Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funkedup on May 25, 2002, 12:51:48 AM
-
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_military.jsp?view=story&id=news/m15vsu0524.xml
I'm glad to see they are remembering the old lessons about how to get funding. We must prevent a Fighter Gap! :)
-
Sign up for the Eurofighter, then talk to me about the fighter gap.
Besides didn't Kurt Tank invent both the F-15 an Su-27?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I'm glad to see they are remembering the old lessons about how to get funding.
Didn't they allready got the funding for F-22s?
But you are damn right, no other plane in the world can beat F-15 or any other US plane for that matter...that's just impossible.
-
Mmmmh....I agree that if it was completely true, USAF wouldn't like to see this info leak into the press....so an official report lke this one would be completely out of the question.
However, I'm sure a prudent F15 pilot would respectfully consider a Su30....
-
Wmaker, funding for the F-22 has been strangled. The plane is nowhere near being combat-ready. They are still getting enough money to work on the project but it could have been finished many years ago if it had been funded fully.
-
I see funked. I have read news about its development and it seemed going well.
Tough I've heard about this money issue also. There was some talk in the US congress that if they could drop F-22 project and upgrade F-15 and save some money in the process (NASA's F-15 ACTIVE experimental aircraft's one purpose was to investigate this possibility).
When they started flight experiments at Edwards AFB I tought those budged problems were left behind.
-
Wmaker when they started this project it was still during the Cold War. It was felt then that the survival of western civilization depended on military superiority. So things like the F-22 got however much money they needed. But right at the time the first prototypes were taking flight, the Berlin Wall came down, the USSR ceased to exist, and the F-22 project has since then been operating with much less money than what was originally envisioned. 7 years between first flight of prototype and first flight of production version. That would have been unimaginable during the Cold War.
I wish they would just get on with it and finish the damn thing. If we finish F-22 we don't have to worry about a new fighter for a loooooooooooong time. Spend whatever it takes and complete the project. I would hate to see the hard work of so many people thrown away by cancelling the project or prolonging it until 2020.
-
Funked, Soviet aircraft doctrine was mostly defencive. Imagine a barrier of SAMs from 250+km range S-200s, short-range low-alt S-125s, good ol' S-75s, supplied with targeting info by enormous grid of Radio-Technical Troops, with MiG-31s over their heads, each "zveno" covering ~1500km of frontline, with frontline firghters like MiG-29 or Su-27 used only as corks in the holes...
Any fighter even as good as F-22 will endure no more then 5 minutes after crossing the targeting range. So - it's quite clever to save your taxpayers money. You can bomb Afghan peasants "to stone age" with something like B-29s or B-52s. You already have an experience.
-
You can bomb Afghan peasants "to stone age" with something like B-29s or B-52s. You already have an experience.
Ya, you should know since your country tried this already, the difference being you got owned, and the USA didn't.
Also, that impenetrable SAM/AAA ring you talk about won't work so well if you get the Iraqi special. E M P
-
Originally posted by Gman
Ya, you should know since your country tried this already, the difference being you got owned, and the USA didn't.
Also, that impenetrable SAM/AAA ring you talk about won't work so well if you get the Iraqi special. E M P
Frankly speaking - I didn't understand what you meant. All words are familiar, but I don't understand the conclusion.
If you think that you own Afghanistan - you are mistaken. If you think that Arabs fight at least 10% as good as Soviets - you are mistaken too...
-
I believe he was saying , Afgan was russia's Viet Nam
-
Why didnt they simply replaced the F-15's with Russian fighters until the F-22 was done? ;)
-
Boroda-Before our planes entered the target lines, most of your defenses would already been degraded, if not destroyed.
-
HARM
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Boroda-Before our planes entered the target lines, most of your defenses would already been degraded, if not destroyed.
Can ya back that statement up.
Cause I could counter argue, "No, they wouldn't be."
-
Boroda you're assuming that the SAM crews wouldn't have either walked off the job or were sober that night. Or maybe that the SAMs themselves were in good condition :)
-
Sure I can back it up. Pick any Soviet supplied nation that we have destroyed recently as an example.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Why didnt they simply replaced the F-15's with Russian fighters until the F-22 was done? ;)
Navy wanted to do that with Su33, but pride got in the way.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Sure I can back it up. Pick any Soviet supplied nation that we have destroyed recently as an example.
You said it your self, its supplied (de-rated, old, crapy etc)
S 300 can shoot forther then Harm missile, that is not a good example either.
