The best fighter aircraft
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17912
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 01:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The best fighter aircraft
Posted By: Suren
Subject: The best fighter aircraft
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 01:52
|
Saab JAS 39 "Gripen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen
Eurofighter Typhoon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
F-22 Raptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
Dassault Rafale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale
Chengdu J-10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10
MiG 1.44/1.42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_1.44 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_1.44
Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47
F-35 Lightning II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
------------- Anfører |
Replies:
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 02:42
|
There are new productions coming out. I personally am into the stealth planes... like the fighters shown in the movie, "Stealth". The AI fighter is so cool! ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 04:58
|
I think the Su-47 is possibly the most maneuverable aircraft on the planet right now, as well as on of the most breathtakingly beautiful. Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP2p72ANEZA The canard wings give it a sort of bird of prey look. Especially when it curves up as it "hovers" almost like an eagle about to land after a flight. Its amazing how slow it can go just by tilting and if you notice when it first took off in less than 3 seconds it had already made a 90 degree tilt flying straight up to the sun! |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 21:07
|
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 22:14
|
True, a Raptor can use its stealth to own a Eurofighter but if the Eurofighter was operating in the coverage area of a stealth-detecting radar & knew the position of the Raptor things would be different.
|
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 23:51
|
The raptor has alot more advantages then stealth on the eurofighter. The russian aircraft look like the closest rivals but until they are fielded they really cant be considered, though they look pretty in airshows. Remember alot of these aircraft are around 5 years out of serious production and still in testing phase. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 01:09
Eurofighter 2000
General characteristics
Performance
F-22 Raptor
General characteristics
Performance
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 02:44
|
F-22 Raptor all the way! It is coming in to service soon, and will take down everything it takes on!
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 20:32
I dont think they'll have the money to make the Raptorski either. The funding needed is definitely not there. Perhaps Russias recent political tough stance has side issues to open up the flood gates to sell their hardware to anyone that can buy it. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 20:42
|
I dont think they have the money either, but joint development with either the indians (like the brahmos) or maybe the chinese might be a option. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2007 at 10:43
|
I would go for the Eurofighter (with full weapons capability). May not match the Raptor in air combat, but beats it for all round air-to-ground capabilities, and a little cheaper. The Gripen is good for air-forces on a tight budget. |
Posted By: Reaper
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 14:55
I do believe they already are: "As of late 2004, 51 Raptors were in service, with 22 more ordered under fiscal year 2004 funding" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 15:21
I have to say that F-22 is the best looking and it has the capability to fight nearly all aircrafts today. Though I have to say that the Su-47 is like the future generation of aircrafts with its forward swap wings that makes it more maneuverable than most aircrafts. So I have say that the F-22 and the Su-27 is the best 
|
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 12:39
|
f-22 and Typhoon are good.Which one is the best,i don't know now and can't know to look at their features on paper,only.Rafale is not good as much as typhoon? ------------- War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it. Desiderius Erasmus |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 18:49
No it doesn't the F-22 is far and away more survivable on account that its both stealth and in possession of a far stronger air frame.
|
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 01:17
|
Sukhoi 47 - It has internal weapons place - It should be a stealth
BTW, Azerbaijan has recently bought 18 upgraded MIg 29th from Ukraine. ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 01:19
The SU-47 has a lot of potential if all goes to plan in the testing period. The Russians have just further funded the development process of the SU-47. Once complete, it should definitely be a excellent aircraft, stealth an added bonus. 
------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 11:57
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 12:01
Well i dont know why but Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut sounds good to me
------------- |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 15:48
|
Well, Internal weapon is one of the reasons that US guys are worried its being stealth. Remember that US way is not the only way of hiding yourself from Radar. If u know S 400 - then u should know that US paint won't help to change the destiny ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 19:37
|
As far as we know, it is. It's not one technology either that makes it stealth, it's multiple technologies, which I said above. The paint is a important factor though. And having internal weapons isn't going to make the US worry, just looking at the Su-47 you can see it's not exactly stealth looking even if it does have this feature.
It might have reduced radar signiture, but I have my doubts it's fully stealth as there is no reason to believe it is. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 21:28
|
It's mostly the shaping of the aircraft that makes it stealthy, you need to avoid flat surfaces that reflect radar energy back to the reciever. Paint was more important on the first generation stealth aircraft but the modern ones like the F-22 rely on shaping for most of their stealth.
Aircraft rarely work alone and the combination of the F-22 with AWACS will be very effective for air superiority. With datalink the F-22 can recieve target information without using its' own radar. The first indication an opponent will often have it's being engaged is inbound missiles. ------------- |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 00:42
|
Although there is no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable - reliable information about the PAK-FA's specifications yet, it is known from interviews with people in the Russian Air Force that it will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealthy - stealthy , have the ability to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise - supercruise , be outfitted with the next generation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air - air-to-air , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-surface_missile - air-to-surface , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile - air-to-ship missiles , and incorporate an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AESA - AESA radar. It will be powered by the AL-41F engine or an advanced derivative of it. Reports indicate that it will be slightly larger than the MiG-29 but not as large as the Su-27. There is no certainty for now what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States - United States aircraft will be the competitor for the PAK-FA. While some believe it will be the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35 - F-35 , the information so far seems to indicate it will be the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor - F-22 . Without further official information, it is not viable to reach a final conclusion in this matter. Therefore, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analyst - analysts will be waiting until the specifications of the aircraft come out; these will most likely be defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007 - 2007 . Analysts are predicting a maximum speed close to Mach 2.83 (3,255 km/h); they will see how this will come up. - ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 00:43
|
Although there is no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable - reliable information about the PAK-FA's specifications yet, it is known from interviews with people in the Russian Air Force that it will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealthy - stealthy , have the ability to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise - supercruise , be outfitted with the next generation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air - air-to-air , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-surface_missile - air-to-surface , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile - air-to-ship missiles , and incorporate an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AESA - AESA radar. It will be powered by the AL-41F engine or an advanced derivative of it. Reports indicate that it will be slightly larger than the MiG-29 but not as large as the Su-27. There is no certainty for now what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States - United States aircraft will be the competitor for the PAK-FA. While some believe it will be the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35 - F-35 , the information so far seems to indicate it will be the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor - F-22 . Without further official information, it is not viable to reach a final conclusion in this matter. Therefore, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analyst - analysts will be waiting until the specifications of the aircraft come out; these will most likely be defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007 - 2007 . Analysts are predicting a maximum speed close to Mach 2.83 (3,255 km/h); they will see how this will come up. -from wikipedia.Again, This is not gunna be the same stealth type - They are using some magnit system that makes it plazma - stealth. ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 01:13
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 01:45
|
sure, I am not sure that It is stealth and I do not care, just was interesting becouse of the internal weapons bay ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 15:14
It is the shaping that gives most of the stealth. Lockheed was able to prove the ability of shaping with early mock-ups made from wood placed on radar testing ranges. The radar absorbing paint and putty become important with actual flying models because of things like engines and landing gear and access panels which needed to be shielded.
With modern design and construction it's possible to do away with the radar absorbing putty and most of the paint. RAM materials are still used in important areas.
