Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rob52240 on May 09, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
-
Found a nice documentary on the under-appreciated Su-27.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5VXttYF1A&feature=BFa&list=PL0CD6C0F19F2637AE
-
A real stretch if I ever saw one. While it is maybe the best Russian fighter...... it is very lacking.
If it is able to get in close then it is a handful.
-
I think that was a typo...I'm sure he meant to type "the best ejection seat in a fighter".
ack-ack
-
Take this down before eagl sees it :uhoh
-
It's a Russian documentary... Imagine if a U.S. documentary hailed anything but a U.S. product as the best weapon/tank/plane/sub/warship of the world... They'd be tarred and feathered... Then fired, lynched and hung from the nearest lamppost. The Su-27 is an impressive aircraft, and was probably the best fighter in the world when it was introduced back in the '80s. With western avionics and sensors it probably would be the best non-stealth fighter in the world today. I don't know how advanced the systems of the Indian Su-30MKI is, but I'd guess those are the best non-F-22 fighters around today.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KvE_mswkD_Y/TnOc9BZr1QI/AAAAAAAAQlI/eT3oVH1coBY/s1600/Sukhoi+Su-30MKK+Fighter+Jet+%25287%2529.jpg)
-
There is national bias when it comes to making propumentaries on military strength? Next thing you know American stuff is going to round out the top slot on all of their "top ten best ____ type of weapon series"
NO WAY!!!!
-
The MiG 29 is better looking.
-
Gotta say no on this one. SU-27 is a bit..... meh.
@ Rob, I gotta call you on that one. Not much American gets put in the #1 slot for the top ten series. The tank one was the T-34 for example, which I find incredibly unrealistic.
T-34's got the snot wailed out of them by the Panzer Korps, even when only in Panzer III's. Granted most of that was better training for the Germans, and idiotic suicide-assults by the Russians. But they didn't do any better when their crews got better, but the Germans got the KwK 40 on their Panzer IV's.
-
It was more evident before the cold war faded into long term memory. I still believe it's impossible to eliminate personal bias from opinions on things with so many factors.
-
The MiG 29 is better looking.
Agreed :aok
-
Up til a few months ago, you could buy two Su-27s from PRIDE Aircraft. They sold for 5 mil each
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/own-the-coolest-jet-on-your-block/
-
It's fearsome but I'd take an F-15 over it, even without AESA or the latest gadgets.
With AESA, FDL, helmet mounted sight, aim-9x, and the latest AMRAAM... No contest. Not even close. And if an F-22 playing junior AWACS is anywhere within 100 miles, no way the SU-27 would get close enough to ANYTHING without being detected to be able to use it's "supermaneuverability" or whatever they're calling it now.
But what do I know...
-
I am going to make a point.
The USA. Builds the finest combat aircraft in the world. Period.
However, they are so technically complex and difficult to manufacture. That while magnificant weapons of war, are costly to maintain and even more costly to produce enmasse.
The Russians, build above average fighters. That are easy to repair, are easy to fly, and you can build thousands upon thousands of the things.
Numbers, above average equipment and logistical replacement. If the USSR\RFED were to be geared for full scale war on par with the USA, the USA would not be able to match it unless it focused on more conventional fighter types such as 16's and 18s. F-22s and F-35s will be far too expensive to maintain and deploy to fight a long term conflict. MiG-29's in exceedingly large numbers would overwhelm US fighter defence eventually.
Eagl flew F-15s. He knows what the firepower of the US military is capable of. But it doesn't count for damn unless you can replenish it, supply it and maintain it. And that is where the Russians and Chinese have the advantage.
-
I am going to make a point.
The USA. Builds the finest combat aircraft in the world. Period.
However, they are so technically complex and difficult to manufacture. That while magnificant weapons of war, are costly to maintain and even more costly to produce enmasse.
The Russians, build above average fighters. That are easy to repair, are easy to fly, and you can build thousands upon thousands of the things.
