Originally posted by Cezar 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.

None of this changes the fact that one Raptor can kill at least 4 F-15's.

Apparently you don't get it:  They've tested the Raptor vs F-15, 1:4, 2:8, 3:12, etc.

Raptor dominated every time.

Hint:  Why are the Russian, Chinese, and Indians scrambling to build their own Raptorskis?!?

Why don't they just take your advice and skip to the sixth gen fighter?

Originally posted by Cezar - F-117 is invisible; no radar can detect it

The X-factor here is passive radar, which you didn't even bother to mention in your original flights of fancy scenario.  If anti-stealth passive radar works, then it effectively turns the Raptor into a 4.5 gen fighter, i.e. it is not stealthy at all.  In which case, it is impossible to invade any country with a good ground-based anti-air defense based upon passive radar.

But again, no one knows how far passive radar is along now.

Originally posted by Cezar 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?

Wow.

Listen, try using common sense in stead of grasping at straws.  AWACS capable F-22, Sea Harriers, and Su-30 M's, are not intended to perform the full duties of a regular AWAC.  Sometimes a small gun will do the job, sometimes you need a machine gun.  Each serves its own purpose and used right, they do work, they are necessary.

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

Can you try to base your arguments on sources?  Is it even likely that Zaslons can detect F-22's?  Source please.

Originally posted by Cezar 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.

And how exactly are the Foxhounds supposed to see the Raptors?  You're assuming way too much here:

1.  AWACS are unguarded.
2.  Raptors are helpless against Foxhounds.
3.  Zaslons can see Raptors.
4.  When Raptors are seen they won't do anything, but just sit there and let Foxhounds violate them like the effeminate pansies that they are.
5.  Russian fighters will outnumber US fighters like dozens to one.

I keep trying to tell you, in Vietnam, numerous operations included wave after wave involving dozens upon dozens of fighters.  Why do you keep assuming the Russian fighters are going to vastly outnumber the American fighters?!?

Originally posted by TranHungDao None of this changes the fact that one Raptor can kill at least 4 F-15's. Apparently you don't get it:  They've tested the Raptor vs F-15, 1:4, 2:8, 3:12, etc. Raptor dominated every time.

Tested is not the same as live battle. Please get out of the virtual world. So where the gunlesss Phantoms, the speedy Blenheims (or Pe-2's if you like), the indestructible B-17'eens. So what?

Hint:  Why are the Russian, Chinese, and Indians scrambling to build their own Raptorskis?!?

The fact that you call them Raptorskis only shows that you are so confident that only the US has the technological edge. The Russians have shown designs of stealth aircraft before 1995. None of them has reached even the prototype stage. Maybe waht they declare is not what they do. I see that they keep building Flankers.

Why don't they just take your advice and skip to the sixth gen fighter?

Edited by Cezar - 17-Feb-2009 at 14:59

anyone know about the Mig 44 as far as when it is coming out or if it is being used?

Originally posted by TranHungDao Originally posted by Cezar The last time I checked USA lost the war with Vietnam. Last time I checked, USA won the air war in Vietnam with a 2:1 kill ratio advantage. Last time I checked, USA won the conventional war in Vietnam.  2-4 Million:58,000 kill ratio, depending on the estimate. Do you even know the difference between conventional war and an insurgency?  Do you know that the Iraqis can still beat the US in Iraq if they wanted to, without ever shooting down a single fighter aircraft?  Do you know that the Afghans can still beat the US in Afghanistan without ever shooting down a single fighter aircraft? You're arguments are so totally random.  You don't even know about the air war in Vietnam to even talk about fifth gen fighters. Sorry, but I'm pretty much done here.  And trust me, it's not b'coz you're winning, it's because you don't know what you're talking about and you don't cite anyone.

Originally posted by Cryptic You must be reading the neo con revisionist history.  Japanese pilots either out performed or performed equally to US pilots in a battles in 1942.  This includes Coral Sea, Midway and Guadacanal Battles. By 1943, they were hsowing defcinecies and 1944 was the era of the "Turkey Shoot".

Source please.

Out performed?  Once the US entered the war, the Japanese got their butts kicked up and down Asia and across the Pacific.  Yeah, Japanese pilots were so good that the high command resorted to Kamikaze attacks.  Something doesn't add up.

Also, the Flying Tiger unit in China also had like a 40:1 kill ratio, IIRC.

Originally posted by TranHungDao Out performed?  Once the US entered the war, the Japanese got their butts kicked up and down Asia and across the Pacific.

Edited by Cryptic - 17-Feb-2009 at 16:28

Originally posted by Cryptic Care to guess how many Japan built?

Care to notice that US population was about 150 million and Japan's was 50 million during WWII, IIRC?

Note also that the US is blessed with natural resources?  Japan is only the size of California?

You need to put the respective productivities in their proper context, i.e. that of population size, geography, etc., of each country.  LOL.