------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 02:08
|
Theres no telling if the PAK FA will be forward swept yet. SU-47 was always just a test bed and the PAK FA has yet to be seen. The aircraft cant be considered at the top "yet" until they actually design the aircraft. http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/19-03-2007/88404-sukhoi-0 - http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/19-03-2007/88404-sukhoi-0 How far they've gotten on plasma screens may effect its design as they wont have to sacrifice performance to give the aircraft the stealth look. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 04:52
|
I wonder that F-22 has a special paint for reducing radar signature but has not f-117 this paint?You know one f-117 hit down over Serbia.I meant that may not russians learn the secrets of the paint?May russians have this technology? ------------- War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it. Desiderius Erasmus |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 05:46
Russians already use radar absorbant paint on their aircraft. I've read in some places they were the ones who created or pioneered the formula and the U.S. "borrowed" it from them.  The F-117 shoot down is questionable luck and could of been poor flight planning by the air force. It was one incident amongst many sorties flown. No aircraft is totally invisible to radar anyways. At least not yet though the plasma era may change that. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 11:38
|
I heard plasma is kind of a far off technology. It was said that it take alot of energy to create plasma and they are still working on it being able to cover large surfaces. But from what I heard of it, it wasn't be created for stealth, but as a forcefield. Atleast thats what the US military was looking into it for. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Giordano
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 14:10
|
i know the F-117 shoot down story,i wrote it about paint tech,thank you for replying.what do you think about Rafale?Can you compare Rafale and Typhoon? ------------- War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it. Desiderius Erasmus |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 15:34
I've always liked the Rafale since I first saw it fly in the mid 90's in a Korean arms show. Unfortunately its fallen a bit behind other aircraft because the French have been muscled out of the export industry by other countries. I'm not totally sure but I think it has yet to be sold outside of France. This has meant that the French government has had to fully fund its upgrades and newer versions(not sure if the F3 is out yet) and France doesn't really have the money to spend. It's mid range to high cost hasn't helped it's sales against Russian aircraft or the F-16's that have been sold. Dont know much about the Eurofighter. Its had a bit of a roller coaster ride out of the gates and the test fleet is still being used to fix and better the aircraft. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 19:12
There's nothing secret about the paint, it contains many spherical ferrous(iron) particles that absorb radar energy and convert it to heat.
Stealth comes from the shaping of the aircraft itself. The original discovery of the effect of shaping was made by a Russian named Pyotr Ufimtsev which he published in a paper called "Method of edge waves in the physical theory of diffraction". No one in the Soviet Union was aware of it's significance and it wasn't unitl it had been translated into english, that a radar specialist from Lockheeds Skunk Works realized it could be used to create incredible low radar cross sections.
He took the equations from the paper and created a computer program that was used in designing the first stealth fighter, which had an RCS of about three orders of magnitude better than other aircraft of similar size. That's 1000 times lower, the F-117 has the RCS of a golfball. ------------- |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 10:02
I've also heard the Russians knew that the F-117's were taking off from Aviano air base in Italy and had spies monitoring their take-off's. And thru keen guestimates, and no doubt dumb luck, they (Serbs, Russians, both?) managed to shoot it down.
The Typhoon can shoot down 4.5 Rafale's before being taken down by one, according to a DERA study, or rather a wikipedia author claiming to cite DERA.
Below is the cost of most of the fighters currently in use. But keep in mind that some figures are for 1998, which is almost 10 years ago! Also, how reliable are these figures?
If one F-22 can take out 10 Russian Su-30's, then it, a $120 million fighter, has cost the Russians about $380+ million dollars. So it would pay for itself several times over. (Note: The DERA study actually says that the F-22 can take out 10 Su-35's, which are supposed to be significantly better than the Su-30; and no doubt more expensive! The Mig-35 is supposed to be $70 million, according to who wrote this wiki page.) Some say the real cost of an F-22 is more like $200 million per plane! |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 10:33
|
1. Don't forget the US has very sophisticated tactics too, which the DERA
study probably didn't take into account, or for that matter, friendly
aeriel combat wargames where Indian Su-30's were able to best American
fighter pilots flying F-16's or F-18's if memory serves me. In
actual combat, the American pilots would be supported by aeriel command
and control. Even American air craft carriers are equipped with
such sophisticated support planes, whose powerful radar can alert
American pilots to enemy fighters before those enemy fighters can see
the Americans. 2. The Raptor also has IR (infrared) stealth. 3. Personally, I think the Typhoon is hideous looking, despite its very impressive capabilities. I definitely prefer the Raptor. The Su-27 thru Su-37 are very pretty too. Raptors, with their boxy lines, remind me of the newer Audi inspired Lamborghini Murcielago's, while the new Su's, with their sharp lines, remind me of the Ferrari 430. The forward swept wing Su-47 is okay looking, and reminds me of Mazda RX-8 with its funky rear doors that open forward, not unlike the Berkut's wings.  4. They say the Su-37 is perhaps the only plane that can keep up with the Raptor. However, it is neither radar nor IR stealthy. The Raptor is "governor limited" if you will, i.e. the plane's computers limit its truly awesome manueverability simply because the pilot would pass out if he tried to max out the plane's acrobatic capabilities, G-suit or no G-suit. Because of this, they say the next generation fighter made by the US may actually be unmanned. The people flying them will be fat overweight computer geeks living in their mom's basements. What's the point of making better and better planes for pilots who couldn't possibly handle the overwhelmingly superhuman G-forces?!? Unmanned and well armed Predators flying in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown in the US, no doubt by fat computer geeks.  |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2007 at 10:35
|
The Su-35 (and Su-37) have rare flying capabilities, that aparently are not taken into serious account (you said it: AMRAAM).
Actual combat is very hard to predict. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Serge L
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 11:26
|
One Raptor is likely to beat a Typhoon. 2 Typhoons are likely to beat one Raptor. You can have approximately 2 typhoons for the money you need to buy a Raptor. Typhoons are worse than Raptors in air to air combat, but seem to be better in air to ground fight. All this considered, If I were a defense minister, and I had some money to spend on fighter planes, I would buy Typhoons. |
Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 16:31
Where did you get that info?
The F-22 far out performs any aircraft in service today or projected to be in service. This performance gap is very large. In the recent Red Flag exercise, only 3 F-22 were killed by the OpFor units. Normally, a loss rate of 20 percent is considered good in such exercise. Even the F-15, when it first entered service had a loss rate of around that number. The F-22 broke that record by a very wide margin and this is against the best pilots in the world.
An Airforce study indicated that 95 percent of air to air kills since 1914 were the result of the victim never knowing that its attacker was ever there. The F-22 was built with this in mind.
First there is stealth, low observability, both in radar terms and IR. I'm not saying that the F-22 is completely invisible to both radar and IR, but the detection ranges are not tactically useful. You may be able to detect the F-22 on radar at ranges within less than a mile, at this range you should have seen it visually for the five miles.