Numbers, above average equipment and logistical replacement. If the USSR\RFED were to be geared for full scale war on par with the USA, the USA would not be able to match it unless it focused on more conventional fighter types such as 16's and 18s. F-22s and F-35s will be far too expensive to maintain and deploy to fight a long term conflict. MiG-29's in exceedingly large numbers would overwhelm US fighter defence eventually.
Eagl flew F-15s. He knows what the firepower of the US military is capable of. But it doesn't count for damn unless you can replenish it, supply it and maintain it. And that is where the Russians and Chinese have the advantage.
Your kidding right? Russian jet engines are notorious POS's and the Chinese ones are even worse. So bad they mostly have to buy from the Russians. The advantage of high tech airframes, avionics, weapons, training, in a modern day air war is so overwhelming there would be no "long term conflict" with anyone we might go to war with. None of your post makes any sense. American fighters are far, far easier to keep in the air to anything made in Russia. I thought we got past this kinda nonsense 20-30 years ago.
Your comparing Russian replenishment and maintanance with American? Are you mad?
-
Early on when the chinese were building license built 27s the Russians admitted the chinese built ones were better quality fit than the Russians build. That has since been fixed.
-
I'd say Hindustan Aeronautics builds the best Sukhois. French and Israeli avionics. Israeli Elbit Su 967 bi-cubic phase conjugated holographic head-up display and seven LCD multifunction displays. Israeli LITENING targeting pod. Elta EL/M-8222 ECM-system developed by Israeli Aircraft Industries, which the Israeli Air Force uses on its F-15s.
-
Your kidding right? Russian jet engines are notorious POS's and the Chinese ones are even worse. So bad they mostly have to buy from the Russians. The advantage of high tech airframes, avionics, weapons, training, in a modern day air war is so overwhelming there would be no "long term conflict" with anyone we might go to war with. None of your post makes any sense. American fighters are far, far easier to keep in the air to anything made in Russia. I thought we got past this kinda nonsense 20-30 years ago.
Your comparing Russian replenishment and maintanance with American? Are you mad?
http://russiatrek.org/blog/army/abandoned-russian-airbase-photos/ (http://russiatrek.org/blog/army/abandoned-russian-airbase-photos/)
Russian Equipment is top notch alright, here's a Russian airbase practically abandoned and ignored, I've read stories of Su-25 Pilots refusing to fly due to the aircraft not being Maintenanced for years, also fact the Russians did not pay the pilots - they had to wait months to get pay.
Here's some info:
The Air Force continues to suffer from a lack of resources for pilot training. In the 1990s Russian pilots achieved approximately 10% of the flight hours of the United States Air Force. The 2007 edition of the IISS Military Balance listed pilots of tactical aviation flying 20–25 hours a year, 61st Air Army pilots (former Military Transport Aviation), 60 hours a year, and Army Aviation under VVS control 55 hours a year.[9]
In February 2009, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that 200 of the 291 MiG-29s currently in service across all Russian air arms were unsafe and would have to be permanently grounded.[19] This action would remove from service about a third of Russia's total fighter force, some 650 aircraft.
The list goes on and on, the Su-27 might be a WOO design, however I would not want to be flying one in Russia right now.
-
http://russiatrek.org/blog/army/abandoned-russian-airbase-photos/ (http://russiatrek.org/blog/army/abandoned-russian-airbase-photos/)
Russian Equipment is top notch alright, here's a Russian airbase practically abandoned and ignored, I've read stories of Su-25 Pilots refusing to fly due to the aircraft not being Maintenanced for years, also fact the Russians did not pay the pilots - they had to wait months to get pay.
Here's some info:
The Air Force continues to suffer from a lack of resources for pilot training. In the 1990s Russian pilots achieved approximately 10% of the flight hours of the United States Air Force. The 2007 edition of the IISS Military Balance listed pilots of tactical aviation flying 20–25 hours a year, 61st Air Army pilots (former Military Transport Aviation), 60 hours a year, and Army Aviation under VVS control 55 hours a year.[9]
In February 2009, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that 200 of the 291 MiG-29s currently in service across all Russian air arms were unsafe and would have to be permanently grounded.[19] This action would remove from service about a third of Russia's total fighter force, some 650 aircraft.
