Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The best fighter aircraft

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The best fighter aircraft
    Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 01:39
Originally posted by Al Jassas


Actually the Radar system used in downing the F-117 was Ukrainian and the Russians themselves downplayed the significance of the incident.

LOL, we should always be skeptical of official press releases:  The Russians must have completely soiled themselves when they saw what the F-117 did in 1991.  I'm sure they were present in Serbia. 

BTW, during that intervention, the US "accidentally" fired upon the Chinese embassy in Serbia.  I don't think so:  They probably did it on purpose as simply b'coz the Chinese were actively helping the Serbs, in a military sense, just like the Russians were.

Recall that US "accidentally" hit Al Jezeera offices in both Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003.  Al Jezeera was thru its reporting stirring up anti-US sentiment not just in the Mideast, but throughout the entire world.

Originally posted by Al Jassas


The Russians currently have an AA missile system that can shoot down planes as far as 400 Km away (S-400) which with the radar system above enhanced can neutralize all the F-22 defensive capabilities.

Very interesting.  Do you have a trustworthy link?

--------------------------------------------------

Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but...

Originally posted by Cryptic

I never said that an airforce from a developing country could win against the U.S., only that more competent airforces can cause US casualties (for example, shoot down F-15s).


Actually, you sorta did:

Originally posted by Cryptic

USA exprience in Vietnam (your post) supports that fact that developing nations can field competent militaries, and shoot down F-15s


By citing the Vietnam War, at the very least you are saying a 1:2 kill ratio overall, and even at times a 1+:1 kill ratio.

BTW, I never said a "developing" country, namely Vietnam from 1965-1973 or any other developing country now or in the past, could "win".  The war that N. Vietnam "won" was the insurgent war, not the conventional war, and certainly not the air war:  2:1 overall kill ratio in favor of the US.  I'm also ignoring N. Vietnam's ground base defensive successes, which I mentioned only to put things into context, and talking dogfights only.

You are putting words in my mouth when you use the term "win against the US", without delineating between insurgent war vs. that of conventional war vs. air war (including groud-based defenses) vs. dogfighting.  If the Iraqis wanted to, they can still "win" in Iraq, without having ever shot down a single F-15.  Same goes for the Afghans in that other horrific quagmire.  Ermm

Please dot your i's, cross your t's, and mind your p's and q's.

It's always a real pain to have to debate other's mischaracterizations of what you said.




Edited by TranHungDao - 16-Feb-2009 at 01:43
Back to Top
hmmm View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 10-Dec-2008
Location: online-offline
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
  Quote hmmm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 02:08
Originally posted by TranHungDao

 
Lastly, I'm not knocking IAF pilots here.     What I'm knocking here is the IAF's system, organisation, spending priorities or lack thereof, etc.  The quality of the personnel is fine, it is the system that is subpar.   And yet, I'd still say the IAF is as good as any non-Western air force, at least as good as the PLAAF, man for man.  Same goes for PLAAF personnel.

I always knew that you had the good of IAF in your heart.  Ever thought of applying for a job there.  IAF would be more than happy to hire your services and be shown by you how to correct their subpar system.

Originally posted by TranHungDao

That Col. Kornof guy was speaking off the record
I also like how you call him "guy".
I thought from your comments on page 3 that it was the official version as it looked like a debriefing but now you say that it is off the record, explicitly in red colors.  Wheels are slowly coming off.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 06:54
Hello tran
 
Here is a Jane's link:
 
AL-Jassas
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 13:05
Originally posted by hmmm

I always knew that you had the good of IAF in your heart.  Ever thought of applying for a job there.  IAF would be more than happy to hire your services and be shown by you how to correct their subpar system.

Their system is subpar by western standards.  Period.  Sorry, but no amount of snark is gonna change that.  Embarrassed

And just so you know, the statement you're addressing was really intended for Jallaludin Akbar, who's Indian.  He took exception to my "bias".  Further, the statement itself is correct:  Fornof said the IAF pilots were disciplined and professional, but they were green, so to speak.  He was really knocking the IAF in general, rather than the raw ability of the individual pilots.

EDIT:  Here's a good analogy...  Why do Indian students and researchers come to study and do research in the West instead of staying in India?  Because they would accomplish anywhere near as much if they remained back in the old country.  FYI, Indian computer scientists win an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of Turing Awards (and other uber prestigious awards), something akin to the Nobel Prize, but it's for computer science.  Had these blokes stayed back in India, it's very unlikely they would have accomplished anywhere near the same thing.  Indeed, throughout the 1970's, 80's, and 90's, Indians back home kept complaining about the "brain drain" of Indian talent going to the West, particularly America.  Of course, we all know that these same brainiacs, who hold disproportion power in Silicon Valley, are now bringing their newly aquired know-how back to India in the last 10 years or so.