Secondly, their the low probability intercept radar. Modern radar emit radar waves that are detectible to radar warning receiver. However, the F-22's radar uses random frequency hopping that the radar warning receiver cannot detect it. In other words, an enemy has no clue that it has been painted by the enemy radar. The only warning is when the terminal active radar of an AMRAAM is detected, and by then it is too late.
|
Posted By: Lotus
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 10:37
|
There is an article here contrasting the capabilities or the Eurofighter and Raptor Gen. John P. Jumper http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/03/mil-050322-afpn02.htm - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/03/mil-050322-afpn02.htm "The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. The manoeuvrability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive." "The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can manoeuvre with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is." So I guess once the planes have detected one another, the dog fighting ability of each plane is similar, I suppose however that the design of the Raptor ensures that it wont be the one detected first. The most important thing in my opinion is what the plane looks like and how it performs at air shows, I saw the Eurofighter at last years Farnborough air show, and it is a fantastic looking plane. I guess it will be a while before the |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 18:22
|
The Sukhoi SU-37 aka SU-47 no longer exists off the drawing board. The project is scrapped. Only two of these craft were built and one of
those two crashed and the other one was converted into an Su-35. Only one S-37/su-47
has ever been extensively tested and flown, it was not stealthy and could only do a max of mach 1.5 because
the forward swept wings, canards, are are great for manuverability but a "drag" on speed, pun intended. The SU-37 was nothing more than a proof of concept testing aircraft which amazed people at airshows. Now, in my own mind an idea just popped up. What if they construct a canard craft that has a hydraulic wing angling system that can change the wings from forward swept to back swept? Could such a design be able to combine mach 3.0 top speed with canard dogfighting ability? |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 00:18
|
A sound idea, maqsad. Have you seen the program "Future Weapons"? I think it is on the discovery channel and it deals with emerging cutting edge military technologies, as well as prototypes and concepts for the future. There have been many interesting ideas like a helicopter crossed with a plane, and things like that. Digital animations of heli-planes feature at the end credits in the background I believe, and your idea reminds me of them... ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 02:46
| Haven't watched TV in ages so no, I did not see that program. I wish I were well versed in 3-D animation though, I would love to just play around and create nonexistent prototypes of planes and just see how they look in an animation. |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 05:57
|
F22 is the best. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 09:31
In air to air combat, the F-22 can beat the Typhoon (which is what I said), but the Typhoon (or at least the Batch 3) is a true multi-role aircraft, whilst the F-22 is still an air-superiority fighter with only a limited ground attack capability compared to the Typhoon. The F-22 can carry a couple of JDAMS internally, but more than that, and with drop-tanks, it loses its stealthyness. Turn the F-22 into a bomb-truck and it loses stealth and performance. And the F-22 is not wired to as many ground attack stores as the Typhoon. So if a nation only wants an air to air fighter, then the F-22 is its choice (providing it has the money). But if it wants a true multi-role fighter, then it has to be the Typhoon. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 10:55
|
^ i agree with that. the best of anything has more to do with the needs of a country. The Eurofighter is an all-rounder 'swingrole' figher, and should be compared to others like the Rafaele, F-18E, F-15 derivs, Su-27/30 derivs. These are heavy/medium weights and may be to big or expensive for many countries If you have the money and, just as important, the US clears the sale, the f-22 /f-35 mix would be better. but this is a two plane 'hi-lo' mix. lighter fighters like the Gripen (which i like) should be compared to f-16's (also very good) , Mig-29's, Mirages and the J-10. |
Posted By: Jallaludin Akbar
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 03:48
The Sukhoi PAK-FA is a 5th generation fighter jet in developement that will replace Mig 29's and su-27's. It is designed to compete with Amnerican F-22's and F-35 Lightning II's. The first flight is projected to be in 2009 and it will be introduced into the Russian armed forces in 2012. These are just projections and such claim sare not definate yet. If someone can find more imformation about this please do  ------------- "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi 
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 14:23
Raptorski 
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 22:09
|
Any discussion of the best fighter should be broken down into sub categories: 1.) Best fighter available, cost no objection: F-22 Raptor 2.) Best fighter in performance / cost ratio: Advanced Sukhoi variants, especially those with Israeli avionics
3.) Most competitive fighter produced by a developing nation: Chinese / Pakistani JF-17. Indian LCA is too costly.
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 06:41
Sure, but one must then also include (legit & propaganda free) kill ratios, both actual and theoretical, if one is to do such a break down. Such a break down should always be framed by kill ratios, for kill ratios have a brutal way of keeping things in perspective. Edit: Understand that the democratic country who's military and defense contractors are pushing for a new generation of rather über costly fighters and weapons systems, but who's peace activists vehemently rail against as waisteful warmongering, will often themselves play the fear card, namely put forth bogus kill ratios in favor of their enemies' jet fighters. Fear is the best motivation, no? 
No disagreement here.
I dunno about Isreali avionics, but as for the Russian made stuff, their avionics is pretty shoddy, to even speak of Chinese or Indian.
Sea Harriers and F-15 Eagles aren't that expensive, and I believe both are undefeated in actual combat. The F-15 certainly is. I've also heard that he Sea Harriers, flown by RAF hotshots, have even defeated in aerial training runs the F-15, flown by USAF hotshots, in certain types of aerial manuevers. The advantage was simply due to the Harrier's Blue Vixen Radar. The Sukhoi's, and Russian fighers in general, are more aeronautically agile fighters, but their avionics will get them shot out of the sky, by both the Sea Harrier and the Eagle, faster than you can say in Russian: "WTF was that?!?"  During the Kosovo intervention, F-15's were shooting down Mig-29's like flies. Or if you prefer, like fish in a barrel.
 I'm Vietnamese, and I know the leadership in Hanoi knows fully well they only need get roughly equivalent (i.e. inexpensive, "bang for the buck") fighters to deter their only threat, namely the China's PLAAF, which is not very good, and possesses many but all of which are subpar fighters of Russian lineage. The Russian fighters which N. Vietnam used quite effectively against the US during the Vietnam war (1965-1973), had inferior avionics to their American counterparts--that's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhQIxA2VaCk - fo' sho' . However, the difference wasn't as great as it is now. US, Brit, Euro avionics is vastly superior nowadays to their Russian/Chinese/Indian counterparts. Eventually, China, Russia and India will catch up, but that's not any time soon. In fact, don't hold yer breath. I'd say like 50 years at least, since American technology grows by leaps and bounds. I'm sure you'd agree when it comes to discussing the development of technology, the learning curve, the law of diminishing returns, and of course Moore's law (computer processor speed doubles every two years) always applies, which is precisely why I prognosticated 50 years. The other obvious factors are national wealth and spending priorities. The stuff (6th, 7th, 8th, 9th... generation fighters) that's currently in development now at Lockheed Skunkworks without doubt makes the Raptor (aka F-22) look like a true dinosaur. Pun intended. Edit: The rumors, from former military personnel no less, surrounding the numerous black projects, blacker than black projects, etc., at Skunkworks are pretty fantastic. Keep in mind that the Americans have known about stealth aircraft since WWII really, that the SR-71 Blackbird was itself quite stealthy, and that work on the F-117, F-22, and B-2 began decades ago. Chinese (and Russian too of course) military spying is very active in America, to put it mildly. In fact, it's in TOTAL overdrive. There have been numerous cases of their agents being caught trying to buy even entire jet engines and the like.  P.S. Be sure to click on the link, i.e. fo' sho' above. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 10:30
|
Isreali avionics have a very good reputation, bang for buck a russian jet fitted out with western equivalent avionics would be a good iidea. The Indian Flankers have Isreali and i think some french bits added, the malays something similar. These derivatives are benchmarks for such combinations. Vietnam could do well by looking at indian flankers (rather than stright out of the box russian) and bulking up on adv Russian SAMs. The chinese flankers are getting better every year. AFAIK they can build them to a high standard of finish and if they can also train their pilots to a high standrd will match any 4th+ gen western plane. I wouldnt be too hard on the russian avionics and dont assume there is huge gaps, only up until the F-35 comes out, will a wide edge between the two be restored. Allot of the comparisons > kill ratios has as much to do about pilot training and such issues as organistion than just technology. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 10:37
-------------
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 13:35
I would have guess this.
