bar... but why can't you just divide the tasks into the section, or even within the division? ...and won't that mean that now the doc is going to want a ride!!! IPs checks, student syllabus hops, and next thing you know, they have one at the school house!!! oh but wait, isn't that what LockMart wants..oh! so that's the real reason, lets keep the assembly line open so we can just simply make more!! no wait lets sell some to the Japanese, the Israeli, the UAE, the Saudi, and the list goes on and on!!! so lets call this what it really is... its a sell for a buy! but at least we have a drinking buddy who'll take the grenade... too bad we already spent the money yesterday on the war we're fighting right now, the one where F22 doesn't even play

Posted by: G Dog at October 5, 2007 07:52 AM


Well the F-14 concept was proven and last for over 30 years an concept that is now abandoning without much reason.
GRUMMAN made an great proposal with the SUPERTOMCAT21 witch was based on that very proven concept but it was killed.
Digital tech,computers and all that cuber-stuff are great but at the end it alway comes to the human factor.I would better like to be accompanied with a human RIO then all the computer system taking his job on board.

Posted by: MURc at October 5, 2007 04:35 AM


Two seats worked great for Iranian F-14A Tomcats during the Iran-Iraq War, with over 150 confirmed kills. Two seats also worked great for Iranian F-4 Phantoms in the ground attack role, successfully hitting Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor eight months before the Israeli strike.

The F-22 Raptor has yet to make its combat debut. That could be coming soon, perhaps against a refurbished IRIAF F-14A.

Posted by: Mark Pyruz at October 5, 2007 01:20 AM


Ok, here's the thing. If the F-22 is going to be tasked to do multiple missions simultaneously, be they air/ground, air/ew, air/intel, air/wild weasel, air/ground/ew/intel/wild weasel or any other, then it pays to put a backseater in rather than, as some have suggested, put a second bird in the air. The math is simple. A new Raptor seat at this point costs roughly $120 million, then requires more big numbers in fuel, maintenance, and so forth to stay in the air. The butt that goes in the seat, if it's got some rank and time under it and a lot of dependants, might cost $200 K/year. What this means is that for the cost of that second plane on the mission, the Air Force can afford to run a backseater in a two seat version for over 500 years. Throw in some extra development costs for a two seat version and training costs for the WSO/GIB or whatever we want to call him, and it's still no contest. So the only question really is, or should be, how much will the second butt multiply the mission capacity, or will he mostly be along for the ride. If 9/10 F-22 missions will be strictly air-air, then by all means go one-seat and use specialized aircraft with escort for other roles. If, as seems to be the case, 9/10 rides will involve multiple roles and potential surprise such as network warfare, then the second butt, with the second brain and second pair of eyes, is really a compelling idea.

Posted by: Bojo at October 4, 2007 11:21 PM


If we reconfigure the raptor for two men, we will
be somewhat like the Israeli AF. We could strike the enemy before he knew what hit him. We need every bit of techno-fire power that we can amass, so that every time these global despots rear their ugly heads they would be looking at a missle
for at least two seconds before the lights go out
forever! Oh yeah if you haven't figured it out I am a HAWK!
G.Turner USAF retired

Posted by: George Turner at October 4, 2007 10:45 PM


Two seats. Two engines. Should be the standard for today’s fighter. Should have been the standard when we went to jet aircraft. But what do I know. Twenty years in the Air Force, fourteen on fighters as a maintainer and the last years on 141's as a flight engineer. (Pilots without maintainers are just pedestrians in sunglasses and cool leather jackets).

Posted by: Guy at October 4, 2007 10:33 PM


As a former F-4E GIB,I am a firm believer in having that second set of eyes in the back seat. The evolution of the F-15, F-16, & F-18 all point to having a GIB. When we did the Corona Ace study under the then USAF-IG, Lt Gen Flynn, it was very clear we ought to be recommending two-seater F-15s & 16s, but the single seat guys, including Gen Flynn, won out…at least in the beginning. If we can afford the luxury of single mission aircraft, e.g., air-to-air F-15s, then maybe one pilot is enough. But if we want multi-role airframes, the second person is imperative.

