Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on December 17, 2005, 02:46:27 pm
-
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The futuristic F-22A "Raptor" fighter jet, designed to dominate the skies well into the 21st century, joined the U.S. combat fleet on Thursday, 20 years after it was conceived to fight Soviet MiGs over Europe.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-12-15T165508Z_01_SIB560880_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-FIGHTER.xml&archived=False
-
Woohoo! Those Soviet MiGs won't even know what hit 'em!
Wait....
-
Actually many countries still use soviet built equipment though. And Russia is currently the equivolent to a high tech weapons garage sale.
-
The Raptor will never be used as intended. It's just the Pentagon doing what it does best: being a sugar daddy to the high-tech military industry. When was the last time the US fought an aerial war? Not since Korea. Most countries are lucky if they are up to the F-16/Mig-29/Su-30 standard in terms of air power. The notion that there is someone out there with a fleet of advanced air superiority fighters just itching to pick a fight is really very far fetched.
America will never fight an adversary that is on equal footing technologically. And no one who is on equal footing with the States will go to war with the most power military on planet Earth. As far as I know, the only nations who have even a potential competitor to the Raptor are the EU and possibly Russia and China (if they ever actually produce any).
...besides, the Sukhoi Berkut looks so much cooler.
:ick: :ick:
-
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The futuristic F-22A "Raptor" fighter jet, designed to dominate the skies well into the 21st century, joined the U.S. combat fleet on Thursday, 20 years after it was conceived to fight Soviet MiGs over Europe.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-12-15T165508Z_01_SIB560880_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-FIGHTER.xml&archived=False
Yeah! Another extraordinarily huge waste of taxpayer money takes flight. :rolleyes:
Let me get this straight, the US is supposed to be fighting a war against terrorists, right? Since when did any of those organizations have jet fighters?
-
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The futuristic F-22A "Raptor" fighter jet, designed to dominate the skies well into the 21st century, joined the U.S. combat fleet on Thursday, 20 years after it was conceived to fight Soviet MiGs over Europe.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-12-15T165508Z_01_SIB560880_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-FIGHTER.xml&archived=False
Yeah! Another extraordinarily huge waste of taxpayer money takes flight. :rolleyes:
Let me get this straight, the US is supposed to be fighting a war against terrorists, right? Since when did any of those organizations have jet fighters?
Well, they have vast volcano lairs, don't they?
-
Well, they have vast volcano lairs, don't they?
I think they also have moon bases like Dr. Proton in the original Duke Nukem........
-
The Raptor will never be used as intended. It's just the Pentagon doing what it does best: being a sugar daddy to the high-tech military industry. When was the last time the US fought an aerial war? Not since Korea. Most countries are lucky if they are up to the F-16/Mig-29/Su-30 standard in terms of air power. The notion that there is someone out there with a fleet of advanced air superiority fighters just itching to pick a fight is really very far fetched.
America will never fight an adversary that is on equal footing technologically. And no one who is on equal footing with the States will go to war with the most power military on planet Earth. As far as I know, the only nations who have even a potential competitor to the Raptor are the EU and possibly Russia and China (if they ever actually produce any).
...besides, the Sukhoi Berkut looks so much cooler.
:ick: :ick:
Berkut is a technology demonstator...Sukhoi has repeatedly denied that an actual fighter would be built on that airframe. But they were hoping to take several pieces from that and create a new fighter. I think they are actually collaborating with MiG on a new next gen Russian multirole fighter. I think the goal is cheap stealth :)
The thing with the F/A-22...its a enourmous amount of money...but if it were ever to be needed it'd be a critical factor in how well the USAF would be able to deploy against a well armed enemy. I still think the Typhoon is a better buy because of its full multirole capability.
-
The thing with the F/A-22...its a enourmous amount of money...but if it were ever to be needed it'd be a critical factor in how well the USAF would be able to deploy against a well armed enemy.
Big if though.......
-
It's funny to see the US and to a certain extent the EU and Russia putting all their money into air superiority fighters, when they are becoming less and less relevant. At least during the Cold War, you could plausibly make the claim that at some point you would need to fight an air war against an equally well armed enemy. But if you look at most wars in past years (Iraq, Afghanistan, some smaller "interventions" like Kosovo, Bosnia and so on) bombers and close air support have been so much critical and widely used.