Definitely agree with this.
I have my doubts here. I'm sure they are indeed getting a "notch" better every 7-10 years, but I seriously doubt they are anywhere near Western standards, say that of US, UK, Israeli, German, French, Japanese, S. Korean or even Taiwanese. I don't believe they'd fare well against Russian pilots either. I can't remember the exact dates, facts and figures of the top off my head, but... around 1958-59, PLAAF pilots were something like 0-15 against Taiwanese pilots, who were obviously western trained and flying American fighter jets. Beijing quickly realized that the PLAAF was only humiliating itself and put a stop to their annoying aerial shannigans. Recall that in 1950, a PLA force of about 250,000 (later up to 750,000) nearly humiliated the 100,000 or so US/UN troops in the Korean penisula, forcing the US army into its longest retreat, EVER! But in the air war, the US got a kill ratio of about 10-11:1 against Russian, Chinese and N. Korean pilots, despite the fact that they were initially fly propeller planes against Russian Migs. No doubt, the kill ratio must have been significantly higher against the PLAAF pilots, like at least 15:1 as the Taiwanese had achieved in 1958-59. As for the Vietnamese, they achieved an overall kill ratio of 1:2 against the USAF and USN pilots. In 1968, they actually had a slight advantage--believe it or not. A lot of factors (pro & con) contributed to this end result: 1. They were trained by the Russians who learned from their mistakes in Korea. 2. The US had far more jets, and pilots. Essentially an endless supply. 3. US pilots were fighting in hostile territory, with SAMs pointed at them. 4. US pilots had superior radar, missiles, faster jets, etc. 5. The air war took place in two time periods, 1965-68 and then again in 1972-73. During the four years when Nixon called off the bombing of North Vietnam, the US Navy did a thorough overhaul of training as well as tactics, whereas the USAF was merely relying on the newer avionics that had just come into line. As a result, the USN pilots reachived their 10:1 kill ratio advantage in the latter 1972-73 phase, whereas the USAF pilots barely made any progress despite the new technology. 6. During the period of 1965-68, US pilots were flying very predictable flight patterns. The N. Vietnamese were constantly setting traps which they fell for. By 1972-73, US pilots were setting traps, which the Vietnamese fell into. 7. Also very important here is that earlier broken promise of technology and the "end of the dogfight" to a good extent came into reality during the 1972-73 phase. By this time, US fighter radar, AWACs radar and aerial comand and control, and long rang air-to-air missiles were actually effective, i.e. they had first look, first kill advantage. The Vietnamese on the other hand were still flying mostly antiquated Mig-15s and Mig-17's; they possessed only about 16 supersonic fighters, i.e Mig-21's, for the entire war; the total number of fighters in the N. Vietnamese AF was ~250 for the entire war. Anyway, this is the historical backdrop from which I make my guestimations. In 1979, even though China invaded Vietnam, and had the tactical advantage of surprise, they didn't even bother to use any air power, for they knew, it would be in vain. At the time, Vietnamese pilots were obviously among the best in the world, second only to US, Israeli, etc., or countries with real aerial combat experience, so the PLAAF didn't even dare. (The N. Vietnamese shot down over 4,000 US aircraft during the war, mostly from the ground.) Vietnam's AF now is pretty pathetic, with only dozen or two number of Suhkois. I'm not even sure. Any at rate, my guess is they still have a lot of "know how", when it comes to training their pilots. The Vietnamese AF certainly cannot defeat the much, much, much bigger PLAAF, but all they need to do is make it very painful for any would be invader. I know my people, we've been dealing with the Chinese for 2000+ years. We don't underestimate them. In fact, it's the invaders who always do the underestimating. Besides, the PLAAF in its infinite paranoia needs to guard the Sino-Russian border, the Sino-Korean border, the Sino-Indian border, the Sea of Japan, the Taiwan Strait, etc., so it's not like they can afford to send their entire air force down to little old Vietnam.
Since Vietnam, the USAF and USN has made quantum leap after quantum leap in virtually every respect when it comes to jet fighters. From radar to air-to-air missiles, AWACs aerial command & control, pilot training, tactics, and of course: Stealth. Frankly, China is not anywhere near the US in air power, stealth or no stealth technology. Sure, they have better fighters, better training. But they simply don't have the real world experience: Actual dogfighting experience. US pilots were like ~46:0 in Iraq in 1991, undefeated in Kosovo, etc. I'm pretty sure they'd achieve the same against Vietnamese pilots flying Flankers, with or without Israeli avionics. The days when Vietnamese pilots could achieve a 1:1 kill ratio against American pilots has long gone. And I'm also pretty sure they'd do that to PLAAF pilots too, flying Flankers or for that matter, F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, or F-18's.
Yes, of course. I was making this tacit assumption and simply forgot to say so explicitly. Intuitively speaking, the major factors contributing to kill ratios are: 1. Technology (avionics, missiles, stealth, etc.) 2. Pilot training (hours of flight time, per capita spending, etc.) 3. Organization (tactics, AWACs command and control, etc.) 4. Experience (actual dogfights, esprit de corp) But, technology is the dominant factor now: First look, first kill is the overriding principle. Western avionics and air-to-air missiles are the most advanced and reliable. Period. No amount of pilot training can overcome a missile (or several) coming at you from out of nowhere, i.e. your enemy can see you but you can't see him--and he's not even flying a stealth aircraft! Or rather, he sees you first, but you don't see him until it's too late. Naturally, stealth vs non-stealth dogfights is the extreme case here. It'll be 15-20 years before the Raptorski and it's Chinese/Indian counterpart is deployable. By then, the US may deploy a hypersonic pilot-less 6th generation stealth fighter with a laser weapons system. Who knows. The rumors are out there.  ------------------------------------- Year after year, after a careful analysis, the Taiwanese military come up with the same conclusion to the hypothetical question: What if China invaded? Answer: They'd lose. BIG TIME. Guess what? Their American counterparts agree. Overall, American military analyst have no respect for China's conventional forces. They say the military is poorly trained, and in particular, their pilots don't get much flight time. The PLA's strong points are that it is BIG, and it has nukes. Aside from it's nukes, it's really just a paper dragon.A Japanese general has openly stated that if China attacked Japan (PLAAF pilots routinely fly provocatively into Japanese air space to probe for weaknesses, as well as to intimidate), the PLAAF would be quickly annihilated by the JDF's air force, within days! And once you lose your air power, it's lights out for your ground and naval forces too. Quantity is no substitute for quality. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 13:48
|
Truth be told, much of the PLA's raison d'être is merely to keep a lid on internal threats. There are estimates that over 10,000 riots took place in one year alone, just a few years ago. On the positive side, they also help out during natural disasters. But I'm getting a bit off topic. |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 16:23
Sure they did. They also had some help.
- F-15s out numbered MIG-29s by dozens to one
- F-15s were supported by AWACS, Satellite intelligence etc etc. MIG-29s had none of this.
-F-15s were all maintained in top condition and flown by pilots with hundreds of training hours per year. MIG-29s were flown with key sytems inoperable and by a country that could not afford hundreds of training hours / year, ultra expensive simulators etc.