Posted by: JIM* STARK at October 4, 2007 10:06 PM


Opinions in response to Zero Seat:
With a zero seat raptor the balance would be thrown off, and no there would not be more weapons or fuel capacity considering to make something like through engineering you have to consider the following

A) Would the craft be able to mantain and fly properly from a RCU (remote controll unit)
B) Would the RCU effect the aerodynamics of the craft
C) When using the RCU how you would spot and recognize difference of a Enemy craft, Friendly craft, or RI (radar invisible craft) even then how would you mechanically fire such - the weight of all that technology would be more than likely a LOSS of weapons and fuel rather than a gain.
D) What is the gain and loss when have a manual flyer and a RCU (Plain and simple at this point an RCU is not the way to go. There are far to much complications and when you have a highly trained pilot actually in the craft at the point it is easier to mantain. 8/10 of every pilot would rather fly the dang thing manually than go through an RCU)

Posted by: Shadow at October 4, 2007 09:37 PM


Spent 22 years in the bomb/missile business, and 15 of them in test programs at White Sands/Holloman AFB. Worked with all services and several foreign nations. The best attack bird had to be the A-6E SWIP, and the the absolute top electronic bird was the EF-111, with the F-14 coming in top as air to air. All had 2 crewmembers, and they worked as a team. Ask any Tomcat driver how he would fair without the "Nav", and he'll tell you, the guy in the back is a neccessity. We still can't duplicate the effectiveness of the "old" F-4G with todauys birds, using 1 seat. The F-16CG is as close as we got, and it's still way short. Too bad the Weasels all became target drones.

Posted by: retammo at October 4, 2007 09:32 PM


Maybe boost AF Aircrew recruitting & hiring if some can get chosen for GIB for the F22.
Id be neat.
Might boost AF Tac Command needs only.
Or PR AF Command needs.
Now can the Navy adopt F22 for Navy Use IE FA22 Raptor?

Posted by: stephen russell at October 4, 2007 09:25 PM


Maybe boost AF Aircrew recruitting & hiring if some can get chosen for GIB for the F22.
Id be neat.
Might boost AF Tac Command needs only.
Or PR AF Command needs.
Now can the Navy adopt F22 for Navy Use IE FA22 Raptor?

Posted by: stephen russell at October 4, 2007 09:25 PM


Maybe boost AF Aircrew recruitting & hiring if some can get chosen for GIB for the F22.
Id be neat.
Might boost AF Tac Command needs only.
Or PR AF Command needs.
Now can the Navy adopt F22 for Navy Use IE FA22 Raptor?

Posted by: stephen russell at October 4, 2007 09:23 PM


Oh I didn't mention that I know many will say why F-22 / F-35 as quarterback why not just keep with the AWACS? Well considering every enemy around is doing all they can to figure out how to hit AWACS which in response will be pushed further and further back or more importantly since the US is airforce is a Strike force not defensive force. Those AWACS will be well off shore in a war with a major power. A F-22 will ensure that strike/airdominance force well into enemy territory even in a major power war.

That is the use of the F-22/F-35 move. Closing don't forget the best way to avoid a war with a major power is to be prepared for war with a major power. The Big guy doesn't get tried its the weak guy (who ends up having to either b*tch up or prove himself).

Posted by: C-Low at October 4, 2007 09:21 PM


When you post such items and do not provide a video WITH AUDIO of such a dynamic item, you do your recipients a great disservice. Dou-rated I would have loved to provide such a piece to my grandson whom I am trying to coax into considering following in my foot steps by everything available to motiviate him. "No joy" with this piece and equally so with the one on the F 16 airstrike. Shame on you.

Posted by: Al Kapstrom at October 4, 2007 09:15 PM


Well I guess since the F-22 is being planned as the "quarterback" of the strike force or air dominance force aka using the F-22 to detect then target enemy aircraft for strike groups hanging back at non-detectable ranges through the F-22 advanced ASAR radar/network hub radar, All while staying in full stealth mode non-detectable.