-
F22 is a waste of money. Its already outclassed by some of the more recent Russian fighters. Also, does the U.S. really need a new air supierority fighter right now? This isn't World War II. The last few countries the U.S. has attacked have either had no airforce at all, or had a mangey fleet of rag-tag Russian relics. In my opinion, the F22 symbolizes what is wrong with the United States. The Air Force is getting a new front line fighter, which is underfunded, overpriced, and overdue, while the Army has to make do with Vietnam era radios and rifles, aging transport helicopters, and a fleet of tanks which urgently need overhaul. Its not Migs that have been causing all these U.S. Choppers to crash over the past year, its aging equipment.
-
Hey.... I like MiGs. MiGs are cool planes man.
Also, comparing 3rd world countries to Mother Russia is going to get you killed when you fight. Learn from the Germans. Russians can fight, although casualties were horrendous.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Sure I can back it up. Pick any Soviet supplied nation that we have destroyed recently as an example.
Or you can back your original statement with supporting arguements. You made the point. Back it up with actual evidence.
Or was it just intended to slam Russia for the sake of who knows what?
-
Rusting fleets, unable to pay bills. Hmm pilots are lucky to get 30 hours a year. Worried about Russia, uhh yea right. Read some stuff on how wonderful they have been doing in Chechnya. ooohh Russia the big boogey man, please.
-
Thrawn, my dear. I need back it up no further than the post that I answered originally. It would appear, prima facie, that I am correct, though, since the USA is still here, and the USSR is but a wish.
Here, by Boroda, the drunken thief, so you don't have to search:
"Funked, Soviet aircraft doctrine was mostly defencive. Imagine a barrier of SAMs from 250+km range S-200s, short-range low-alt S-125s, good ol' S-75s, supplied with targeting info by enormous grid of Radio-Technical Troops, with MiG-31s over their heads, each "zveno" covering ~1500km of frontline, with frontline firghters like MiG-29 or Su-27 used only as corks in the holes...
Any fighter even as good as F-22 will endure no more then 5 minutes after crossing the targeting range. So - it's quite clever to save your taxpayers money. You can bomb Afghan peasants "to stone age" with something like B-29s or B-52s. You already have an experience."
-
Originally posted by Dnil
Rusting fleets, unable to pay bills. Hmm pilots are lucky to get 30 hours a year. Worried about Russia, uhh yea right. Read some stuff on how wonderful they have been doing in Chechnya. ooohh Russia the big boogey man, please.
Do you know of a saying, " do not underestimate enemies”
-
But, since it is late, let me guess how it would go. You real military types can correct me if I get too far off.
Let's assume that Russia pisses us off enough that we are going to do some strong stuff, but nothing nuclear.
First in, of course, are the cruise missiles, let's assume they will be targeted at all those drunken, unpaid conscripts running the Radar.
Behind them come the stealth wild weasels, looking for active anything. Next come the heavy stealth to work on CnC, and hot on their ass, a big old wave of everything with wings and rockets.
The next morning, with AS secure, the high alt, smart bomb carrying B52's begin deliveries, targeted by the silent ones.
Would not be easy, cheap or a sure thing, but you have to be crazier than I am to not think that that is what would happen.
And I am kidding about the drunken conscripts-I am sure their military is just as professional as ours.
-
I am not even going to get involved in this pissing match about Russia, which I consider to be one of our allies and friends. I would however, like to dispute some claims about the F-22.
It is NOT, as one person asserted, outclassed by recent Russian fighters. It is far beyond any fighter that has ever been produced to date. The Eurofighter comes close in many respects but lacks the stealthiness. The Su-35 and other Flanker variants have somewhat superior manouverability in certain flight regimes, but lack the avionics, stealth, and speed over distance possessed by the Raptor.
And we DO need the F-22. Just because we have not had a serious challenge in the air in recent times does not mean that we never will. China is perilously close to developing a fighter fleet that can challenge our current fighters. They are building Flankers under license, and have 2 new homegrown fighters that they are working on (including one that is based on the F-16). If they build these in the quantities that they usually acquire military hardware in, they will have one of the strongest air forces in the world.
We have to look way down the road in a situation like this. Right now the F-15 is king of the world as far as fighters go, but 20 years from now, they will be very very old. The airframes will be worn out, and they will have trouble tangling with many newer generation fighters. They will be hard put to survive against the latest SAM missiles as well, since they are extremely unstealthy. The Eagle fleet is already 20 years old (except for the Strike Eagles of course) and fighters wear out quicker than do bombers and transports due to the high wear and tear caused by the mission. We cant just decide in 10 years that, hey we need a new fighter right now! It takes many years for an advanced program like that to develop. The days of a frontline fighter being designed in less than a year ended in the '50s. CAD type technologies have sped up design processes, but a fighter like the F-22 is so complex, and the testing that it must undergo is so extensive, that even in an all-out push to develop a fighter as fast as possible, I cannot imagine one being completed in less than 3 or 4 years. And that would be an all out, cost no object, emergency drive to develop a fighter. Far better to spread the cost out over a longer time, and have enough time to work the bugs out, and come up with a great fighter that will serve for many years to come. The F-22 is slated to enter service around 2006, give or take a year or two, barring further interference from Congress.