They were very expensive when built. So much so tha t all other NATO countries went for the less expensive single engine F-16. I imagine that one could buy them used relatively cheap. But... the USA would never sell the used planes with out ultra expensive, mandatory upgrades from U.S. manufacurers.
F-15s are undefeated in combat. And this fact testifies to their lethality. But... they also have had some help. See notes on Serbia verse NATO. Also, Syria was not a capable opponent against Israel. Had the Turkish, Pakistani, Korean, Taiwanese etc. airforces used the same Syrian equipment, there would have been F-15 losses. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 18:50
Where are you getting this number?
True. Such engagements, or turkey shoots really, often take place with the Mig-29, or enemy fighter in general be it in Iraq or Kosovo, just fresh from take off and fully detected by USAF AWACs.
Ultimately, avionics is still king. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, this is how I'd rate the importance of all the major elements: 1. Avionics & air-to-air missiles: 15 2. Pilot Training & Readiness: 10 3. Aerial combat experience: 9 4. Aeronautical capability: 8 For instance, all else being equal, a subsonic Sea-Harrier can take out a Supersonic F-15 or Su-30 M/MKK/MKI (with thrust vectoring) if it has better avionics. Period. Why? Simply b'coz it has FIRST LOOK, FIRST KILL. F-15's have better avionics than Mig-29. Mig-29 is more a agile fighter. Agility is irrelevant.
Out of curiosity, how much were they initially? I only know that the F-15 K is superexpensive.
The newer Su-30's aren't cheap at all in comparison to 4th Gen US fighters.
No way. What if instead Israeli, Turkish, Pakistani, S. Korean, Taiwanese were flying F-15's vs US pilots flying F-15's, i.e. same exact equipment on both sides? Israel? Yes. S. Korea? maybe Taiwan? NO. Turkey, Pakistan? Please tell me you're joking. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:38
|
Red Flag Exercises in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZYu7LGLBQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZYu7LGLBQ ---Wow, Indian Su-30 MKI bested USAF pilots, in fact they creamed them! Bravo! Or did they?  --------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, here's a some expert testimony on Su-30 MKI vs F-15/F-16. What really happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU ---Colonel Terrence Fornof, part I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w ---Colonel Terrence Fornof, part II Fornof lets the cat out of the bag: It was rigged. There's lot of disinformation out there. What really happened: 1. Indian pilots were creamed. (These were average pilots, not the best nor the worst of India AF.) 2. He does say that on paper, the Indian Flankers are slightly better then the F-15 and F-16. 3. Indian Flankers have stronger radar, yet could not discern between friend and foe, leading to many fratracides. 4. Red Flag 2004 and 2005 in Cope, India was rigged. USAF sent 80% novice pilots and 20% experienced by rusty pilots who have desk jobs at the USAF. Indian AF sent their best pilots. (More on Cope Red Flag below... It was rigged in so many other ways.) 5. Flankers have huge radar cross section. 6. Flankers require 1 min separation between multiple fighters are taking off. Apparently, this is a huge weakness. 7. Indian (i.e. Russian) AWAC technology is completely antiquated. Read between the lines: If retro-fitted with F-22 avionics, US 4th gen fighters are still better, i.e. avionics is King. ----------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNie0HzPmaY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNie0HzPmaY ---Indian TV, offended by Fornof's statements. LOL, the TRUTH always hurts. Boo hoo. http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.html - http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.html ---Article on how USAF rigged the Red Flag Cope, India 2004 joint exercise in favor of Su-30 MKI. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnjKt0lreo8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnjKt0lreo8 ---This video actually cites a another article I've read before, which interviewed yet a different USAF officer. It also talks about how the Red Flag Cope, India 2004 exercises were completely rigged by the USAF. For instance, there was a bizarre 3:1 fighter ratio against US pilots flying F-15's, i.e. 12 IAF fighters flying various fighters vs 4 USAF F-15's. USAF pilots were not allowed to use their AIM 120 amraams. Thus, even if they could see the IAF fighters first, the could not shoot. Pretty bizarre rules of engagement, no? On top of this, the IAF pilots had AWAC support. USAF pilots were not afforded such luxuries. (Remember, these were the IAF's finest, and the USAF's weaker pilots, i.e. novices and rusty old guys with desk jobs.) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link: http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-vayu.html Don't fall for the hype. This was nothing more than the USAF's clever little scam to scare the public into buying F-22's. Fear creates sheep. Sheep don't protest. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:53
|
Without explicitly name him,
this http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/RED11058.xml&headline=USAF%20Pilot%20Critiques%20Red%20Flag%20Action&channel=defense - Aviaton Week article discusses Col. Fornof comments, as shown in two of the YouTube vids I linked above. |
Posted By: Jallaludin Akbar
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 20:12
I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that USAF pilots are the best trained in the world and are superior to their third world counterparts. During Red Flag, the usaf decided not to use some of the things that would give them an edge over the iaf. The IAF knows it is not going to face enemies with the advanced technological capability of the United States Airforce and that is why it decided to put restriction on them. Much of the the expert colonel's testimony has been proven false and that is why the iaf and usaf expressed anger over his comments. I agee with most of your post but please keep biased comments to a minimum. Apart from that, did anybody hear of the latest developements on the PAK-FA project? ------------- "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 21:00
Sources please. I insist. http://www.futurefirepower.com/indian-su-30mki-at-nellis-afb-2008-swirl-of-controversy - Here's an article , which criticizes Col. Fornof, but it is muddled at best. Be sure to see the first response by a guy who essentially says the author is confused. It also has a bunch of embedded vids on Red Flag 2008 at Nellis AFB.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 22:21
Ok, dozens to one by F-15s alone is exaggerated. Serbia had only about 12 total MIG-29s. Of these, about eight actually challenged NATO. The USA deployed entire wings of F-15s and were supplemented by hundreds of other high performance aircraft. So, "dozens to one" is accurate, just that not all opponents were F-15s.
Israeli advanced F-15s are also super expensive and resemble the F-15ks. I do not know the initial cost, but the only budget jet ever produced in the USA was the made for export F-5.
Yes way. Neither the Israeli Airforce nor the F-15s are invincible. All those countries have professional airforces and would have gotten far better use out of the Syrian equipment. USA exprience in Vietnam (your post) supports that fact that developing nations can field competent militaries, and shoot down F-15s
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 02:44
We all now the US pilots are one of the best trained in the world, they are a known force. But we haven't seen them match up with a well run, equipped and trained opponent for quite a while.
NIIP N011M BARS (Panther) hybrid ESA NIIP N011 MSA NIIP N035 (Snow Leopard) Irbis E Zhuk-AE AESA ..allot of the gap was filled up by western technology after the USSR fell. As for missiles gap, your very much mistaken. The Russians had a clear WVR missile advantage over NATO something only realised when the east german fulcrums came into NATO hands, fixed by the ASSRAM, AIM-9X and IRIS-T. The out ranged NATO BVR missiles should be fixed with the new AMRAAM and Meteor missiles.
-------------
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 03:24
I'll say.