As for the Berkut, I recall them saying that the forward-swept wings are being scrapped (though I also remember seeing the Berkut in its current form on exhibition at MAKS 2005) and a more conventional fighter will likely emerge. Good to hear that Sukhoi and MiG are collaborating, hopefully that means that the Russian government is serious about the project. A dedicated interceptor is probably too costly for Russia, or anyone aside from the US for that matter, even the EU worked multirole capabilities into the Typhoon.
-
Better safe than sorry. The U.S. can't expect to maintain it's tech edge following your advice :p
...besides, the Sukhoi Berkut looks so much cooler.
I suppose you and your twisted sense of aesthetics would think that ;)
-
But if you look at most wars in past years (Iraq, Afghanistan, some smaller "interventions" like Kosovo, Bosnia and so on) bombers and close air support have been so much critical and widely used.
You can hardly judge based on these examples. Last I checked, none of them had any truly noticeable airpower.
-
I'd suspect the Us would get more use out of a super-jumbo scale carpet bomber, nowadays.
-
The thing with the F/A-22...its a enourmous amount of money...but if it were ever to be needed it'd be a critical factor in how well the USAF would be able to deploy against a well armed enemy.
Big if though.......
Thing is...the British and American aviation industries were not ready or prepared for WWII. They finally got their acts together about 1943 or 1944. War wasn't particularly expected...on the whole (specific people and leaders sure but not the overall society/industry). So while I'm an advocate of not fighting wars of helping people and of solving problems through diplomacy and peacekeeping when necessary, I'm also fairly adamant about making sure that if you need to go to war...then you are ready to do so. Frankly Canada has not really set itself up to be prepared for any such event...I think our own military needs to streamline what it does...the F/A-22 is not what Canada needs...but its cousin, the F-35 may be the right sort of ticket. Provided that its updated on the same line as frontline American units and not left to stagnate into oblivion like the CF-18's did.
-
I, personally, think that
A) The US would NOT get better use out of big carpet bombers - in case you haven't noticed, most bombing strikes lately have been with maybe 10 bombs, tops, put in precision places.
B) Notice the A in F/A-22 - that says that it will be a multirole attack craft as well. It will be used probably in much the same way as the F-15E: a fast attack craft that can fight it's way in, bomb the target, and fight it's way out.
C) All developed countries should be improving technology, regardless of if they're going to war soon or not. If anything, it trickles into the civvie market.
D) The F/A-22 presents an enormous technological leap. You know Freespace 2 radar? Yea, it's that now. Dots are color-coded blue/red based on friend/foe, the radar automatically determines what TYPE of aircraft the enemy is flying, and depending on that, determines whether or not it should track it continuously; i.e. if the radar picks up a Su-33 and an Airbus A320, it's going to constantly track the Su-33 while leaving the Airbus mostly alone. It's just a massive improvement over everything; think of your favorite jet sim with the avionics set to "Easy".
-
It's good to see the US still going wild and spending far more money than they should, I mean, isn't the US economy doing somewhat badly at the moment? *Sigh* It's just a damn pity they had to cancel development of the RAH-66 Comanche.
Hmm, having read the article more closely, it's almost as if the US is expecting a conflict with China, which could lead to the formations of tension in the area... which is bad news for both the North American and South-East Asia regions in terms of fallout, both political and literal.
-
From what I can see, the Typhoon would kick it's ass.
-
D) The F/A-22 presents an enormous technological leap. You know Freespace 2 radar? Yea, it's that now. Dots are color-coded blue/red based on friend/foe, the radar automatically determines what TYPE of aircraft the enemy is flying, and depending on that, determines whether or not it should track it continuously; i.e. if the radar picks up a Su-33 and an Airbus A320, it's going to constantly track the Su-33 while leaving the Airbus mostly alone. It's just a massive improvement over everything; think of your favorite jet sim with the avionics set to "Easy".
There is a mighty big difference between target detection, recognition and identification. Assuming none of the targets are actively broadcasting their IFF and also that any hostile targets will most likely utilize either extensive stealth or ECM and follow surface contours so that kind of feature is not as good as might sound. That is there might be no data available for any kind of recognition or identification. IF the target can even be detected before it is too late.