LOL, this is why the rest of the world comes to the West to study university:  Their indigenous systems suck.

Originally posted by hmmm

I also like how you call him "guy".

So do I. Big smile

Originally posted by hmmm

I thought from your comments on page 3 that it was the official version as it looked like a debriefing but now you say that it is off the record, explicitly in red colors.  Wheels are slowly coming off.

You thought wrong.  The official version is from the USAF brass, which apologized for what that guy Col. Fornof's said.  The official version was TOTAL BS.  PERIOD.

Now pay attention:

1. Red Flag in Cope India 2004 was a joke.  IAF bragged unseemly about how they beat the USAF.  USAF went out of it's way to say F-15's lost to Su-30 MKI, concluding it needs uber expensive F-22's ASAP. 
2.  Red Flag in Nellis AFB 2008:   IAF openly brag once more how they beat the USAF just as in 2004.  Fornof lets the cat out of the bag.  USAF apologizes for Fornof.  IAF brags again.  USAF once again calls for more F-22's.
3.  RAF vs IAF:  Both sides did the dirty deed, i.e. held exercises in UK.  But both sides are mum, no trash talking, no kiss and tell, no results released.  Both sides part ways behaving like gentlemen.

Like I said, nothing adds up.

ERGO:  USAF put IAF up to it.   In return India gets advanced US nuke technology and in return, US gets delicious Indian mangoes... Or something like that...

Sincerely hope this unconfuses you. Wink

------------------------------------

Al Jassas,

Thanks for the link.  Global Security a good article with many sources too.  You're right, passive radar is perhaps quite far along.  Although no one knows anything about it for sure, outside of the experts on both sides.  The PLA has purchased the Kolchuga systems.  Even Vietnam has purchased some anti-stealth missiles from Russia.

BTW, I need to modify what I said about US being easily able to overwhelm every air force.  Still true in general, but maybe not for Russia and China, since they have passive radar, or are rapidly/desperately trying to develop it, on top of their sizable air forces.  They may also have stealthy cruise missiles which would present a huge problem for US carriers.  At any rate, if these countries faced off in conventional warfare, the first thing they're gonna do is go after each other's military satellites, to render GPS-based weapons sytsems useless.  That is:

First:  Space domination
Second:  Air superiority
Third:  Ground superiorty
Fourth:  If occupied, the loser resorts to insurgency.  But then again, nukes would probably be fired off as last resort, before surrender.  LOL




Edited by TranHungDao - 16-Feb-2009 at 14:00
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 15:00
Al Jassas,

Here's a LINK from global security.  It's from the China section.  It's a long article, so here's the relevant portion on stealth and counter-stealth:


Possible Foreign Sources of Stealth and Counter Stealth Technology

 

            While it is not new technology, the development of radar evading stealth as well as counter-stealth technology remain critical elements of future warfare.  PRC expert Cao Benyi has stated, “…it is necessary for China to make every effort to develop stealth technology, to develop stealth, and to do what is necessary to enable China’s stealth technology to catch up with the world’s most advanced level of such technology in a short time.”[56]  As Cao suggests, the PRC is investing heavily in stealth and counter-stealth technology.  At the 1998 Zhuhai Air Show the Chinese company Seek Optics revealed its work on coatings designed to deflect radar energy, and on computer programs for aiding the design of stealthy objects.  By using imported supercomputers and commercial “finite element analysis software,” the PRC is believed to be able to calculate the radar reflectivity of shaped objects.[57] There are also reports that China may apply stealth coatings to improve the penetrating capability of combat aircraft like the Xian JH-7 strike fighter.[58]  Stealth coatings will also likely be used to improve the capabilities of future land-attack cruise missiles. A 2001 report cited a Pentagon source as estimating the PLA would have a stealthy cruise missile operational in 2003.[59]

            The PLA is already demonstrating its ability to apply stealth technology. In 2002 and 2003 the PLA demonstrated its application of stealth principles to naval warship design in three stunning new ships, the No. 168 and No. 170 class air defense destroyers and a new “Type 054”frigate. With very smooth hull sides and an application of radar-absorbent materials, these ships could prove to be nearly as stealthy as Taiwan’s French-made LAFAYETTE-class frigates.  In fact, Taiwanese authorities investigating corruption charges surrounding the sale of the French frigates believe that France gave the PRC classified data on the LAFAYETTE frigate to mollify its opposition to the sale.[60]  Russia is another potential source for naval stealth technology given the PLA’s relationship with Russia’s naval builders.  Russia has experience in building stealthy ships such as the Project 17 Talwar class frigates for India, and in 2003 unveiled its even stealthier Project 20830 destroyer.   