Yeah in that light it would make sense to have more than one skull in the cockpit.

I think we are going to see a future of 2 classes of attack craft.
-Class 1-Day one stealthy door kickers (which on day two either revert to class two or Quarterback roles)
-Class 2-Day after bulk attack group slash support force.

Posted by: C-Low at October 4, 2007 09:09 PM


Keep in mind I am a civilian military nut and I have plans to serve. This is just my opinion.

Wouldn't replacing an entire force of manned aircraft with unmanned aircraft be dangerous? Most UAV's are reliant on a satillite connection and China has already proven it can take out satillites. To make things worse, what if someone (this is a reference to China, Russia, and computer smart terrorists) learned to literally jam a UAV computer or hack it with nerds and turn it on its allies. Even worse, they could turn it into a kamikaze bomb.
Not only that, but in every battle of every war the one determining factor has been the man, not the machine. I don't think the machine can replace the man completely, since no machine can do everything a man can do. A human mind can get creative and adopt to nearly any situation. In short, what I am trying to say is that the human mind's flexibility is nearly limitless while the mind of a UAV will forever be a box. I think manned fighters are still better than UAVs and should be further invested in. Nothing can replace the human mind since the human mind is indepentant of electronic influence.

That's just what I think.

Posted by: Tony at October 4, 2007 08:30 PM


In all the comments I have read there seems to be an assumed enemy ROE. What does that look like, folks?
Also, what does the theater of operations look like in the next twenty years? Are we going to be conducting support ops in Afg or Iraq; alpha strikes into Iran or Syria; something to do with mother Russia? What about China?
How do our current air assets match up against the ROE, both projected and current?

After all that, what does a second person add to the mix?

I flew Corsairs for a brief fling. No second seater, even on my first solo. Why? Didn't have any. Scared myself when Hyd #1 went south, but it's all about the learning curve, isn't it.

Dutch

Posted by: Dutch at October 4, 2007 12:39 PM


Wild Weasels Are Sweet! Ask any one of them about the value of a two person crew.

Just to pass along a little historical comment about aircrew workload - an F-4G Bear once described mastering the AN/APR-38 from the back seat like, "playing a concert on a Wurlitzer at 4Gs." Based on the growing exposure of the myriad capabilities of the F-22 electronics suite - with both passive and active capabilities that blur the line between intelligence and operations, it is not surprising the sole crew member is/can become overtasked. Yes, someday computers can remotely handle the tasks but that's probably 10+ years off. Systems programmers have only recently really recognized the complexities of system of systems architectures. UAV are wonderful also, and can begin to replace manned aircraft in certain roles, but huge numbers operating simultaneously returns one to the SOS problem. So for the immediate future (and let's use a DoD timeline) for 20-25 years we are going to need a dude or dudette CPU in the cockpit of some aircraft to handle the immensely complex tasks in a timely manner. A lot more analysis needs to go into a decision to put another bucket in single seat aircraft (this would include the F-35). Yeah, fighter pilots like to do it alone, but if the ultimate result is pranging a $100M+ aircraft along with their own ass, they probably would accept a collaborator to help them.

Ask yourself this question - would you fly commercial if you knew there was nobody in the cockpit?

Posted by: Rip at October 4, 2007 12:28 PM


From what I recall of the 15E back seat schematics that I came across, didn't they have dedicated systems for aiming sensors and guided weapons? What is a UAV other than a really long range guided weapon?
Heres a thought, you want F-22 functionality with the two seater? Re-equip the 15E with all the wiz bang electronics from the 22...hell there might even be some weight savings...and give the back seater full control of ground attack guidance. So the "Eagle Driver" can pay more attention to driving and not getting shot down, and the ground attack puke in the back can hit the damn target.
Oh wait, somebody is already doing that...I think its the Israelies

Posted by: Coolhand77 at October 4, 2007 09:56 AM


Roy Smtih,
R2D2 would be totally awesome!