Of the two "dogfights" which I'm aware of, only one F-15 was involved, along with an AWAC I believe. F-15's were used to patrol the skies over Kosovo/Serbia both for the general purpose of denying Serbian ground forces of tactical air support and specifically for the purpose of supporting numerous F-117 Nighthawk missions. (F-117's have stealth, but no means of self-defense, which is why they are now retired.) So these two cases were NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, a dogfight with dozens of F-15's to one Mig-29. They weren't fair fights, since the F-15 had AWAC command and control. But again, the F-15's also had to guard the F-117's and were dodging SAM's, i.e. it was in the Mig-29's terriroty. Further, even though the F-117's were hunting ground radar, I suspect the Mig-29 had some ground support, i.e. command and control. I do recall in at least one of the engagements, the F-15 was fired upon by the Mig-29. The F-15 pilot successfully evaded and returned fire taking out the Mig-29. Any flyboy worth his paycheck should be able to dodge the first incoming. But then again, experts in aerial dogfighting maintain that with 4th generation vs 4th gen. dogfights, it is mutual suicide to "merge" and engage in a mano-a-mano dogfight. Because of this, possessing the first look, first kill advantage, i.e. superior avionics, is paramount. Of course, I suspect this line of reasoning tacitly assumes both pilots are experts who know how to fully exploit all the strengths and avoid exposing all the weakness of their respective fighters.
The Israeli AF is obviously very good, but no one really knows how good, since they've never fought against countries with good pilots, air forces, like say the US, UK, Germany, etc.
LOL, didn't Saddam have a professional air force? Saddam had one of the biggest fleet of fighters in 1991. During the 1981 raid on Osiraq, Saddam's nuclear reactors, the Israelis said Saddam didn't even bother bother to send jets up to pursue the fleeing Israeli jets, 2 modified F-16's and 6 escorting F-15's. The Israelis maintained Saddam was simply afraid it would merely result in him losing a few more fighters on to of his precious reactors, or a double humiliation. Gen. Chuck Horner, the architect of the air war in Iraq in 1991, has said he personally knew a number of Iraqi pilots and said they were very good. I don't know what to make of this statement considering the outcome. One can only surmise that American organization and tactics simply overwhelmed them. This is why I think the US would cream any other air force in the world, PERIOD, regardless of how good their pilots and jets are.
I said explicitly "long are the days when the Vietnamese AF could achieve a 1:1 kill ratio against US pilots", or for that matter even a 1:2 kill ratio disadvantage. What the N. Vietnamese achieved was truly astonishing: In 1954, when the Vietnamese finally defeated the French, they were a rag tag guerilla army. When the N. Vietnamese air force began in 1959, the military overall was still a rag-tag force. Yet by 1968, or a mere 3 years after major US intervention which began in 1965, they were going toe to toe (1+:1 kill ratio) with the US, which had had an inordinate amount of dog fighting experience from WWI, WWII, and the Korean War. Initially in 1965, the US had like a 10:1 kill ratio advantage if I recall correctly. But buy 1973, the US advantage was only 2:1. N. Vietnamese ground-based defenses also downed about ~4,000 US aircraft during the war. Is this remarkable? Heck yes. They surmounted a very steep learning curve. By way of comparison, the US had a 10+:1 kill ratio advantage in Korea over Russian, Chinese, and N. Korean pilots. The kill ratio was even greater against the Japanese in WWII. In the Marianas "turkey shoot", they had a 40:1 kill ratio, where Japan was not exactly a 3rd world country. However... The skill set for dogfighting back during the Vietnam war was much smaller than it is today. The N. Vietnamese learned the BASICS of jet vs jet dogfighting remarkably fast, but Western air forces, particularly the US, have taken it to an art form. On top of this, they have stealth bombers, and now stealth fighters, that take out ground radar and communication lines, rendering their enemies blind while their own communications capabilities have expanded to include satellites, global hawk, night vision, infrared vision, Blue Force tracker, internet link, etc. Another GINORMOUS point is: Weapons systems, jets, jet engines, AWACs, fuel, advanced technology, etc., are so expensive to operate and maintain that most developing countries are forced to skimp giving their flyboys the absolute mimimum of flight hours which they deem necessary to defend against their fellow 3rd world next door neighbors. They don't have the luxury of having anything like their own Top Gun Academy, Red Flag exercises, and so on. Again, the skill set is much bigger and deeper now. Thus...
No way.  |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 04:18
Well, past performance, particularly from the recent past, is a good predictor of future outcomes. Besides, American, Japanese and even Taiwanese analysts essentially say the PLA and the PLAAF, minus their nukes, is nothing more than a paper dragon. I suspect that Japanese, S. Korean, and even Taiwanese pilots are very good, since they not only use US equipment, but are heavily, if not completely, trained and advised by the US. They were lousy during WWII and the Korean War. N. Koreans most likely suck compared to their S. Korean counterparts. They've evolved from a completely different system, mentality, and they are poor. The Chinese too were pretty poor until a few years ago. China is still a developing country. Is it not? Again, look into how much flight time each PLAAF pilot gets. This will tell you every thing you need to know. You can own a Stradivarius, but if you don't practice, you'll only be capable of hitting sour notes. The Chinese system comes from a different philosophy, they have different strengths/weaknesses and therefor different priorities. Much of their strategic and tactical reasoning comes from the fundamental fact that they have 1.3+ BILLION people, or nearly 400,000,000 military age individuals, and they have nukes. These two alone are huge deterrents which affords them the luxury of proceeding at their own pace, namely how fast they develop their fighter technology and how they train their pilots.
Actually, we can cite the various Red Flag and Red Flag type exercises. But then again, this too can be misleading since it really only measures the ability of individual pilots in small group engagements, etc. The US air arsenal in its totality is an entirely different beast. For instance, how effective is a country's air force tactics once their command and countrol, both aerial and ground based, are taken out?
Perhaps. But what is the real world realiability? Failure rates of Russian vs US and Western Europen missiles? How user friendly are the respective systems. Non user friendly equipment requires a lot of flight time, which developing countries simply cannot afford. Also, much of Eastern Europe, including Russia, resemble 3rd world countries.
Absolutely, I had this in mind when I used the phrase "broken promise of technology". By the end of the Vietnam War, the US had develop and deployed a lot more technology than just a few years earlier. The N. Vietnamese in the north and Vietcong in the south were constantly adjusting to the new technology thru adjusting their mundane tactics.
Well, a Boeing 747 equipped with rather lethal lasers is nearly operational. I've seen claims that they're seriously working on putting in lasers for small fighters. Lasers doesn't need to vaporize their target, they need only to damage the electronics causing malfunction.
Put it this way, how many Nobel Prizes do Chinese win every year? They're more than a sixth of the world's population. Like I said before, they're decades behind. They are rapidly progressing and will eventually catch up, especially if their espionage shanigans breed fruit. But meanwhile, it's not like the US is just suddenly going to stop its defense research. Anyway, that Col. Terry Fornof agrees with you: The Su-30 MKI is a tad better. And he's an expert. And he was there at Red Flag 2008. Yet, I have my doubts.  More to the point, retrofitting 4th gen US fighters with 5th gen avionics would make them once again superior to all Flanker variants. |
Posted By: hmmm
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 04:23
|
TranHungDao, I wonder what you make of comments on this site, some of which are pretty interesting: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html - http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html Some comments amount to nothing but others are somber and more insighful.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 05:17
First look first kill is very important but please consider the kinematics and tactics used by both sides and fighters. The Russian missiles can have a much longer range, while tactically they are meant to fire many more at the same time using diferent types of guidance and are backed up by decent radars. Missile salvo saturation attack is a soveit tactic also used in anti ship warfare and there is nothing weak about that logic. Some AA are designed to hit AWACs. 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. -------------
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 13:16
|
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). Had say, the Pakistani military been using the same Syrian equipment, the same Israeli airforce and the same F-15s would not of had a 75-1 kill ratio.