            The PLA is also applying stealth concepts to combat aircraft. At the 2002 Zhuhai Airshow, a new stealthy advanced air-superiority fighter concept was revealed briefly in a promotional video.  Thought to be a product of the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, this design features a chiseled nose, flat fuselage surfaces and internal weapon carriage in a manner similar to the stealthy U.S. Lockheed-Martin F/A-22A.  Another area of possible PRC interest is in “plasma stealth,” which uses a charged ion field in or around an object that absorbs radio frequency energy, such as from radar, creating stealth.  Russia developed this technology and apparently was to apply it to both contending Mikoyan Article 1.44 and Sukhoi Su-37 Berkut 5th generation fighters.  PRC reports note that Russia is now working on its second generation of plasma stealth technology.[61]  The Russians have determined that plasma stealth may be unsuitable for low-altitude platforms, but are developing applications for use on high-speed high-altitude cruise missiles.[62]  It is possible that the PLA could obtain this technology as part of new Russian supersonic cruise missiles, reverse engineer it, and apply it to future PLA missiles and combat aircraft.


Due to the critical importance of stealth for future U.S. combat platforms, it is to be expected that China would also devote considerable energy to the development of counter-stealth technology.  One area of long-term PLA interest is Metric-Wave radar technology.  This radar technology dates back to the 1930s and uses large radio frequency wavelengths, whereas most passive stealth technology is designed to counter far smaller wavelengths of modern radar.  At the 1998 Zhuhai show the 23rd Institute of the China Aerospace Co. was marketing their “J-231” metric-wave radar which its claimed had “high anti-stealth” capability.[63]  The PLA has several types of Metric-Wave radar and even employs one on its latest No. 170 class destroyer, which will likely carry the PLA Navy’s first high frequency active phased array radar. When combined with modern computers, metric-wave technology has great counter-stealth potential.  In fact, at the 2001 Moscow Airshow Russian company marketing such improved metric-wave radar complained bitterly that China had stolen its technology.[64]

 

The PLA is also known to be interested in bi-static radar, which uses separated transmitter and receiver, and multi-static radar, as a means to defeat stealth.  The PLA is also reported to be interested in other novel counter-stealth detectors such as Passive Coherent detection.  This technology is able to discern disruptions in broadcast television signals or cell-phone signals to find moving bodies.  In the scandal that followed 2002 U.S. accusations of their sale to Iraq, the Ukrainian government confirmed that it had sold its KOLCHUGA passive radar to the PRC.  With a radius of action of 600km, the KOLCHUGA is advertised as being able to detect and recognize the PATRIOT missile, F-15, F-16, F-22, MIRAGE-2000, RC-135, E-2 and E-3 AWACS and the F-177 and B-2 stealth bombers.[65] These are all weapon systems that would be used by the U.S. and Taiwan to defend against a PLA attack on Taiwan. 


Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 15:21
Originally posted by hmmm

I also like how you call him "guy".
I thought from your comments on page 3 that it was the official version as it looked like a debriefing but now you say that it is off the record, explicitly in red colors. Wheels are slowly coming off.

This is hilarious.  How exactly did you come up with this?!?

Let me be perfectly clear here:

1.  When people speak off the record, that is when they are being most honest.  That's when they are most likely to "let the cat out of the bag", as I stated on page 3.
2.  When people make official press releases, they are very disciplined in getting their desired message across, which may or my not be true. 
3.  The official press releases on Red Flag, Cope India 2004 were totally bogus on so many levels.  The people who normally do "official press releases" for the USAF are the PR people at the USAF.
4.  Fornof is an expert, who was speaking off the record on Red Flag 2008 (and 2004).  Fornof said the IAF got clobbered but the IAF said it dominated.
5.  The USAF then apologized for his remarks. 
6.  Lastly, it should be abundantly clear that the USAF put the IAF up to it, i.e. their unseemly boasting.  Then the USAF went out of it's way to say the F-15's lost to the Su-30 MKI's, which never happened, neither in 2004 nor 2008, nor EVER!

There's no contradiction here.  Those who see it are in a cognitive state where...

Originally posted by hmmm

Wheels are slowly coming off.

I'd say. LOL
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 17:20
I used to be interested in aircraft in the late 80s and early 90s and at that time it was known that the Soviets had superior fighters (I was not socialist at the time, I was pro-NATO if anything, being in Turkey). I remember clearly when SU 27 was seen for the first time in the West, they were shocked by its performance and sophistication (including avionics). Also trials with East German equipment after German unification showed that they were far superior to what NATO expected. Especially short range missiles. Of course people who did these expectations in US military were none other than Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc., who were later proven to be idiots.  