The list goes on and on, the Su-27 might be a WOO design, however I would not want to be flying one in Russia right now.
So all the Russian air force pilots in the world are basically dweebs and noobs? If we went to war would they cry 'amace pilots' on channel 200?
Actually I just wanted to point out the plane, not those who fly it. But now I'm curious as to how well the USAF / RAF could implement it.
-
So all the Russian air force pilots in the world are basically dweebs and noobs? If we went to war would they cry 'amace pilots' on channel 200?
Actually I just wanted to point out the plane, not those who fly it. But now I'm curious as to how well the USAF / RAF could implement it.
Word is the US has a few they bought from a third world country to keep them out of others hands. No info on if they have been flown or not.
-
I'd take the United States top notch training and state of the art equipment over the horde that is Russia any day of the week. I sleep well at night knowing the best pilots in the world are ready to deploy at a second's notice to neutralize any threat.
Even if the US pilots do get swarmed, it would be like in the movie Independence Day. Anyone with flight experience would be summoned to fly F-18s. That's the next logical step from single-engine light aircraft anyway, right? I mean...it was in the movies.
-
http://russiatrek.org/blog/army/abandoned-russian-airbase-photos/ (http://russiatrek.org/blog/army/abandoned-russian-airbase-photos/)
Does it really look like a frigin' airbase?
-
Does it really look like a frigin' airbase?
No, it looks like a playground. Ahh...to have cool stuff like that in my back yard.
-
No, it looks like a playground. Ahh...to have cool stuff like that in my back yard.
Amount disinformation is unbelievable on both sides. They show footage of wall street protesters and explain that every one of them is homeless, here I'm looking at what is clearly military equipment graveyard and reading description "abandoned airbase". Awesome, back to cold war propaganda.
-
It looks just like the one they found on Top Gear :)
-
Amount disinformation is unbelievable on both sides. They show footage of wall street protesters and explain that every one of them is homeless, here I'm looking at what is clearly military equipment graveyard and reading description "abandoned airbase". Awesome, back to cold war propaganda.
Oh I agree with you. I was just being sarcastic.
-
Your kidding right? Russian jet engines are notorious POS's and the Chinese ones are even worse. So bad they mostly have to buy from the Russians. The advantage of high tech airframes, avionics, weapons, training, in a modern day air war is so overwhelming there would be no "long term conflict" with anyone we might go to war with. None of your post makes any sense. American fighters are far, far easier to keep in the air to anything made in Russia. I thought we got past this kinda nonsense 20-30 years ago.
Your comparing Russian replenishment and maintanance with American? Are you mad?
To quote another guy...
"The Soviets were like an entire nation of Jalops. Looking at their equipment always sort of makes me smile. You need a sub that can outrun torpedoes? No Problem! A fighter jet that can land on a runway made of scrap metal and loose nails? No Problem! A rifle that will fire regardless of conditions? No Problem! (They even developed a gun meant solely to be fired underwater, the APS). You're talking about a people who believed that almost anything could use a jet engine or eight.
Btw, show of hands on who has flown on Soviet hardware? (Me)
-
"Abandoned" NATO Planes.
(http://yurock.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/02/188/boneyard_02.jpg)
-
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=davis+monthan+afb&ll=32.159083,-110.851064&spn=0.029065,0.066047&fb=1&gl=us&hq=davis+monthan+afb&cid=0,0,16091582438073486904&t=h&z=15
Great place to "visit"
-
Su-27 The Best Looking Modern Fighter In The World :)
-
Su-27 The Best Looking Modern Fighter In The World :)
Heck no.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tObgfm1oFAw/T5xrRWwscKI/AAAAAAAAI3Q/f4szlKOXqwU/s1600/Su-47+Berkut+top+secret+airplanes.jpg)
(http://q-zon-fighterplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Sukhoi-Su-47.jpg)
-
http://russiatrek.org/blog/army/abandoned-russian-airbase-photos/ (http://russiatrek.org/blog/army/abandoned-russian-airbase-photos/)
Russian Equipment is top notch alright, here's a Russian airbase practically abandoned and ignored, I've read stories of Su-25 Pilots refusing to fly due to the aircraft not being Maintenanced for years, also fact the Russians did not pay the pilots - they had to wait months to get pay.