The principal is very valid. NATO had numbers and capabilities that Serbia and its 8 functioning MIG-29s could never match. Whether the planes were solely F-15s or included, Tornadoes, F-16s etc is really not that important.
After the Japanese lost their 700 pre-war carrier pilots, they became a third world airforce.
The Mariana Turkey shoot involved Japanese pilots with minimal or non existant training. Notice how the Turkey Shoot occured in 1944 and not 1942. From 1942 until late 1943, the Japanese were capable of matching US pilots.
You appear to think alot like Cheney, Wolfowicz and Rumsfeld.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 15:18
|
During exercises, the Raptor completly and utterly dominated the F-15 and the Raptor was outnumbered 4-1 in some cases. All the rest are 4th gen+ and a distant second. The Russian aircrafts mentioned are just experimental, the information gathered to be used on future aircraft. The Raptor just ownes in BVR. Up close though (if they can get that close) the other fighter's have a much better chance. The latest Sukhoi's and MiG's feature 3-D TVC as opposed to the Raptors 2D TVC. For those who say the Russians can't afford to build a new 5th gen aircraft...you're probably right. Which is why they are building it with the Indians. Check out these vids (not in english)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6ZYP37rH84 ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 23:15
|
Hello to you all
Several notes here.
First, about the Israeli strike on Osairik. Iraq didn't respond for a simple reason. All IqAF planes were supporting ground operations during the war with Iran. Israeli planes assumed Jordanian ailines identity, with help from Jordan, and it was because of this they succeeded in breaking the cover of Iraqi radar. Saddam would have responded but he didn't for many reasons. The reactor was far from beginning let alone working, as Israeli propaganda maintained. Work was stopped sbout a year before the strike because of the immense cost that Iraq couldn't handle because of the war with Iran. Also western support in that war was at a price and one was that Iraq doesn't retaliate.
Second point. Iraqi aiforce was a professional one. The problem in the gulf war was that only a handful of Iraqi planes actually took part in the war. Half the Iraqi jets were sent to Iran as everybody knows (160+ I think) and the rest either hidden inside Iraq or shot down during battles. Iraqi air defenses did a superb job that few ever actually take note of. Some 80 allied planes of all kinds were shot down by Iraqi air defenses. Some of the Iraqi defenses were customised Iraqi products.
Third, to really know how professionality in an air force give different results one should not go beyond the Arab-Israeli wars and Vietnam war. Egypt and Syria both had exactly the same types of planes the Vietnamese had. Israelis had the same planes the Americans had yet when one sees the performance he is bewildered. While kill ratio is about 1:1 in Vietnam and Vietnamese aces vastly outnumber American aces in that war. In the Arab Israeli wars the opposite happens. There is only two Arab aces, both Syrians and both before the coup of 1970 when Alevis overtook the regime and purged the armed forces from professional veterans, as opposed to 17 Israelis most of whom secured victories over Egyptian pilots who came from one province in upper Egypt. An interesting note is that no single Iraqi air casualty was ever recorded, as far as I know, in the Arab Israeli wars despite the Iraqi air force actively participated in those wars.
Fourth. The Raptors, F-35 and other G5 fighters in my opinion are nothing but expensive gimmicks. Today, we have the ability and the technology necessary to build long range heatseeking missiles that can't be fooled, Powerful lasers that can distroy a fighters 10s of Kms before reaching its target, avionics technologies able to fool even the most advanced fighter into thinking that it, or the missile it just lauched, is friendly, advanced AA guns with much more percision. In an attrition war like Vietnam, where the loss rate was so high, only fighters like the F-4 phantom which are cheap and can be mass produced could win the war. The raptor is too sophisticated and extremely expensive. I think you can only make some 10 of them in a month. If you lose one a week then you will be in deep trouble.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 13:40
The US would simply clobber any air force out there. They have stealth fighters and bombers that can take out radar. RAF, German, Israeli and French pilots are probably just as good as US pilots man for man, pound for pound, but the the combined air power of the USAF and USN would make short work out of any one of those air forces. Russia included.
No. You're splitting hairs here.
It would still be a slaughter, which is the more important point. Anyway, these were your exact words:
First, Taiwan and S. Korea are not developing countries. They are 1st world and trained and equipped by the US. Second, it's not at all unambiguously clear that your reference pertaining to "F-15's loses" was in strict connection to the Israelis. I myself was talking about the F-15's in Kosovo/Serbia, flown by the US. That was the context I was addressing. Since Turkey is a member of Nato, they probably have a decent air force. But then again, I don't know. Turkey has never been on my radar. As for Pakistan, all I know is that they start wars and skirmishes wherein they invariably get their butts kicked by the Indians, who got their butts kicked at Red Flag.
No, you said 15:1. What you're saying now is quite different. It was 1:1 for both of the dogfights for which I'm aware of. The US pilots no doubt had AWACS support. Besides, if the Serbs aren't flying their planes, they are not facing issues of maintenance nor lack of sleep for the pilots. (For every hour you fly, there's X amount of hours of maintenance.) Also, please don't split hairs and then expect people not to point out you are being reckless in your "exaggeration(s)", as you yourself described.