Americans always brag about their military, make movies such as Top Gun and gullible teens (and people in their military) swallow that propaganda, but it was quite likely that in the late 80s Soviets would have had air superiority over Europe, especially after the Su 27 entered service. Of course then they collapsed, partly because while they could produce the worlds best fighter, they could not produce decent cars... So the 90s was a lost decade for the Russians, so they may have fallen far behind in the arms race, which is fast-paced. But I suspect some who write here were born after the USSR and they think USSR is comparable to the Russia in the 90s. Let me tell you, they were not.  

In fact, NATO saw this and that's why they developed F-22 and Eurofighter. That's also why NATO has a first-use doctrine with nuclear weapons, while the Soviets never had. 


Edited by Beylerbeyi - 16-Feb-2009 at 17:21
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 19:00
SU 27 the world's best fighter? I doubt that. Mind you the F-15 and F-16 were tested many times in battle but the SU-27 wasn't so you might be right Bey.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 10:53
I always have enjoyed this kind of discussion. It shows that so many people do take for granted the spectacular, without minding using a piece of their brain to actually analyse what is about. Trung here is a real example of techno braindead. Let's take a close look at the sublime F 22 for a proper evaluation.
This airplane is a state of the art in stealth, a very capable one in sensors, a quite good in flying and a lame in weaponry. It's a F117 with some teeth. Also, the whole concept of aquiring air domination by using it's stealth capabilities is not matched by the ordnance it carries. Let's see:
- main weapon: 6xAIM 120 AMRAAM. The weapon is quite good but it has a slightly lower range than most of the russian counterparts.
- secondary weapon: 2xAIM 9X Sidewinder. Can I ask why is it that a fighter that is supposed to be killing its enemy from BVR is equipped with close range missiles? Maybe because dogfights cannot be avoided? Again, the Sidewinder is a good weapon but it is outranged and outclassed by the R-73. Even the R-60 is a match. And forget about heat suppression that the F-22 is so proud. It only works at low altitude. Meaning that you might be in range to eat some SAM or AAA shrapnel.
-  last (indeed!) weapon: the M60A2 Vucan cannon. A pitiful weapon. The Su-27 is designed to resist 30 mm shells. The Vulcan might put some dimps in its fuselage. All other aircraft carried guns are more powerful than this peashooter. And I never read of any specifications about the protection against projectiles of the F-22. Oh, wait, it is supposed to not be fired upon. Then why not using the space and weight for the gun for more avionics or fuel?Because it is widely accepted that the Raptor is no dogfighter. Then why is it equipped with a gun? For strafing? Pleeeease!
So, what is in fact the Raptor? It is called an air supremacy fighter. Against a worthy opponent airforce? I doubt it. It might be the best fighter in a one on one combat with any opponent but that's a really narrow point of vue when talking about the best fighter.
Let's imagine a scenario that opposes Russia and the US, just so we see if there could be problems with gaining air supremacy by using the Raptor.
First is the AWACS. USAAF and USN are relying both on AWACS information to stage their operation. It's OK as long as you can keeep the flying saucers out of range of enemy air defenses. What is the effective range of an AWACS in this scenario. I'll say about 400 km because when it goes upstairs you might be sure that Russian jamming will be working. So let's say the AWACS is circling at ranges of around 200km from the front line. It can't get closer because there are some nasty SAM's Russia posseses. So the idea is to go in for a SEAD first to clear the path for other aircraft. That's how it worked in Iraq. Only that there's a problem. When they detect the AWACS, VVS scrambles a a few dozen Floggers and some Flankers to patrol the border, and keeps Fulcrums and Flankers on GAI readiness. Also a pair of Foxhounds carrying R-37's (or Flankers) escorted by a flight of Foxhound carrying R-33's are scramled. And the Mainstays. The R-37's aircraft are to go after the US AWACS plane. The other (four to eight planes I'll say) are providing escort. The R-37 has probably an effective range of 200 km (maybe more) and the AWACS plane is slow. Since Russians are not stupid i guess the terminal guidance must be heatseeker. So protection fighters are needed. Raptors? Where are the to be staged. Well out of the 200 km range of the R-37. Let's say at about 300 km from the AWACS. But that means relying only on stealth to get the enemy. That's a big problem with Foxhounds because they fly higher and have deadly look down shoot down capabilities. And they're damn fast. Supercruise is not a feature only raptor has. Being higher means that the Raptors must close to them before firing their AMRAAMS. Which might put them in the firning envelope of the patrolling aircraft and for sure in that of the escort. They might shoot first but if they are detected before aquiring their targets they are in trouble because the Mig s will fire their R-33s on the raptors and then close in on them, with Flankers and Floggers probably coming in to join the party.  And that's how the raid is copromised. The AWACS will turns its lights off or get away. The escorting Raptors will get their hands full with the Foxhounds. The raiders will have to get through with no or little AWACS support and with enemy defenses ready and willing. So much for air supremacy.
What is the Raptor? A superb technological achievement. A waste of money. Against less lethal opponents, my guess is that the military won't even dare to use the Raptors because they are soooo damn expensive. So it will be back to the Eagles, Falcons, maybe Nighthawks to do the job.
The newcoming F-35 is a worse money waste than the F-22.
I guess I'll have to wait for the sixth generation of fighters to show up.
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:21
Originally posted by Cezar

