Shift in AF flight culture?

[Entropy]

Wilf,

The Air Force is not ignoring those - quite the opposite - it's putting in research dollars into both. Passive radar has been "here" since the 1930's. It certainly shows promise but will probably be limited to early warning uses given its limitations. EO is certainly a concern (more aircraft are downed by EO than radar systems), but there are limitations imposed by physics there as well.

[carl]

There is a problem that the USAF seems to want to ignore in the shape of passive radar and networked electro-optics.

Passive radar is here now and defeats stealth to a good enough degree to get a cheap IR seeker in the same space (Lock on long after launch). It is not even that expensive or complex. Factor in the strides being made in electro-optics and remote gun laying and F22 may well get shot down or badly damaged by an air bursting 155mm artillery round. Big UAVs are basically dead.

At the very best, such systems will force expensive aircraft to stay fast and high.

The future of airpower is actually up for grabs and the picture is not that full of roses!

Wilf: I would think that a supercruising high flyer like the F-22 would have a better chance than anything else. It takes a while for a shell to get up to 65,000 feet and if you change course just a little bit... Flat out performance is helpful.

It seems that over the decades, the drill has been to go in low then it changes to high then back again. Maybe high is back.

Are there any 155 mm. anti-aircraft guns out there? I am not trying to be smart, I just don't know.

[William F. Owen]

Are there any 155 mm. anti-aircraft guns out there? I am not trying to be smart, I just don't know.

There are not, thought the Soviets had AA guns thta could reach 40,000ft in the 1950's. Basically any turret mounted 155mm can be modified for the AA role, so M-109 is a starting point.