Here's some info:
The Air Force continues to suffer from a lack of resources for pilot training. In the 1990s Russian pilots achieved approximately 10% of the flight hours of the United States Air Force. The 2007 edition of the IISS Military Balance listed pilots of tactical aviation flying 20–25 hours a year, 61st Air Army pilots (former Military Transport Aviation), 60 hours a year, and Army Aviation under VVS control 55 hours a year.[9]
In February 2009, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that 200 of the 291 MiG-29s currently in service across all Russian air arms were unsafe and would have to be permanently grounded.[19] This action would remove from service about a third of Russia's total fighter force, some 650 aircraft.
The list goes on and on, the Su-27 might be a WOO design, however I would not want to be flying one in Russia right now.
Right on the mark ! A pilot with minimal proficiency is not much of a match for one who is turning and burning on a regular basis. As the saying goes in the fighter business, "Hamburger is still hamburger, no matter what you wrap it in".
-
Honestly, I would have to guess that right now, the Su-27S, or other limited upgrade version, (not the heavily upgraded versions like the Su-35, or SU-37) is about equal to an F-15 or an F-18.
Fact is that we wouldn't be facing swarms of these upgraded Su-27MK2's, or Su-30's, we'd be facing swarms of the Su-27MK, Su-27MK3, and other rather less impressive fighters.
-
For sex appeal, I'm partial to the Rafale. Beautiful light fighter. If the F-35 program fails we should buy a thousand of those. The US Navy already qualified the Rafale for service on USN carriers during joint exercises a couple of years ago so it would be a matter of contract negotiations and qualifying US weapons for the airframe and software, more than anything else.
Then again, if we're going for the Rafale we might as well buy another few hundred super hornets. They're technological cousins.
-
Honestly, I would have to guess that right now, the Su-27S, or other limited upgrade version, (not the heavily upgraded versions like the Su-35, or SU-37) is about equal to an F-15 or an F-18.
Fact is that we wouldn't be facing swarms of these upgraded Su-27MK2's, or Su-30's, we'd be facing swarms of the Su-27MK, Su-27MK3, and other rather less impressive fighters.
Europe might be swarmed with them, but not so much in the USA.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Check you history. At the time of Pearl harbor our army was very small, as was our navy and US Army air force. We were just emerging from a severe depression and if anything intelligent minds were screaming about the superiority of our possible future enemies. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html
Actually.. even though reports had been made of a new Japanese monoplane, most military types were shocked seeing them for the first time. Early on the zero was considered some type of nearly unbeatable plane. That was until one made an emergency landing and flipped in the Aleutian bogs. It was intact and thouroughly studied revealing why it was so maneuverable and many of it's weaknesses.
-
US aircraft are far e better than Russian aircraft AND we have numerical superiority over any other country, including Russia or China.
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)
-
US aircraft are far e better than Russian aircraft AND we have numerical superiority over any other country, including Russia or China.
I was gonna say something about 2 billion Chinese you'd have to fight, but i don't think you comprehend the number.
-
I was gonna say something about 2 billion Chinese you'd have to fight, but i don't think you comprehend the number.
So what's the population of China these days?
-
I was gonna say something about 2 billion Chinese you'd have to fight, but i don't think you comprehend the number.
Wow! thats a big army. Can they all walk on water too? More mouths to feed doesnt mean your going to win a high tech war. Now "270 million Americans" actually means somthing cause we all have guns.
-
See Rule #4
-
^^
- over half of Japanese military resources were fighting in China.
Are you incorrect in stating that half of the Japanese military resources were fighting in China, the facts don't support your claim but that discussion is for another thread.
ack-ack
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
Word is the US has a few they bought from a third world country to keep them out of others hands. No info on if they have been flown or not.
You could buy your own at one point.
http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm
-
Not as yet.