So, what is in fact the Raptor? It is called an air supremacy fighter. Against a worthy opponent airforce? I doubt it. It might be the best fighter in a one on one combat with any opponent but that's a really narrow point of vue when talking about the best fighter.
Let's imagine a scenario that opposes Russia and the US, just so we see if there could be problems with gaining air supremacy by using the Raptor...


Wow. Confused

In real world exercises:  4 F-15's vs 1 F-22 => 4 dead Eagles.

F-22 pilots say they done even better than that.  F-15 pilots say it's really scary to go up against a Raptor, even when you outnumber him.  These are actual pilots talking, not USAF public relations morons.

BTW, can you show any evidence that a Su-30 M can beat an F-15?!?




Edited by TranHungDao - 17-Feb-2009 at 11:23
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:26
Originally posted by Cezar

First is the AWACS. USAAF and USN are relying both on AWACS information to stage their operation. It's OK as long as you can keeep the flying saucers out of range of enemy air defenses. What is the effective range of an AWACS in this scenario. I'll say about 400 km because when it goes upstairs you might be sure that Russian jamming will be working...


Actually, like the now retired Sea Harriers, F-22's themselves can function as AWACS.

Originally posted by Cezar

What is the effective range of an AWACS in this scenario. I'll say about 400 km because when it goes upstairs you might be sure that Russian jamming will be working. So let's say the AWACS is circling at ranges of around 200km from the front line. 
 It can't get closer because there are some nasty SAM's Russia posseses. So the idea is to go in for a SEAD first to clear the path for other aircraft.

But the F-22's can get as close as they want.

Look, you're argument might make sense if you include anti-stealth passive radar.  But then again, no one really knows how good the Russian passive radar is.  Also, what are the jamming capabilities of the Raptor, w.r.t. incoming missiles?  That stuff is classified. Tongue

Originally posted by Cezar


That's how it worked in Iraq.

Actually, in Iraq, hundreds of cruise missiles were sent in first.


Originally posted by Cezar


That's how it worked in Iraq. Only that there's a problem. When they detect the AWACS, VVS scrambles a a few dozen Floggers and some Flankers to patrol the border, and keeps Fulcrums and Flankers on GAI readiness. Also a pair of Foxhounds carrying R-37's (or Flankers) escorted by a flight of Foxhound carrying R-33's are scramled. And the Mainstays. The R-37's aircraft are to go after the US AWACS plane. The other (four to eight planes I'll say) are providing escort. The R-37 has probably an effective range of 200 km (maybe more) and the AWACS plane is slow.

These would be met by a dozen F-22's or F-35's, as well as F-15's escorts.

Just so you know, even in Vietnam, the US sent in wave after wave of "wolf packs" and so on, each consisting of even dozens of fighters so that as one group was leaving, the next group would watch their tails.

And since when does the USAF or USN, or anyone else for that matter, leave it's AWACS unguarded during actual combat? Confused

Originally posted by Cezar


Since Russians are not stupid i guess the terminal guidance must be heatseeker.

That's right, which is why they are scrambling to build Raptorskis and B2-skis.

Wow, they're already working on a pilotless Raptorski:  Clap

Russia Unveils Pilotless Stealth Aircraft

By VOA News
23 August 2007

Russia has unveiled a mock-up of a pilotless bomber jet that Russian engineers say will evade enemy radars even better than U.S. Stealth bombers and fighters.

Russian television Thursday showed a full-size model of the bat-like jet at an ongoing international air show outside Moscow. The report said the so-called "Skat" aircraft is equipped to carry cruise missiles and can hit targets both at land and at sea.

President Vladimir Putin in June vowed to build up Russia's military capabilities, in response to U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense system in central Europe.

Since then, Moscow has resumed the Soviet-era practice of sending long-range bomber flights on regular patrols across the globe. Mr. Putin has also unveiled a new air defense system near Moscow, and ordered the production of an intercontinental ballistic missile for a new generation of nuclear submarines.