-
"Even Da Vinci would paint like a 5 year old if you poked out both his eyes"?
-
D) The F/A-22 presents an enormous technological leap. You know Freespace 2 radar? Yea, it's that now. Dots are color-coded blue/red based on friend/foe, the radar automatically determines what TYPE of aircraft the enemy is flying, and depending on that, determines whether or not it should track it continuously; i.e. if the radar picks up a Su-33 and an Airbus A320, it's going to constantly track the Su-33 while leaving the Airbus mostly alone. It's just a massive improvement over everything; think of your favorite jet sim with the avionics set to "Easy".
Targets (military) don't broadcast IFF, to be fair; they only return an IFF code in response to interrogation from a friendly IFF network. So any form of hostile aircraft identification couldn't be based of IFF but lack thereof. I guess if you have a high enough resolution radar system, you can map the contours of the aircraft enough to match it to a target database, although I don't know if that's what they'd use here.
There is a mighty big difference between target detection, recognition and identification. Assuming none of the targets are actively broadcasting their IFF and also that any hostile targets will most likely utilize either extensive stealth or ECM and follow surface contours so that kind of feature is not as good as might sound. That is there might be no data available for any kind of recognition or identification. IF the target can even be detected before it is too late.
-
From what I can see, the Typhoon would kick it's ass.
I'd say its close enough to say that situation and the pilots involved would be the determining factor. The Typhoon isn't as stealth as the F/A-22 is but the Typhoon has a far greater weapons capacity. If I were a third party nation trying to figure out what next gen fighter I wanted...I think the Typhoon would be the number 1 choice. It can carry darn near anything...even a pair of stealthed cruise missiles!
-
It's cheaper too, ain't it?
-
There was a guy on the forum I got this from (Il-2 Sturmovik on ubi.com), and apparantly he worked for a guy whos brother was an F-22 test pilot. These are the brother's thoughts on the F-22:
07/06/05
F22 Raptor Pilot Report
Aircraft: 4002 Date: 10 June 2005
Flight: 2-664 Takeoff: 1042L
Pilot: Randy Neville Land: 1141L
Test Conductor: N/A Flt Time: 1.0 Hr
Chase : JB Brown ECS: File 54
OFP: 54
Overview
This was the final flight for 4002 before it returns to storage. It was also my final Raptor flight before moving to Seattle. The flight went smoothly, although I encountered some highly localized showers upon exiting the aircraft.
As I leave the program with a bit over 600 hours in this amazing machine, I realize just how fortunate I have been to have the opportunity to be involved in the development of the incredible blend of technologies that the Raptor represents.
I can remember the early days of working with the engineering IPT's and helping with the training of the First Flight control room team. When Paul Metz got airborne in 4001 for the first time, I was the "Voice of Raptor", narrating events to flight line guests over a PA system and to various program sites via a live video feed. I was fortunate to fly the first flight on 4005, which was also the first time we flew with the Block 3.0 software and actually demonstrated sensor fusion. The 2-year surge to complete envelope expansion was quite a ride, including the Mach 2.0 split-s's and even the -11g fini-flight on 4003. Some may express concern at the pace of developing new technology, but, frankly, looking back as EMD slows down and operational units ramp up, it is hard to believe how far the program has come. From the days of 1998 when we had an annual goal of 183 flight hours, to the massive ramp up to support the envelope expansion surge along with Initial OT&E when we flew over 2800 hours in FY2004, we have had a constant string of challenges. Hidden to many, but obvious to those of us on the program, every single one of those flight hours has a story behind it, punctuated by the dedication, ingenuity, frustration, exhilaration, brains, and sweat of a huge team of motivated professionals. It has been an honor to be associated with this program and with all the professionals everywhere on the team. Thanks for the ride.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
FYI, for your reading pleasure (or not), I have attached an article that I originally drafted as a potential light-hearted, PR-type article for casual perusal. It is notably non-technical, and has nothing to do with the flight today, but for lack of anything better to do with the article, I stuck it here. Enjoy.
You've probably known someone who could be categorized as a "layman's philosopher". You know - the type of person who can condense life's vagaries into a bumper sticker slogan. The great baseball hall-of-famer Yogi Berra was a gold mine of such philosophy. Some of his more memorable comments were:
"It's like déjà vu all over again", and "It ain't over till it's over".