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at October 4, 2007 09:13 AM


Hmmmm, how about two single seat F-22s, instead of one two-seater. Seems two planes with two brains is better than one plane with two brains. And while I appreciate the bomb dropping capability of the F-22, they will mainly be clearing the skys of fighters. When that is done, they won't need a second brain to simply drop the bomb in a permissive environment. In the meantime, the bombers can drop the bombs until the enemy fighters have been dealt with. Lets concentrate on buying more of a good thing we already have, than hope for something we likely can't afford.

Posted by: wpnexp at October 4, 2007 07:33 AM


You know,the answer is so obvious about who should fill the back seat in a two seat jet & its not HAL....its R2D2. We obviously need R2D2 to handle back seat duties.R2D2 can handle controlling the UAVs,navigation,& dropping the bombs,etc. I'm surprised nobody else thought of this.How much does R2D2 weigh anyway in relation to another human in the back.Could you imagine R2D2 filling the second seat in an A-6 Intruder?

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 4, 2007 05:15 AM


Jimbo's hit the nail on the head: that backseater can be the ticket all the UAV guys need to get to the dance. "Piloting" UAVs from ground stations or big, lumbering cargo planes works when you can take your time to do things, but controlling them from the back seat of a plane that's only a couple miles away would work alot better in high-threat environments.

So, you split the workload, allow the crew to take on a higher load as a result, increase the crew's survivability, give the plane more capabilities, and give a boost to UCAVs all in one go. What's not to love?

Posted by: Moose at October 4, 2007 03:01 AM


Once upon a time, a two-seat version of a single seat aircraft was seen as a good investment, if only for use as a trainer. Don't know that we need a TF-22, but as a taxpayer I'm a little nervous about letting anybody solo in one, no matter how many hours he or she may have in something else.

Apart from that, there's other precedent for a two seat F-22 mod. IIRC, the TF-16 and -18 became the F-16B and -18B. We've done this before, and, IINM, we've done it with pretty positive results.

As Pinch's article suggests, AESA is showing some interesting capabilities. Apart from detection and air superiority, it theoretically makes what was a fighter into an ELINT/DEW/AWACS platform. Combine those mission profiles with stealth, and you get at least twice as many (and, IMHO, twice as hairy) potential challenges. Might be nice to have another person along to share the load.

Hell, worse comes to worst, you could pull the second seat and panel, and plug in a ginormous computer -- like, say, a HAL 9000.

Jimbo raises an interesting possibility -- turning the back seater/RIO/Bear into a UAV controller. Don't know if you need an F-22 for that, unless you need the speed and stealth. Otherwise, you could theoretically do that with anything with two seats, including a T-6, so long as it had good commo, like a Link 16 pod.

AESA raises some interesting possibilities in that sphere -- if it can tickle a particular target, it can probably transmit a secure signal or maintain a persistent link to a UAV. A few of the posters here seem to be assuming that freak hopping, encryption, or autonomous flight software make UAVs jam proof. I'm not so sure about that. Right now we can fly Predators in Iraq from New Mexico; don't know that'll last forever.

Apart from EMP, we'll be facing other electronic attack profiles in the near future -- like, AESA. Future manned and unmanned aircraft may have to function in an extremely cluttered EM environment. Imagine a gremlin running up and down the airframe, smacking it with an arc welder, or worse yet, a stun gun pumping big volts into anything conductive at the same megahertz rates as the flyware. Can our current stuff handle that kind of beating? If it can, it's been built by magicians. They should run for Congress.

Point is, having another guy or gal in the loop to reboot the F-22, and/or a UAV LAN, might be a good idea.

Apart from that, consider the benefits of another procurement track -- like, if we have to cut the one seat F-22 buy further. That's going to piss off LockMart, and its lobbyists and Congressman. Going to be hard to push that through, without throwing them a bone. A two seat E/FB-22 might do the trick.