LINK



RUSSIAN STEALTH BOMBER FOR SERVICE BY 2010, HEADLINES


TEXT:The Russian Air Force has begun work on a new strategic bomber toreplace the Tu-95MS `Bear' and trouble-prone Tu-160 `Blackjack'.Despite Russia's financial and technical problems in developing newtechnology, the programme shows the military is still pursuingambitious projects.The new aircraft, from bomber bureau Tupolev, could begin enteringservice by 2010, some analysts believe.According to Russian sources, the new aircraft will be simpler,cheaper and easier to operate than the supersonic Tu-160, which isknown for its poor maintenance record.Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia was forced toabandon many of its operational `Blackjacks' in the Ukraine, leavingit with just a handful of serviceable aircraft. Russia has sinceagreed to buy back all 19 Ukrainian `Blackjacks' and 23 `Bears'.The new bomber, like the US Air Force's Northrop Grumman B-2, isexpected to be both subsonic and stealthy - although in the lattercase, not to the same degree

LINK




Edited by TranHungDao - 17-Feb-2009 at 11:51
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:52
Originally posted by TranHungDao

Originally posted by Al Jassas

By the way all stealth planes ARE detected by Radar however Radars typically assume them to either be static or small objects as I said.

Yes, so small that they are to be ignored...  Until it is too late. Dead
depends on the what defence system is used. A fully integrated air defence , that has connected AWACS, radars, fighters and other sensors - back up a hardened Comm and Control can prove a hard match for any air force - even the USA.

Think of it this way, our long range JORN radars (allegedly) can see stealth fighters far away because they use a wave length that the stealth design is not built to counter. Plus they are bouncing down from the atmosphere, not up. It cost us one maybe two billion Aussie dollars if i remember right. We are getting that whole wizzbang command and control set up over the next decade with JORN merely one part of it and everying linked and different sensors 'fused' for total awarness. If they get it to work (i'd expect it late / over budget) and if we 'plug in' some extras, linked fighters and worthwhile SAMs good luck with the stealth story.

what stealth is; a strong card but its not a ACE in itself. The raptors is more than stealth, its the total package that makes it so potent.

Originally posted by TranHungDao

Originally posted by Leonidas

The speed of the fighter adds to the missile range, so in a real life BVR engagement a harrier would be smashed by a teen series fighter or a teen seriers killer SU. Thats the kinematics part you would need to consered that and the fact the fuel resrves on the harrier is limited so the pilots has less time and options in battle, something that a well trained pilot can exploit. So all things being equal including comparable avionics the situation is not what you alluding to. Where harriers have a feild day, is against older aircraft of the same weight class.


With 4th gen air craft, the kinematic limits of each fighter has pretty much been reached, with the likes of the Su-30 M and it's variants at the top. 

However...

There's plenty of room for avionics improvement, both in terms of radar and defensive jamming measures.  Also, there's plenty of room for missile improvement.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, AVIONICS IS KING.  PERIOD.

I'll admit, on paper and assuming the pilots are experts with their respective aircrafts, the Flankers are as good or even a tad bit better than 4th gen US fighters, but then there is still the issue of reliability.  Embarrassed
that what Ive been arguing all along, they are not great but good enough and top dogs forn that generation. The raptor is the USA answer to the flanker (not a modernised f-15) and a way to beat the whole logic of that generation. This was the attempt to gain a clear advantage instead of relying on subsytems tricks on beatable platforms, a thin edge. If the F15 could of grown into something with a clear edge over the flanker, they would of saved the money and gone down that path.

 The growth in those SU designs BTW is still large due to their sheer size. its sounds a little simple but it can  fit more stuff in, carry more missiles and with a bigger fuel payload / range. On the fuel capaciity it can simply dump the fuel harder for longer when it needs to. If flown correctly this power/kinemetic advantage can be well exploited. in other words you'd want to be in a comparable sized aircraft (f-15) with a little less ferrying to do before a match up starts -  or of course complete BVR superoirty. Size is an issue for avoinics, the Russian have leap frogged with access to 'off the shelf' western technology. They are not 100% there but close enough thanks to the free market. All things being equal if you can fit a comparable Russian radar with lets say 90% of the power (of a western one) in a nose that can fit a 15% bigger radar, the size more than makes up for that tech edge. Im not quoting hard numbers, but just illsutrating why fitting more stuff in - size-  helps.

reliability is another story and a logistic isssue, but don't use the Indian airfoce as a example, they are known to be poor in that department anyway.

Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:53
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the Flankers also function as AWACS?
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:55
Hello, Cezar, very interesting analysis Thumbs Up . What in your opinion is a good fighter (avionics, cost, aeronautic tech., weaponary etc.) out of current 4.5 generation? I read that Romania is considering Swedish Gripens.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 12:11
Originally posted by TranHungDao

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the Flankers also function as AWACS?
Yes, there is a spec version that they use to link up with other flankers. The F14 was also used by Iran in a AWACS type role.
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 12:14
Originally posted by Leonidas


depends on the what defence system is used. A fully integrated air defence , that has connected AWACS, radars, fighters and other sensors - back up a hardened Comm and Control can prove a hard match for any air force - even the USA.

