Mig25 mach 3 capable?

[FUNKED1]

Hehehe Soviets just defending.  LOL
Anybody ever see figures on numbers of tanks fielded by WP vs NATO?

[Toad]

Everyone knows tanks are peace-loving defensive beings. Sheesh.

[Rude]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
aka american buffoons on parade.

Hey lookie!!! It's the Head Buffoon himself!!!

All bow to the great and powerful...oh wait...that's been done before.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I love it when people take these things personally.

Once again, I love it when people take these things personally.

The cold hard fact is, until the USA and a fully-functioning, well funded, fully maintained Russian Airforce face off(this concept went out the window in the 80s), with both nations fighting the kind of war they were designed to fight, none of these arguments mean a thing. Seeing as that economic and ideological factors have made this sort of conflict impossible(and thankfully so), there's just no point in shouting 'my dad can lick your's over and over again, with each side supporting the way their government chooses to develop aircraft and weapons systems.

Russian aerospace industry has produced brilliant machines, and continue to do so. As have the Americans. At the same time, US big business managed to stick a Mcdonalds in the middle of Moscow--one of the biggest in the world.

I'm not seeing any Borsht Kitchen chains springing up in DC, with lines forming around the block.

My suggestion: Have a shot of Stoli and chase it with budweiser.

[Toad]

OK.

JSF = Joint STRIKE Fighter.

This aircraft, by design, is meant to excel in the air to mud role. It's air to air capability is said to be "second only to the F-22", but they don't say if it's a "close second" or a "distant second".
Flyaway cost on it is ~ $30 million per copy.

The F-22 is designed primarily as a stealthy air superiority fighter, excelling in the air to air role. There are ongoing attempts to add air to mud capability and particularly SEAD capability. These have not really been pursued as yet. Current flyaway cost is ~$83 million but this cost rose from $67 million when the buy was reduced to 339 from the intial 750. There is discussion about raising the buy back to the mid 500's or even the full 750.

If the full buy were made, you'd be looking at something closer to 2 to 1.

Still bottom line, I'll take the F-22 over the F-35 when it comes to air superiority. And once you establish that....... the rest falls into line.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
aka american buffoons on parade.

Your hatred for America is amazing....

[Ping]

Trying to follow these arguments is like wrestling snakes.
In the end, how would an F15 fair against an SU 1on1?
No AWACS involved.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Ping
Trying to follow these arguments is like wrestling snakes.
In the end, how would an F15 fair against an SU 1on1?
No AWACS involved.

I'm guessing that they both have the same capability to track and fire, so lets assume it comes down to the pilot, within missile evasion tactics.  Once they're both out of missiles, and assuming they both live..again, I'd say "The pilot".  And, we all know who'd win that fight.  Arrogant statement? You bet. But our pilots will/have/can walk the talk.

[Ping]

Thanx Rip.
For the rest of you, Is this about Airframes? Or Tactics?

[Toad]

Yes, I think I would, given the Command and Control functions we have and the doctrine we use.

In other words, there's already a plan for how we would do this. I'm not saying it'd be a cakewalk.

I'm saying I think we know why we want a mixed force of F-22's and F-35's and not just F-35's alone. The F-22 has capabilites the the F-35 does not and vice versa. The F-22's role is air superiority; I'm thinking it's better at that to the point that we feel we need 339 (750?) F-22's and are willing to pay for them.

Check out this analysis from Australian Aviation:

ANALYSIS: Lockheed-Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Some notable quotes:

As an air combat fighter the Joint Strike Fighter is more difficult to compare, since the differences against the teen series and Eurocanards are less distinct.



With a nominal payload of 2,000 lb of AAMs the USAF F-35 yields a combat thrust/weight ratio around 1.1:1 which is competitive against a modestly loaded F-16, F/A-18A/C or Eurocanard, but with a typically better combat radius or combat gas allowance - however it is not in the class of an F-15C let alone F-22A.



Where the F-35 is apt to be less than a stellar performer is in the supersonic Beyond Visual Range combat regime, which is the sharp end of air superiority performance.