There's a great deal I don't know about this sort of thing, but I have learned that if you have a Plan A, it's nice to have a Plan B too. A two seat F-22 might fill that role. It deserves a little brainstorming, at least.

Posted by: demophilus at October 4, 2007 02:50 AM


There are four options here:

1. Develop a single seat aircraft that automatically engages the target without any assistance from the pilot while the pilot flies the aircraft.

2. Develop a single seat aircraft that automatically flies itself without any assistance from the pilot while the pilot engages the target.

3. Develop a UAV that does 1 and/or 2 above.

4. Develop two seat aircraft.

Which option will work?
Which option is cost effective?
Which option do you favor?

Posted by: Custer at October 3, 2007 08:22 PM


I'm sure we are quite far off on eliminating the need for pilots, though why couldn't/shouldn't there be a 2nd seat to control say 3 UCAVs. By the time they have a 2-seater raptor tested and ready for combat, UCAVs could possibly be ready for prime time controlled by a back-seater. Now 2 people and 2 brains are controlling a pack of 4. From a lot of what I seam to ready, pilots can be pretty down on being replaced by drones, though I think they ought to be leading the push to get them going in small packs control by a couple guys there in the middle who truly have the split second situational awareness. It's tough to imagine all the new tactics that could be developed to take advantage of developments like this. With fighter costs skyrocketing and other air forces closing in in therms of numbers and technology, this would be a huge force multiplier. I'd be curious to hear other thoughts on this topic.

Posted by: jimbo at October 3, 2007 07:34 PM


While I can see needing a GIB to handle stuff while the pilot lands the thing on a carrier and a dedicated strike plane the GIb can keep an eye out for terrian and friendlies while close to the ground the Raptor as designed is first and foremost a replacemant for the F-15 in the Air superiority role. Sure build a two seat version to replace the "Dirty Bird"(My dept. at P&WA called the f-15e this while it was being developed)but for pure superiority keep the Raproa single seater. The reasons should be self evident... More smash to weight ratio , more go juice, no change in RCS that a stretch and bigger wing would entail, the lighter the more agile , adding a second cockpit would entail fairly heavy weight gains from the extra life support gear, escape sytems and instrument packages a heavier demand on the electrical systems, landing gear life cycle would be shorter due to need to cope with the weoght increase, higher cost per airframe. Adding a GIB is just like what they did to the WW2 BF-110 and the F-111 'Vark one airframe no matter how sophisticated can do everything as well as a airframe designed for a specfic mission, sure it can but not as well as a plane designed for that single task as the main driving design factor.

Posted by: No GIB at October 3, 2007 06:46 PM


I find it is interesting that we are commenting on a need for a two-seat aircraft and yet some people still want a pilotless aircraft. If your flying I-pods are so great, why on god's green earth and blue sky would we need a two-seat airframe?

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, that Deep Blue doesn't have what it takes right now to win a war, and that they may be bang-up stick-wigglers in thirty years, they won't be able to operate today.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at October 3, 2007 06:16 PM


As one of the early wildweasel crew chief's the F105G there is no dought the need for the two seater, there is just to much happening for a single person to handle. The Bear can control the ground attack while the piolet can watch for sam's and AAA and enemy aircraft. just a ground crew point of view

Posted by: George E Gilmore at October 3, 2007 05:43 PM


.....THAT WAS ME.....

Posted by: GARY ( THEGREAT ) at October 3, 2007 04:30 PM


I have flown a Cessna 172 and a second pilot even comes in handy with something that small. Two is better than one.

Posted by: 22lr at October 3, 2007 04:18 PM


I have to agree with Campbell. They need to be moving to a zero seat Raptor. The airborne pilot has become obsolete, they just don't know it yet.

Posted by: Swamp at October 3, 2007 12:54 PM


A two seat Raptor is an interesting and even reasonable idea. But, is this really a priority?

The one thing that is absolutely sure about a two seat Raptor is that some development costs would be incurred and that it would cost, at least, slightly more than an existing Raptor in production costs.