Actually, I was referring to Su-30 M vs F-22 dog fights.

Originally posted by Leonidas


Think of it this way, our long range JORN radars (allegedly) can see stealth fighters far away because they use a wave length that the stealth design is not built to counter. Plus they are bouncing down from the atmosphere, not up.

Is this satellite based?  If so, it would be the first to go.  And the most cost effective way is to shine ground or naval based lasers at it.  The PRC, and no doubt Russia, is very actively working on/stealing this technology now.


Originally posted by Leonidas

that what Ive been arguing all along, they are not great but good enough and top dogs forn that generation. The raptor is the USA answer to the flanker (not a modernised f-15) and a way to beat the whole logic of that generation. 
This was the attempt to gain a clear advantage instead of relying on subsytems tricks on beatable platforms, a thin edge. If the F15 could of grown into something with a clear edge over the flanker, they would of saved the money and gone down that path.

Disagree.  No evidence Su-30M is better than F-15.  They are equivalent, with the Flanker slightly better on paper.

If you want clear advantage, which is what the USAF/USN wants, then yes, F-22 is answer to Su-30 M.

EDIT:  My wording is sloppy here.  Let me rephrase.  I firmly believe a "clear advantage" can still be achieved by retro-fitting F-15's with modified 5th gen avionics.  But if you want an "insurmountable advantage" over the Flanker, then the Raptor is the only answer.

Originally posted by Leonidas


 The growth in those SU designs BTW is still large due to their sheer size. its sounds a little simple but it can  fit more stuff in, carry more missiles and with a bigger fuel payload / range.

Actually, I'm very much aware of this line of argument, and it is quite valid.

Moore's law (processor speed, etc, increases at exponential rates) and so on, means avionics does get increasingly smaller, somewhat or maybe even significantly off-setting the lack of geometry in 4th Gen US fighters.

Further, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Typhoon is supposed to be a Flanker killer too, like a 4.5:1 kill ratio advantage on paper.  Typhoon is 4th Gen, and roughly same size as USAF/USN 4th gen fighter, is it not?

BTW, RAF and IAF held joint exercises pitting Typhoon vs Su-30 MKI, but no one is talking.

I don't see why Typhoon or even some of 5th gen Raptor avionics can't be modified to fit into F-15, F-16, and F-18.


Edited by TranHungDao - 18-Feb-2009 at 07:36
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 12:34
People need to keep in mind the modus operandii of the US:

First:  Blind opponent, i.e. kill satellites and communication lines by missiles, or whatever tricks they have yet to reveal (lasers, etc.).
Second:  Destroy air fields, by cruise missiles.
Third:  Then F-22, F-35, B-2 are sent in.

Cezar's hypothetical scenario not only ignores this basic logic, but is also totally unrealistic making hopelessly optimistic assumptions on US carelessness.  The US  was already countering Cezar's antiquated scenario back in Vietnam, for God's sake.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 13:04
Norway recently dismissed the Gripen in favour of replacing its aging F-16s with the F-35.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 13:07
Originally posted by TranHungDao


In real world exercises:  4 F-15's vs 1 F-22 => 4 dead Eagles.
If you think "real world exercises" mean "real battlefield conditions" maybe it's time to remind you that in the past "exercises" have shown that:
- bombers don't need fighter escort because they are too fast to catch
- bombers don't need fighter escort because they can defend itselves
- bombers can attack with impunity at night.
- fighters should attack bombers using a long approach from the tail and firing long bursts
- dogfight time is gone; fighters are too fast
- no need for guns or cannons, missiles will take down the enemy before it can come to engage at close range.
- F-117 is invisible; no radar can detect it
 
What real fighting shown was that:
- fighters are even faster, they can and will catch the bombers and blow them out of the sky.
- bombers without escort got punded like hell because the fighters were not so easy to shoot;
- night fighers were not a joke; they found and blast the bombers
- tailing a bomber according to "execise" was probably the last thing many pilots did; the instructors were probably unaware of the fact that bombers did had defensive weapons and refused to fly straight to be shot down like turkeys
- fortunately in WWII the British pilots were smart enough to "exercise" ont their own acrobatic flying; the pilots who flew the Migs in Korea and in Vietnam never knew that there should be no dogfights; the US flyers got shot down by ignorance;
- same as above except that since they had cannons, the Mig divers were never told that those weapons were obsolete;
- F-117 is visible with low frequency radars; so is the Raptor; not to mention the new emerging passive detection systems.
 