In the absence of published hard numbers for supersonic acceleration, energy bleed and persistence performance, the only reasonable conclusion is that the F-35 is likely to be competitive against the teen series and Eurocanards in combat configuration but decisively inferior to the F-22A.



Another factor in the BVR game is radar performance, limited by the power/aperture of the radar design. While hard numbers on the F-35's radar are yet to be published, what is available suggests an 800-900 element phased array which is in the class of the F-16C/B60, F/A-18E/F and Eurocanards but well behind the massive 2200 element APG-77 in the F-22A.



Attempting to make an all encompassing comparison of the F-35 against current fighters is fraught with some risks, insofar as the design will further evolve before production starts and many design parameters, especially in avionics, may shift. In terms of basic sizing and performance optimisations probably the best yardstick is that the F-35 is much like a `stealthy but incrementally improved F/A-18A/C' which closely reflects the similarity in the basic roles of the two types - strike optimised growth derivatives of lightweight fighters.

The F-35 is clearly out of its league against the F-22A in all cardinal performance parameters, with the exception of its bomb bay size which is built to handle larger weapons than the F-22A.  

The reality of it is that any US adversary is going to have to deal with both in all probability. I'd hate to be in their flight boots.

Let's all just hope this remains an academic discussion.

But I'll still take the F-22. Air superiority is the wellspring from which victory flows.

[Toad]

Another interesting quote from the summation of that article discussing Australia's upcoming decision on force structure:

The alternatives of single type total force replacements with the F-22 or F-35 also raise interesting issues.

While the F-35 at this time carries larger bombs than the F-22, it is a decidely inferior performer in the air combat game and the deep penetration strike game. With supercruise capability in a baseline bombing role using `small bomb' payloads the supercruising F-22's higher sortie rate at longer ranges suggests that one F-22 can perform a similar workload to a pair of F-35s, with the caveat that two or more F-35s will be needed to perform the air defence coverage of a single F-22.

In terms of deterrent credibility and potency in combat, the F-22 is unbeatable, in terms of political whining from air power detractors of every ilk, it is a guaranteed magnet (deja vu - F-111 1967?).

Conversely, a pure F-35 force structure is apt to leave important capability gaps in air superiority, cruise missile defence and deep penetration strike, while pushing up total numbers and thus aircrew demands - the latter likely to be a major long term issue with ongoing demographic shifts.

[Gunslinger]

GS your argument over price is wacky here....You would never catch an F22 operating alone there would be a few of them operating in the area.  In that case the 35s would have a missle warning tone befor they even know they're there.  SO the argument of price doesnt come into play here.

[CavPuke]

Originally posted by Boroda
This is nothing compared to Tu-126. You simply copied a rotating antenna in an aerodynamic cowl later.

"No where near the capabilities of the E-3" - well said.

LOL well Boroda put your money where your mouth is bud   Pony up some facts and figures and let us read and weep , otherwise sit down and let some one else speak

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
If there are 10 F-22s then they would face 20 or 30 F-35, understand?

Nah. Nobody else that's a real threat will be able to afford any appreciable number.




Doesn't seem like that Aussie magazine is too impressed.

"probably the best yardstick is that the F-35 is much like a `stealthy but incrementally improved F/A-18A/C' "

That's not much to hang your entire air force on if you're thinking of/preparing for major wars.

[Angus]

From Boroda:
"American concept is purely agressive, unlike Soviet. "
Now that's funny. It so happens that a friend of mine was a border patroller on the eastern German side. Their concept was mainly keeping people from going west. He said that if the US had decided to march in, they could not have stopped them, but at least kept them from going back:D
The western border was all about defence, and the Warsaw pact's doctrine was in many ways all about agression. The Russia of the communists invaded, occupied and assimilated ( ) many many countries.
Beginning from the North: Finland, the 3 Baltic states, Poland, Czechoslovakia,Hungary, and then you have covered most of the area between the Arctic circle and the Black sea. Hell that's 7 out of the 9 countries on that route, leaving just Norway and communist Romania out! Not agressive my arse!