But the US is on the decline. China is on the rise. Should the time come, and it will eventually, the US will cease to be the dominant power in the world.
Persia, Rome, French, Russian, British, Nazi Germany, Soviet empires, are all gone. The US's is on the decline, soon will be the age of the PDR Of China. And that is already beginning now.
:lol
Chinese build awesome bra snaps and lead coated toys. They really shouldn't scare you.
-
Thats a swell analogy except for one fact. The USA is NOT an Empire. We dont rule over conquered countries, we dont keep no slaves, we have a Constitution garunteeing individual rights. Even in our alliances when a host country asks us to leave we leave. Even our troops stationed there are subject to host country Law.
Why is it every time some Dicatatorship rolls out a weapon in a parade, or releases a news bite, made by their Govt., we all go willy nilly about our own upcoming demise and out supposed Allies in the world all predict a missile heading to our Death Stars reactor and the end of our "Empire". WHAT fracking Empire?
Not as yet.
But the US is on the decline. China is on the rise. Should the time come, and it will eventually, the US will cease to be the dominant power in the world.
Persia, Rome, French, Russian, British, Nazi Germany, Soviet empires, are all gone. The US's is on the decline, soon will be the age of the PDR Of China. And that is already beginning now.
-
Guam..... cough......
And who needs slaves when you move all your business offshore with workforces who work for less than 10$ a day.
The USA is an Empire by other means.
And The Chinese, I am scared of them, the fact my country is right next to them, and the fact that your country owes over 1 Trillion dollars to them, and the fact they comprise the majority of our manufacturing and service needs.
No one sees a danger there.
But we are off the topic here.
The USA underestimates its enemies dangerously.
-
When the warring parties have nuclear weapons no one can "win". They can only scuffle about with conventional forces for a while and then "compromise".
-
The USA underestimates its enemies dangerously.
Whatever you do dont lay any facts or supportive material on us. We might get confused and think were actually talking to somone knowledgable about military systems and capabilities.
-
Guam..... cough......
And who needs slaves when you move all your business offshore with workforces who work for less than 10$ a day.
The USA is an Empire by other means.
And The Chinese, I am scared of them, the fact my country is right next to them, and the fact that your country owes over 1 Trillion dollars to them, and the fact they comprise the majority of our manufacturing and service needs.
No one sees a danger there.
But we are off the topic here.
The USA underestimates its enemies dangerously.
I'm not so sure about that. Yes, the United States is on the decline. But thats more of an issue with weak leadership recently, not due to any inherent flaw in our country, or some natural progression of government.
I've never believed in all that crap about empire's naturally declining, or losing power or any of that nonsense. All the empires that have declined and fallen were either starting out technologicaly inferior to their opponents and were subjugated, had weak leadership that refused to face facts and admit that they WERE declining and needed to do something about it, or attempted to expand too far beyond their means of control.
Now the US is neither starting from a point of technolgical inferiority (quite the opposite infact), or attempting over-expansion. That leaves weak leadership as the biggest threat to the Republic, and its entirely upto us how things go from this point.
Furthermore, I doubt China is all ready and eager to start a war. As you said, we owe them trillions. For another thing, we're a major purchaser of their goods, and thats something that won't continue in the event of war. And lastly, war is expensive. They lose the money we already owe them, they lose future profits from us, AND they spend untold billions or even trillions on a war. That doesn't sound like its in their interests.
And finally, I doubt we'll cease being a dominant power. We might cease being the dominant power (as in the only one), as China and perhaps India join us as 'Superpowers'. Fact is that we're just too large, populous, and pushy to slip into the level of reduced influence held by many countrys such as France, Canada, the UK, etc. No matter what the current situation looks like, the power the United States can bring to bear will only be lying dormant, it won't have disapeared.
A simmilar situation can be seen in Russia. They have the potential to be a Superpower, the power the USSR had is still there in large measure, its simply lying dormant. The only reason that power is even decreased is that Russia lost many of its sattelite states, and a simmilar situation would have to occur in the USA for our power to even be reduced.