Maybe the F-22 isn't the perfect fighter, but it is damn close as it is.

Other parts of the Air Force fleet, although less flashy, seem far more needy.

Our air tanker fleet needs to be replaced, and if you want to deploy F-22s to places one fuel tank can't take them, you need air tankers.

The B-52 has served us well since my father was in military service, but honestly, it is hard to believe that a very non-adventuresome replacement could be a significant improvement. Upgrading is nice, but there are limits to what you can do with an old design. Something on the order of half the ordinance in Afghanistan and Iraq was dropped via B-52, so the existing B1-B and the B-2 are clearly not filling the entire need that the B-52 does.

We are working our transport planes very intensely, and have a real need for more C-17s. Also, Air Force still hasn't really decided if it wants a C-5 replacement, which would seem a sensible thing to do and could be done using COTS technology based on commercial airliners -- there is value in being able to move large quantities of cargo from one commercial grade airport to another.

I'm not being terribly creative here. There are lots of other ways to use defense dollars, and many are pretty significant needs. But, the point, I think, is clear.

Posted by: ohwilleke at October 3, 2007 12:23 PM


It's good to see a two-seat version of the Raptor. We need more of them. Our sole advantage in war is predicated on air-space dominance. Should we ever lose that, or from more powerful air defenses, be denied use of the air, our people will die. And it is good to see the era of manned aviation extended ahead of the wonks for a few more years. Until we have our HAL moment with AI, unmanned aviation is NKR, not quite ready, for the big time, to take on all aerospace tasking.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at October 3, 2007 10:27 AM


I watched the single seat fighter/attack guys fight over the f-18 and the f-16 and then watched watched as both aircraft evolved two seat attack versions, high threat environments require multiple human brains to deal with threats in those environments. Let the front seater deal with the air environment and let the wizzo drive the attack just as it should be and has been for the last 35 years. Two sets of eyes, two brains able to differentiate the parts of an attack, accomplishing one goal, steel on the target! I notice that despite various attempt to replace the old F-4g wild weasel aircraft the closest someone has come is a TWO-SEAT F-18 growler (personally I think a poor cousin of the EA-6b prowler). The f-18, especially the F model, is probably the future of naval attack and the air force ought to just admit that sometime it takes another pair of hands to drive a decent attack system. Even the A-10 has/had a two seater version for observation/fac (forward air control). Ever seen good footage of a fighter trying to jump a two seat attack aircraft? That second pair of eyes allows the guy driving to drive the aircraft and the second guy to eye the threat without sensors operating, mark 1 mod 0 eyeballs don't jam, fail, seize up, require tech support, and a smart wizzo can put more bombs on the target than the most expensive computer in the world. (re; the A-6e intruder guys; smart guys, smart air planes, dropping dumb bombs on the bad guys)

Posted by: FooMan at October 3, 2007 09:35 AM


Why not a 3 or 4 seater?
If there is that much information, make it like an air-borne tank.

Posted by: _Jon at October 3, 2007 09:18 AM


The raptor is not a bad aircraft. I just think we could have gone a less expensive, more bang for the buck route by upgrading/re-engineering the Tomcat and the Eagle.

Oh well, too late for that now...

Posted by: Coolhand77 at October 3, 2007 08:53 AM


I know that they have been talking about a FB-22 Raptor Fighter Bomber,Global Security.org mentions it.This would make sense.The Israelis are using 2-seat F-16s called Sufas.Anyway,wouldn't they need a 2-seat F-22 Raptor as a trainer? The 2-seat FB-22 could augment & eventually replace the F-15E/I(Israeli) Strike Eagles(My God,I can't believe I'm defending the Raptor).

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 3, 2007 07:10 AM


hmmmm......and why not a ZERO seat Raptor?

place all those bodies into a large body control craft, link to a small flock of (UCAV)Raptors.....gain more weapons/fuel capacity for the individual small attack craft, perform multiple tasks from a more protected distance from targets....

Posted by: campbell at October 3, 2007 06:14 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.