Sorry, but the Japanese never approached 1:1 with the Americans at any point during WWII. The figures in 1942 were really crappy too. Nothing to brag about. IIRC, the Japanese at best had 1:3+ kill ratio disadvantage after they installed more armor into their planes. Early on, it was like 10:1 in favor of the US. Again, nothing to brag about. And LOL, how many third world countries even had an air force in 1943-44? LOL
FYI, I knew Iraq would be a disaster. There's tenuous peace now, but it's still far from over. The current strategy (Patraeus) of both carrot & stick is a really good one. The past strategy by Rummy of only stick was a total unmitigated disaster. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 13:54
|
Hello Tran The fact of the matter is that the US has not until now face a really compitent air force. Plus even with massive air superiority, you obviously underestimate the power of air defenses. One of every two Israeli air planes in the 73 war was shot down by SAM's. Iraq with its very old G2 air defense system shot down 80 allied planes in 91. Now we have G4 air defense systems that can take a plane down some 400+Km away from the target (the new S-400 Russian system). With such systems, which are cheaper and easier to mass produce than fighters, who needs fighters? Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 14:11
|
Al Jassas, Hello. Actually, I'm aware of what Egypt accomplished with its SAMs in 1973. The air war over N. Vietnam was something like 200:100 or 2:1 in favor of the US in dogfights. But N. Vietnam's ground defenses brought down about another 4,000 US air craft. (I'm not sure if it includes choppers flying in S. Vietnam or not, but it did include fighters, bombers, and even small and unarmed prop planes used for recon.) How would Vietnam fair against the US now? LOL. First: F-22's would come in and take out radar. => Vietnamese are TOTALLY BLIND. F-22's also easily shoot down any Vietnamese w**ker, eh I mean Flanker, foolish enough to dogfight. Second: B-2's would take out infrastructure. Third: Vietnamese are totally helpless like Iraqis in 1991 and 2003. Nowhere to hide Vietnamese tanks and APC's from US infrared, night vision equipment, Predator drones, satellites, etc. The US weaponry is far more lethal and accurate now than it was in Vietnam, literally like by 1000 fold, everything from MOAB's to bunker busters to sensor fuse bombs: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm ---Sensor fuse bomb One sensor fused bomb can take out an entire armored column. A B-2 full of them can take out an entire armored division--believe it or not. It just recently came into line, and has yet to be used in actual combat. Fourth: If US wanted to occupy Vietnam, they'd be in a worse quagmire than they had in the first Vietnam War. That is, I'm distinguishing between conventional vs. insurgent warfare. The US would make quick work of the Vietnamese forces in conventional warfare, but the Vietnamese would win the guerrilla war. In the end, the US would have spent TRILLIONS of dollars, committed genocide yet once again, and then pull out tail between leg. However, the scenario you're talking about would apply BIG TIME to the PLA/PLAAF, if they were to try the stunt they pulled in 1979: Massive loss of Su-30 MKK by ground-based defense, as was seen by the US from 1965-73. It would apply to any country that doesn't have America's overwhelming air capabilities, stealth and otherwise. Edit: Understand that Cryptic and I are talking aerial dogfight's only, not ground based defenses. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 14:52
I don't think too much of it. That Col. Kornof guy was speaking off the record, so I'm much more inclined to believe him. Further, Cope India 2000 was joke--at so many levels: 1. 3:1 numerical odds in favor of the IAF. 2. USAF F-!5's could not use amraams. 3. IAF had AWACS support, and IIRC the USAF did not. 4. Most of the exercises did NOT involve Su-30 MKI, but French Mirages and older Migs. 5. USAF brass were very quick to say they loss BIG TIME to Su-30 MKI. A TOTAL LIE. The official press releases are not to be trusted. 6. IAF was also very quick to beat chests and proclaim they were better than US pilots--in a rigged exercises no less. ------------------------------------------ From global security:
------------------------------------------ Yet, here's one for Flanker Fans,
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/04/220616/india-bans-su-30mki-fighters-from-using-radars-during-red-flag-nellis.html - LINK Note the date of this article. Red Flag 2008 took place in mid July of 2008. If this is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, then the IAF was not exploiting the Su-MKI's full avionics capabilities. But then again, that Col. Fornof guy said off the record that the IAF was dominated and the IAF openly said they dominated. Recall the IAF openly boasted they dominated in Cope India back in 2004, which was a joke. Also, IAF and the RAF held similar exercises in the UK from which the results were never disclosed. Things keep getting murkier and murkier... ------------------------------------------- Lastly, I'm not knocking IAF pilots here. If you take those same blokes and put them in the RAF, IDF, or the USAF/USN, then they'd be just as good. 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. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 14:59
|
Hello Tran
Obviously your are stuck in a time loop. 21st century Radar and air defense systems are totally different than the 1960s.
The world has gone well beyond those ancient Radar systems that use simple refraction-detection schemes. Modern electro-magnetic based systems (using radio frequencies and microwave frequencies) can easily detect even the most sophisticated stealth technology.
Stealth technology isn't something impossible or out of the ordinary. Basically all stealth systems use scattering method to scatter EM signals sent from Radars. Scattering these signals means that the Radar will only detect static or small objects. But current technology, mostly classified, use sophisticated Radar systems based on triangilation and apporximation. 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchuga_passive_sensor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchuga_passive_sensor
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 15:05
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. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 15:15
"well beyond" ?!? LOL, nobody knows anything for certain about the Kolchuga passive radar. It's all speculative. BTW, I have heard of it.
Well, it took decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to develop.
Yes, so small that they are to be ignored... Until it is too late. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 15:23
|
Hello Tran
The Kolchuga system was responsible for downing the B-117 in the Kosovo war. The system in the S-400 (SA-21) is an enhancement on it.
Plus throwing money around will not give you results, knowing where to throw money does. The Russians could have built as much cariers as they want but seeing that a torpedo worth a couple of million dollars could sink a 20 billion dollar plus air craft carrier, they chose to build long range subs instead.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 16:09
Ok, ok. I'm now recalling vague memories of a documentary I saw concerning this. I wasn't paying much attention, so I can't say much. Was it a lucky shot? After all, they only got one. There was more than one F-117 buzzing around Kosovo/Serbia back then. Can they reliably shoot down stealth aircraft? And can SAMs and anti-aircraft be directed by Kolchuga passive radar, or do you have to turn on the traditional radar and expose your position?!?
OK, then why are the Russians, Chinese, and Indians scrambling to build a Raptorski?!? BWT, I thought Nimitz class carriers were only like $4 BILLION each. As for the Soviet submarine strategy: Yes it was cost effective. -------------------------------------- hmmm, Concerning the link you posted on Col. Kornof's statements, I think one is forced to conclude that both the USAF and IAF's official statements are not just bogus, but completely coordinated. In fact, I'd say the USAF insisted the IAF do over-the-top boasting that it defeated US F-15's with it's Su-30 MKI's in both Red Flag exercises in Cope 2004 and in Nellis 2008. Contrast this to the total silence on the RAF vs IAF exercises. No results given there, no one boasted on anything. Nothing seems to add up. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 18:08
|
Al Jassas, The Serbs, no doubt with Russian help, were able to shoot down only one F-117, a subsonic "fighter" with no means of self-defense. (Does it even have any anti-missile counter measures?) The F-22 is not the F-117 to say the least. It has countermeasures (chaff, flares, and jammers). It is faster. It can shoot back. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 21:48
|
Hello Tran
Actually the Radar system used in downing the F-117 was Ukrainian and the Russians themselves downplayed the significance of the incident. 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.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 01:39
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.
Very interesting. Do you have a trustworthy link? -------------------------------------------------- Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but...
Actually, you sorta did:
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. 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. |
Posted By: hmmm
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 02:08
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.
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.
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 06:54
|
Hello tran
Here is a Jane's link:
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws9067.html - http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws9067.html
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 13:05
Their system is subpar by western standards. Period. Sorry, but no amount of snark is gonna change that. 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.
So do I.
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. ------------------------------------ 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. |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 15:00
|
Al Jassas, Here's a http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/04fisher/5hitech.htm - 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.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/04fisher/5hitech.htm#_edn56 - - - - - - - - - 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. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/04fisher/5hitech.htm#_edn60 - - - 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. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/04fisher/5hitech.htm#_edn61 - - - - - 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. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/04fisher/5hitech.htm#_edn63 - - - Russian company marketing such improved metric-wave radar complained bitterly that China had stolen its technology. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/04fisher/5hitech.htm#_edn64 - - - 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. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/04fisher/5hitech.htm#_edn65 - - - |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 15:21
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...
I'd say. |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date 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.
|
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:21
Wow. 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?!? |
Posted By: TranHungDao
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:26
Actually, like the now retired Sea Harriers, F-22's themselves can function as AWACS.
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. 
Actually, in Iraq, hundreds of cruise missiles were sent in first.
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?
That's right, which is why they are scrambling to build Raptorskis and B2-skis. Wow, they're already working on a pilotless Raptorski:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2007/russia-070823-voa01.htm - 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 |
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-96/RUSSIAN-STEALTH-BOMBER-FOR-SERVICE-BY-2010.html -