-
The U.S. isn't in a decline and will always be a major international player. It's just that the emerging powers like India and China might one day rival or supersede the U.S. in economic and military power. That is to their credit (clawing their way into the 21st century), not due to any failure of the U.S.
GDP (2011)
Old powers
EU: $17,577,691 million (Population: 502,486,499)
US: $15,094,025 million (Population: 313,527,000)
Emerging powers
China: $7,298,147 million (Population: 1,347,350,000)
India: $1,676,143 million (population: 1,210,193,422)
They still have a very long way to go...
-
I guess it doesn't hurt that the US has allowed China's trade imbalance to grow to rediculous levels?
I was reading a few months ago that China's future may not be as rosy as it looks right now. Something about the rural areas
wanting a share of the urban pie. Also they are starting to feeling the gender gap...that one chold policy having unintended
consequences.
Of course with over 4 times the population of the US, it's not inconceivable that they could "catch up". :D
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TjOwjC4uY1o/TpZHyzVeMpI/AAAAAAAADIQ/spU_Pdl5QdA/s400/HansBrix.jpg)
-
I guess it doesn't hurt that the US has allowed China's trade imbalance to grow to rediculous levels?
I was reading a few months ago that China's future may not be as rosy as it looks right now. Something about the rural areas
wanting a share of the urban pie. Also they are starting to feeling the gender gap...that one chold policy having unintended
consequences.
Of course with over 4 times the population of the US, it's not inconceivable that they could "catch up". :D
That's their problem right there; with four times the population they would need four times the U.S. GDP just to match the U.S. in wealth. Right now India and China is spending most of their GDP on feeding their people and providing basic services, and they're both still far from providing even the most basic services to all of their populations. Thousands of people starve to death in India and China, every day.
-
No one sees a danger there.
The USA underestimates its enemies dangerously.
You're laying the assumptions on rather thick.
-
Wars are not won by who has the best fighter plane. So you can debate the stats of the Su-27s radar compared to the F-18Es engine reliability till hell freezes over it will not predict the outcome of a yet to be fought campaign in the future. Janes World Military Aircraft books are not crystal balls as to future world events as much as we like to hope they are. "My fighter is bigger than your fighter" is really not much help there.
Secondly the world will do one thing for certain. It will change. It will not stay the same. Of that you can be sure. The enemy of tommorow? who can say, its usually not the ones you think it will be and the dangers often come from unexpected places and directions. History teaches us that.
On western military hardware I will say this: Its troubling what the costs have become with ships, tanks and planes. One has to wonder about sustainability in a large multi-year conflict. I get the sense that many governments worry too much about what kind of economic spinoff a particular defense project has rather than whats the best thing to give to the military. Huge, multi-billion dollar programs might be good for business but I ask if its best for the air force or the navy or the army? sometimes at least, perhaps not. I look at the ever shrinking air forces around the world and I wonder how much longer these extremely expensive aircraft can be afforded? where are the light attack fighters? they are all these multi-role-do-everything-superfighters big on promises but largely untested. Can you afford to lose any in a real shooting war?
A general once said that "all war ends in mud". Its worth remembering.
-
F16 = US light attack fighter.
Stryker with 105mm L'7 = US light tank/TD
Worst case scenario, I figure we start cranking simplified versions of these things things out in droves.
Its not like the USA is entirely dependent on a few high-tech vehicles. We have have about 8000 M1 Abrams on hand.
-
The F-15 came about because the Russian MiG-25 was so superior to US Fighters that a counter was needed and needed quickly. The F-15 arrived and hence the SU-27 and MIG-29 were born, to counter, F-16's and F-22's appeared.
And now the PAK-FA Sukhoi F50 is now in the works. With China building their own J series fighter.
The MiG-25 was fast... Designed to intercept the XB-70. It's speed was its only plus, and it could not outrun missiles. It could not dogfight. Once we got one courtesy of a defection, the US realized that it was very much over-rated by analysts.
Your timeline is in error, moreover, the Russians were in react mode (and still are).