Dude, we're getting way off topic.  And you're getting as random as Cezar, jumping from one thing to another.  I'm guilty of this too, but at least I always bring it back to the topic at hand:

1.  Let's just talk kill ratios.
2.  The thread is about best jet fighters, not Japanese productivity.

Simulation Comparisons In an effort to quantify the F-22's capabilities, the Air Staff conducted a computer study in 1997 using the Cray-based Extended Air Defense Simulator (EADSIM).  This study compared results from two strike missions against a selected target in a notional country with advanced IADS in the 2010 time frame.  The first mission Enhanced Conventional Fighters (ECF), which were armed with Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW).  The ECF is a notional fighter very similar to the F-15 "X" discussed above and to the Navy's newest fighter, the F/A-18E Superhornet.  The second mission employed the F-22 armed with JDAM.  Both missions assumed it was day one of the war with enemy air defense forces at full strength.  Each mission was force sized to ensure 100% success. The first mission required 66 ECF aircraft, 4 EA-6B Prowlers for SEAD support and 72 Tomahawk Land-Air Missiles.  When counting support aircraft, such as tankers, the total value of all the assets at risk was $4.8 Billion.  Thirty ECF's were lost during the mission to enemy's IADS. By comparison, the F-22 mission required only 20 F-22's and 16 Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missiles.  Again including support aircraft, the total value of all assets at risk for the mission was $1.4 Billion.  When counting battle damage, only 1.7 F-22's were lost during the mission.

Source:  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-111.pdf

Now, whether these figures are still valid or not, I do not know.  But this still shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone who thinks that the USAF/USN only sends in a few fighters at a time, needs to stop smoking crack.

They go into win, they are not going in to be outnumbered and shot down by Mig-31 Foxhounds.  They are going to go after the other country's air force, air fields, command and control, communication lines, etc., with their cruise missiles, before they even penetrate the border.  This is a no-brainer.

Seriously, anyone who says otherwise needs to stop smoking crack.

Of course, if their enemies have effective passive radar, SAM's and Anti-Aircraft, then revert to the ECF mission, because stealth has been lost, whether or not you are using stealth aircraft.  Effective anti-stealth radar turns the Raptor, a 5th gen fighter, into a 4th gen fighter.

EDIT:  Understand that in 1991, the F-117 allowed the US to avoid a loss of 30 ECF's (F-15's) in stealthless missions that would have otherwise required 66 ECF's .  Roughly speaking...

EDIT 2:  The dollar figures above for the F-22 mission are no longer valid, both due to cost overruns and Congressional reductions in the order of F-22's for the USAF.  The Raptor is now 3 times more expensive than originally promised, thus multiply the $1.4 Billion figure by 3.

EDIT 3:  Whether this study or even the various analyses cited by this study is rigged to some extent to help sell the F-22 to the American public is ultimately knowable only if you have access to classified classified data.  However, the underlying concept of force ratio is here as is of course supposed be.  When someone talks in total ignorance of force ratio, a red flag should immediately go up, i.e. they're talking out of their rear ends.  It is basic military doctrine to aways go into battle with a force ratio advantage.  Both missions have a force ratio advantage on the side of the US, even though the ECF mission uses 66 fighters and 72 cruise missiles and the F-22 mission uses 20 aircraft and 16 cruise missiles.  In fact, the force ratio advantage is basically the same, despite the dramatically different number of respective fighters and cruise missiles involved.  Why?  Simply b'coz techonology is a force multiplier, which is why the F-22 mission requires much fewer resources.  (Other forms of force multipliers include such mundane things as terrain advantages or even training and esprit de corps of soldiers, e.g. a mission that requires 20 regular soldiers my only require 10 Marines if you use Marines instead, or only 5 Navy Seals if you decide to use Navy Seals instead.  The Navy Seals claim to have a 200:1 kill ratio in Vietnam.)

No doubt, the number of ECF's and F-22's used in the computer simulation are actually conservative in comparison to real world combat calculations by the US military.  In actually combat missions, the number of aircraft and missiles should be upped by at least 10%, and more likely to 30%.  This is the m.o. of the Pentagon brass--call it the relatively recent coined phrase The Powell Doctrine or what you will, but the US never fights fair.  Here's a very telling analogy:  During the 1991 invasion of Iraq, the US did not follow basic military doctrine saying that once a fighting unit loses 1/3 of it's men/tanks/etc., it ceases to be an effective fighting unit.  Instead they let their air power degrade Iraqi units down by a staggering 50% before they'd even engage on the ground.  (BTW, the Mongols used to do this strategy 800 years ago, where their "air power" was their arrows and their tanks were the heavy calvary.  This is why they were so successful.  They would decimate the other guy's calvary with unrelenting salvos of arrows from their mounted archers, before their calvary would engage.  Once the enemy's calvary was defeated, they'd finish off the enemy's infantry.  The key element of force ratio, indeed force multiplier as well, here is the Mongol mounted archer.  This, along with feigned retreats/trap setting, was the foundation of their success, their earth-shaking rampage from the Pacific to Europe's door step.)

The point is, a lot of this stuff can be figured out by common sense, without benefit of any military training whatsoever.  And those who speak oblivious to such basic, basic concepts as force ratio...  Well, they should be immediately pegged as w**kers, George W. Bushes, or what you will. 

The other conservative assumption of the computer simulation is that enemy pilots are fully proficient in knowing how to fly their fighters, e.g. enemy pilots can fully exploit their fighters' strength, the enemy fighters' weaknesses, all the while avoiding exposing their own aircraft's weaknesses.  In the real world combat, people who fly Russian made aircraft come from countries that don't give them anywhere near the amount of training they need to become bona fied "top guns".

Thus, in real world aerial combat, the US would have a force ratio advantage that is two distinct ways much stronger than was assumed in the similation.  They would employ even more fighters against a weaker than conservatively assumed opponent.



Edited by TranHungDao - 18-Feb-2009 at 07:30

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.