Having the best air superiority fighter is the key to winning because once you control the sky, you can do pretty much anything you want. If you cant keep the enemy air force down, however, your bombers and strikers arent going to do you much good, and your ground troops are going to suffer. Since somewhere around mid WW2, no country has won a conventional war where it lacked air superiority. There have been cases where asymetric capabilities such as guerrilla warfare have been used to offset a countries dominance in the air, but these have been far fewer than most people realize.
It is our pride in the USAF that no US ground soldier has died to an enemy aircraft since early in the Korean war. The F-22 will ensure that this record continues indefinitely.
-
Boroda - I don't think we want F-22 to penetrate Soviet air defense. It's needed to control the modern fighters your cash starved aerospace industry is carelessly selling to rogue states all around the world.
I agree with Animal, US should buy some Su-30's. This probably won't be acceptable for national pride and industrial reasons, but maybe it will be OK once Russia enters NATO, ~10 years. :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I agree with Animal, US should buy some Su-30's. This probably won't be acceptable for national pride and industrial reasons, but maybe it will be OK once Russia enters NATO, ~10 years. :)
Whee, sensible opinions. If there was a need for US to update carrier fleets, the newer Sukhois would be nice option. They're comparatively cheap, as good as they come and the main point: they're already available.
-
Originally posted by Durr
It is far beyond any fighter that has ever been produced to date. The Eurofighter comes close in many respects but lacks the stealthiness.
3 questions:
1) Is the Eurofighter in production?
2) I'd seriously like to hear your evaluation of the Swedish JAS-39. In what way is the JAS (apart from Stealth) inferior to the F-22?
3) I thought that today, avionics and quality of weapons are more than 95% of winning a "dogfight", i e, manuverability and speed matters less, do you disagree?
Right now the F-15 is king of the world as far as fighters go,
[/b]
What makes the F-15 better than the JAS-39 or the improved F/A-18? All these 3 fighters are equipped with the same weapons, and I think they are all evenly matched when it comes to avionics/computers and countermeasures.
Since somewhere around mid WW2, no country has won a conventional war where it lacked air superiority.
Falklands 82?
-
Umm.. Falklands 82. Ability of British aircraft to strike targets around falklands at will? Ability of Argentine aircraft to strike targets? Ratio of number of effective Air-to-Surface weapons systems in Argentine arsenal to number of targets? The exocets were pretty, but they fired 'em all. Number of Argentine aircraft shot down? Number of UK aircraft shot down? number of CAS missions flown by each side?
It wasn't pretty, but in my book they did have air superiority; it may not have been total, but it was sufficient.
-
Is the Su-30Mk still using a Pilot...?
-
Response to Hortlunds post:
-The Eurofighter is now in production and should enter service starting late this year or early next year with some countries.
-The Jas-39 Gripen is an outstanding fighter. In a post at the military.com message boards I once rated the Gripen highly in a thread about the worlds best fighters. I consider the Gripen to be certainly in the inner circle or top notch combat aircraft for a number of reasons. The F-22 however, is simply in a quite another category. It has a number of advantages over the Jas-39. These include: Greater top speed overall + the ability to fly supersonic without using AB. Stealth. Greater range. Superior ECM suite. Integrated firecontrol and communications systems similar to the current JTIDs system used by the F-15, that allow information sharing among platforms. Better radar. I cannot say with certainty which aircraft is more manouverable since there are no unclassified numbers available that would allow a definitive comparison of the 2 fighters yet. I suspect that in manouverability the 2 are very close. The F-22 is supposed to be similar in manouverability to the F-16 which means that the Gripen should be very nearly as manouverable if not equal.
Other than that the F-22 is the superior weapon, as it should be since it is newer and has the benefit of the intervening years of rapid technology growth, not to mention the massive budget that the Raptor has enjoyed.
-I tend to agree with your 3rd point up to a certain point, avionics and missiles have more to do with winning the fight nowadays then do speed and manoverability. The latter 2 factors definitely still have their place though. Speed is still important because it allows you to control the engagement. The ability to run down enemy fighters (or to run away itself if need be, for whatever reason) is extremely important. Agility and manouverability can and do still play a role if the fight gets in close for whatever reason. Read the article that started off this thread to see how superior radar can occasionally be overcome using innovative tactics.