We saw in the Arab-Israeli wars and the two gulf wars that Soviet hardware and doctrine were badly flawed. I don't think they will get smarter... They can't afford the price of keeping up as it is. The Chinese are a generation behind, and I don't expect them to catch up unless we gut our defense budget.
There's two types of Nervous Nellies in this world... Those who believe the sky is falling, and those who believe its falling on them.
-
The Chinese are a generation behind, and I don't expect them to catch up unless we gut our defense budget.
This is true.
The coming vote will tell the tale.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB2GboGOuTI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB2GboGOuTI)
When the chinese attack it will come from the supplies closet.
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
F16 = US light attack fighter.
Well I would argue thats its the main fighter-bomber of the USAF. The reason its so succesfull was that it was designed originally as a small, low cost <gasp> fighter and developed into a very reasonably priced fighter-bomber. Something thats looked down upon by too many now it seems.
Light attack is currently only being used by the USMC in the form of the AV-8B Harrier. The USAF has CAS units with the A-10 despite announcing its impending retirement many times only to drag the beast out for yet another go-round because its so very usefull at what it does best which is blast the bad guys on the ground (very unglamorous but required it seems).
All being replaced by what I stated in my 1st post; very expensive multi-role stealth types like the F-35 and F-22. There are no light attack planes of any kind in the immediate future of the USAF, and if they didn't have the A-10 no truly dedicated CAS types either.
The Europeans are no better off with them all looking at either F-35 or Eurofighter Typhoon to do-it-all.
We need replacements for the A-4 Skyhawk, Alpha Jet, Hawk, A-10, Jaguar, Harrier to do some light attack/recon/CAS roles. Planes that cost a 1/3rd (or less) of what the nextgen types are looking at for a price tag. Not have every fighter a $$$ multi-role-stealth-superplane. Some basic, uncomplicated attack birds that do not cause a national crisis if one happens to be lost in a shooting war. At the rate air forces are going fighter planes are going to be the same cost as a naval frigate.
How about another Light Weight Fighter Competition? the one that spawned the YF-16 and YF-17 (that turned into the F-18) in the 1st place? that and another low cost CAS type designed for low level ground attack?
Air forces fear budget cuts so they ask for do-it-all types. The danger though is that it is a self fulfilling prophecy. The do-it-alls cost $$$ to make and upkeep and so then they cant afford to buy more than a few hundred looking at the trends. Not every combat plane has to be capable of dogfighting an Su-27 at 60,000 feet. Sometimes you just need to drop 2 500s on a truck convoy and call it a day.
Worst case scenario, I figure we start cranking simplified versions of these things things out in droves
Thats the idea! although you would not get a job in the current defense industry talking "crazytalk" like that. ;)
-
Problem is that the term 'light' and 'CAS' generally don't mix very well.
If its light because they skimp on the armor, then it becomes significantly more vulnerable to ground fire, and hence loitering around to provide CAS isn't smart.
If its light because its a small airframe with limited weapons capacity..... well then I don't see how thats a benefit over upgrading the F-16.
If its light because it lacks a lot of the targeting equipment, all-weather capablity, and some crappy radar set, then you're really just shooting yourself in the foot by preventing it from being able to opperate autonomously.
I'd also like to note that really, nobody has a 'light-CAS' airframe, nobody really has a CAS fighter that can rival the A-10, and virtutally nobody has a dedicated purpose-built light attacker.
Now thats not to say I don't think the idea has merit, just that since nobody has one, the USA isn't at a disadvantage by not having one either. IMO, extend the F-16's wing span and load limit, add on more bomb racks, and call it good.
As for the F-22, I will say that it has a couple advantages over a cheaper figher like the F-16, or the Su-27. Its damn hard to spot on radar, which means it can attack from relative saftey. And second, it can act as an AWACS-lite. While the second doesn't nessicarily make for a good fighter, its probably going to have better survivablity than a regular AWACS due to the stealth.
-
See Rule #4
-
So all the Russian air force pilots in the world are basically dweebs and noobs? If we went to war would they cry 'amace pilots' on channel 200?