No matter how ample a training program is it won't match the "real thing".
F-22 pilots say they done even better than that.  F-15 pilots say it's really scary to go up against a Raptor, even when you outnumber him.  These are actual pilots talking, not USAF public relations morons.
How many "kills" were achieved using the Sidewinders or the cannon?
I do admit that in terms of direct engagement the Raptor has no equal but what my previous post was about was the actual value of this aircraft in a large scale conventional engagement facing a competently equipped enemy.
[/quote]
BTW, can you show any evidence that a Su-30 M can beat an F-15?!?
[/QUOTE]
The Su 30 M is a multi-role aircraft so is the F-15 (I'll take the K, not the E or the C) . If such an engagement will occur, the most important thing is the mission profile of each aircraft. If the US goes at war with India or China, maybe we will have some statistics on how it goes.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 13:57
Originally posted by TranHungDao

Actually, like the now retired Sea Harriers, F-22's themselves can function as AWACS.
Sure, and perform all the duties of a dedicated AWACS platform. Is a clone of Einstein supposed to man the AWACS Raptor?

But the F-22's can get as close as they want.
No, they are supposed to. They were never tested against the Zaslons.

Look, you're argument might make sense if you include anti-stealth passive radar.  But then again, no one really knows how good the Russian passive radar is.  Also, what are the jamming capabilities of the Raptor, w.r.t. incoming missiles?  That stuff is classified. Tongue
No, I didn't even mention the possibility of the passive radar. The fact is that if Foxhounds are inbound they are going to come higher than raptors. Which means that raptors must close and fire, thus revealing themselves, well within the range of the weaponry on board the escort. A mix of R-40T and R-33 missiles should mean real trouble then. And a Mig 31 can carry at least twice the payload of a Raptor. Ripple fire is a tactic the Russians are supposed to apply. The US Airforce was never confronted in real battle conditions with this tactic. The fact that the raptors have state of the art counterjamming doesn't mean that it can trick all the missiles. The fact is that simultaneously they must jam radar, possibly SARH, and IR guided missiles, homing on their position.

Actually, in Iraq, hundreds of cruise missiles were sent in first.
Yeah, right. And Russia defenses against cruise missiles are comparable with Iraq's. Still, do some reading. The missiles come after the SEAD not before.
These would be met by a dozen F-22's or F-35's, as well as F-15's escorts.
Not likely since most US aircraft need higher logistic strain than the Russian counterparts. The most likely scenarion is that not enough US aircraft will be available because they cannot afford to. I've drawn a scenario where the US is attacking, the main operation being SEAD. Which means that some Raptors or Nighthawks are playing trench run with data feed from the AWACS. With the AWACS gone, shot down or out of work, they won't be able to accomplish their goal. Any CAP or fighter sweep of other aircraft (F-16, F-15, etc.) should be out of the range of the S-300. Also these older aircraft have the same handicap as the Raptor: the missiles they carry have a shorter range than the Russian ones. A Flogger can fire a doble R-27 at an Eagle and then turn tail and go under the cover of the SAM. I'll say the Mainstay will be shot down by a Raptor flying waaaay beyond enemy lines. But that will put that one in a very nasty situation.

Just so you know, even in Vietnam, the US sent in wave after wave of "wolf packs" and so on, each consisting of even dozens of fighters so that as one group was leaving, the next group would watch their tails.
The full complement of Intruders aboard a carrier is maybe a little cheaper than a single Raptor. And costs probably less to maintain too. Do you have any idea how tough is to maintain the integrity of the stealth coating of the F-22?
Dozens of Falcons, Eagles or Hornets could be sent but never Raptors or Lightnings. But with those older aircraft there still is the problem of SAMs being knocked out.

And since when does the USAF or USN, or anyone else for that matter, leave it's AWACS unguarded during actual combat? Confused
I provided it a pair of Raptors. I am aware that guarding the AWACS is a good idea. The problem is to have available and capable of doing it aircraft. Especially if Foxhounds are expected to be inbound.

Originally posted by Cezar


Since Russians are not stupid i guess the terminal guidance must be heatseeker.

That's right, which is why they are scrambling to build Raptorskis and B2-skis.
I don't know what this has to do with my statement. The fact is that Russia is constantly speaking of their own stealth aircraft while none was known to reach the stage of prototype. In the meantime they are enhancing detection technology and missiles. And building better and better fourth generation (btw did you knew it was them who first classed the airplanes in generations?) aircraft and selling them to other countryes. I can't remember exactly where, but there was a forum where an Australian was pissed of because the hardware available for their defense was junk, since they cannot be politically correct to buy Sukhois from the Russians.


Edited by Cezar - 17-Feb-2009 at 14:00
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.