As to how the F-15 is superior to the Gripen or Super Hornet, they are actually pretty evenly matched. That was my USAF prejudice showing itself a little. Both the Super Hornet and the Gripen have smaller radar signatures. They are also both more manouverable than the Eagle, although not by a huge margin.
The F-15 is a little faster and still has better radar overall. They all 3 use the same weapons. The F-15 has the better range. All in all they are pretty closely matched though. That is in terms of air to air work. The F-15E is easily the better strike fighter of the 3 though due to its better range, terrain following radar, and bigger payload. I am going to try to find that post I did on military.com about the top 10 fighters and repost it here as a new topic.
And finally, regarding the Falklands war, I would say that the British DID have air superiority and it was an important factor. The Harriers were able to shoot down quite a few Argentine aircraft (around 20 I believe if I remember correctly) while the Argentines were only able to shoot down 1 Marine helicoptor in air to air fighting. Some other British aircraft were shot down by ground fire and/or missiles. The Argentines were able to hit and sink a number of Royal Navy ships using Exocets launched from shore and from Etendard fighters. They also used A-4s to bomb using iron bombs and I think they even sunk a ship using those. However, despite the couragous resistance of the Argentine Air Force and Naval Air arms, the British were able to do pretty much as they pleased in the air. It was definitely air superiority for the British, although not the total air dominance that the US and allies enjoyed in Desert Storm/ Kosovo/ Afghanistan.
-
Our pilots are better.
-
It's pretty funny that we have debates about the "best fighter of WWII" And we have declassified performance information, combat records, multiple computer simulations and no end of "expert" opinions. And even then we can't even deceide.
And yet now, with far less information some have taken on the question of the "Best modern Fighter in the world." Seems like a fool's errand to me.
-Sikboy
-
You're being rational SB.
Stop that.
Just argue for the sake of arguing. :D
EDIT: Oh... and Superman would kick Spiderman's ass.
-
Yea but Spiderman's girlfriend looks way better in a wet t-shirt! :eek:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yea but Spiderman's girlfriend looks way better in a wet t-shirt! :eek:
Let's see... Spiderman's girlfriend:
(http://ffmedia.ign.com/spider-man/image/KirstenandTobey.jpg)
Superman's girlfriend:
(http://www.hoppa.ndo.co.uk/loisclark/LOIS10.jpg)
Not even close... Superman's got it all. :D
-
Ouch!
Forgot about the TV show...... I withdraw my previous statement.
-
What a hijack. :D
-
What I was trying to say is that Pilots will soon go the way of the Bi-plane. Before the F-22 or JSF get into full produciton we (the U.S.) will be fielding a large number of very small, very deadly and very inexpensive UAV's that are going to take aerial combat to where it's never been before.
The song "Turn the Beat Around" comes to mind.....
-
F15 isnt that a bit old... they do have the F35 joint strike fighter getting ready to start rolling
-
Falklands '82
Quote from RAF website:-
The essential task of the Sea Harriers would be to defend the TF, and their small numbers in relation to the size of the Argentine air forces suggested that they would have their work cut out.
The Argentines had Mirage fighters, Dagger attack aircraft, Canberra bombers, Puccara attack aircraft, Super Entand anti-ship aircraft, A4 Skyhawk Fighter/Attack aircraft operating either from their carrier or from mainland Argentina.
Total Combat Aircraft = 134
Britain had 3 Fleet Air Arm squadrons of Sea Harrier FRS.1 (800, 801, 809 Sqns) plus one RAF squadron (1(F) Sqn) based on HMS Hermes & HMS Invincible.
Total Combat Aircraft = 28
The Harrier force had to operate as Fleet Defence & Reconnaisance (FRS.1s), and also as Fighter/Attack (FRS.1 & GR.3). In some instances a 2 aircraft patrol would encounter up to 6 enemy aircraft.
In addition the RAF had Vulcan bombers attack Port Stanley airfield from the Ascension Islands. Also both carriers and other Navy vessels had either Sea King, Wessex, Lynx & Wasp helicopters (Lynx & Wasps were used on smaller ships). One Chinook was used on FIs by RAF/Army forces.
It was Seapower that provided the balance in air power - i.e. picket lines around the Falkland Islands which restricted the operation of Argentine air forces.
References: US Air Command & Staff College Air University (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/99-237.pdf
Royal Air Force website http://www.raf.mod.uk