Actually I just wanted to point out the plane, not those who fly it. But now I'm curious as to how well the USAF / RAF could implement it.
The RAF would have the opportunity to purchase it, but the British Procurement Agency would drag their feet until the aircraft was a.) obselete, b.) risen exponentially in price or c.) (and most likely...) both.
In the meantime they would sell every aircraft they currently have that are of any use in any current theatre of ops.
Then a large panic would ensue, they would rush to buy the now overpriced, outdated and practically useless aircraft at massive cost. Then admit their costly mistake 5 years, milliona of pounds and many lives later. Immediately to be followed by repeating the same process 6 months on :bhead
-
^^
This man has missed the point.
WW2 - 80% of the German casualties in WW2 were sustained against the Soviet Union.
- over half of Japanese military resources were fighting in China.
And yet both of these armies were enough to hold the USA at bay for FOUR.. YEARS.
This statement leaves out so much information.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Not to hijack the topic but, did anyone else see that 60 Minutes report on the F-22 oxygen system? Seems like pilots are suffering hypoxia like conditions but the AF can't figure out why.
63tb
-
See Rule #4
-
Not to hijack the topic but, did anyone else see that 60 Minutes report on the F-22 oxygen system? Seems like pilots are suffering hypoxia like conditions but the AF can't figure out why.
63tb
Old news now. It is an odd problem.
-
Believe it or not they are working on outfitting a Turbo Prop for strictly (it would still carry at least 2 sidewinders) air to ground. Some of the contenders are the T-6 Texan 2 and the "Attack Caravan Cessna". :banana:
Unfortunately the Texan 2 was eliminated (paperwork issues may put it back in the running though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance
This wiki link may give you a slightly better understanding of the competition.
-
Iraq already has a few armed Cessna Caravans. Getting permission to actually use them is a completely different problem, but they have the planes and they can shoot hellfires (and hit targets with them).
I think that Iraq wanted the AT-6 in part because of their experiences flying the T-6, but if they have maintenance problems with the T-6 or if Hawker Beechcraft's impending bankruptcy starts fouling up their support chain, then you can bet they'll switch in a heartbeat to whoever offers them a better bribe...er... "offsets".
While I was flying the T-6 in Iraq, I was asked a few times about my opinion of the AT-6 prototypes. I answered fairly honestly that it would probably get the job done but that any perceived weaknesses of the T-6 could carry over to the AT-6 if the contract requirements were not carefully defined. Like I would personally write in "must have tires that do not pop the instant anyone touches the brakes". In other words, I'd write in a requirement for a GOOD anti-skid braking system, because popped tires are one of the most stupidly expensive yet totally avoidable recurring ops/mx expenses in the T-6 today, even with highly experienced instructors at the controls. An ABS system in the original contract probably would have paid for itself by now, just from reducing the number of flat tires we are constantly seeing because the brakes give no feedback and the wheels lock up if you look at them sternly.
There are a few countries flying armed or otherwise missionized T-6 variants, and from what I've heard they are fairly successful. But there are a few competing designs out there including the heavily armed and armored air tractor variant of their best cropduster. It isn't sexy because it has fixed gear, but it's a freaking tank. It is basically a 2-seat turboprop powered A-10 (with built-in IR/EO targeting pod) that can take off in about 800 ft and land on a 20 ft wide bumpy dirt road. Crazy good at what it does, but not very fast and certainly not very sexy. But they're selling fairly well and also apparently doing a great job flying combat ops.
There is a big enough potential market for light armed aircraft that the USAF was even considering remanufacturing OV-10 Broncos for sales overseas. That would have been a hoot to fly, but I guess the cost/benefit numbers didn't work out right so I think it was dropped.
-
Well unfortunately as of now the AT-6 is out of the running. Essentially because the USAF mailed some paperwork to the wrong people and because of it Beech (or whoever makes the Texan II) didnt meet the deadline for said paperwork. BUT Embraer who makes a model almost exactly identical to the T-6 is still in the running.
There is talk of the USAF allowing Beech back into the Competition though because it was a cock up on there end.