Or, my personal favorite: "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
Well, speaking of catch phrases, our original concepts of "minimize housekeeping" and "carefree maneuvering", although not stated with Yogi's flare for hidden eloquence, have perfectly captured the essence of the F-22 airframe. It makes me think that we as test pilots could be more descriptive in our evaluations. We describe this marvel of technology with such mundane, techno-geekish descriptions as "very responsive", "has good damping", or "matches predictions", when what we really mean is "This baby flies like a dream."
The ringer that this aircraft has been put through would make most rational pilots cringe. We have done full aft stick split-s maneuvers, starting at over Mach 2, to seen if flying qualities and structural loads were ok. They were, so we did it again with a weapon bay door open. Then we did again while firing a missile. Oh, please… stop the madness!
Well, actually, the airplane did not seem too concerned at all about the crazy maneuvering it was forced to endure. While at 60° angle of attack, cycling controls to maximize horsepower extraction, and banging the throttles from idle to AB, most pilots would run away screaming that it's just wrong to treat an airplane that way. But the engines never coughed and the airplane flew benignly on. The zero speed tailslides, and the aircraft simply flops down and smoothly recovers. During high-g maneuvering and abruptly throw in full ailerons, and the airplane consistently gives you the best roll rate available, without going out of control or over stressing parts of the structure. There is some pretty cosmic stuff the flight controls are doing to make all that happen
Even more impressive to me, I have had a glimpse of what the future of air combat holds, seeing how this exceptional airframe will be mated to an avionics suite that will provide the pilot an unprecedented amount of information. I think of this airplane as a flying antenna, soaking information all around it. A major part of the capability of this airplane comes from sensor fusion. Sensor Fusion is one of those key phrases associated with the Raptor. It yields a capability that is a leap in avionics technology. So…Sensor Fusion….what's up with that?
"90% of the game is half mental."
Allow me a brief semi-technical excursion. The concept of sensor fusion is usually simplistically defined as taking target information from multiple sensors and fusing - i.e. filtering, evaluating, and combining - that information to present to the pilot a very intuitive display of a highly defined target. As the name implies, target information is received from the individual sensors, develops track files, and then fuses that track information. It evaluates the kinematic and identification data from the sensor reports and determines if multiple targets are present or if the sensors are seeing the same target. The sensors are typically divided among 3 major subsystems: thee radar, the Electronic Warfare suite, and the Communication, Navigation, and Identification suite. The integration of the various components of the avionics suite only begins with a fused track. Then some real brain power takes over. Mission software, without any further actions by the pilot, evaluates the position, maneuvering, and threat potential of the target and decides how accurately the target should be tracked, how frequently the track should be updated, and if another sensor should be used to better track or identify the target. The sensors are then re-tasked to get further information on that target, and the entire closed-loop process continues. In other words, it is not just target information that is fused, but rather the sensors themselves that are fused. It becomes transparent to the pilot what the various sensors are doing - they simply go about their business of autonomously collecting the best target information available.
So, what does all this mean to the pilot?
"You can observe a lot by watching."
A key point is buried in this discussion. The entire closed-loop process of detecting, evaluating, updating tracks is performed automatically. The pilot no longer spends time adjusting his radar controls, then looking at his radar display, and then repeating the process with his EW controls and displays. Sensor fusion operates continuously, requiring no pilot action in order to develop an intuitive God's-eye view of the airspace. The end result is that the pilot is presented a tremendous amount of information with very low workload. As we like to say, the avionics suite allows the pilot to be a tactician, not a sensor operator or data analyst. Or, in pilot-speak, it saves me lots of brain cells for the really complex stuff back in the office, like trying to comprehend Travel Manager software. The information is presented to the pilot on a glass cockpit, consisting of three 6" x 6" and one 8" x 8"color displays, with symbols that are shaped and color-coded according to their identification as friendly, enemy, or unknown targets.
Well, how does the F-22 avionics perform their magic of seeing everybody, closely watching the important guys, and occasionally updating the unimportant guys? (Sort of like the intriguing thermos bottle mystery: Keeps the hot things hot, and the cold things cold, but… how do it know?).
Most of the magic takes place via massive parallel processing in the Common Integrated Processors, of CIPs. These are racks that contain multiple modules, many with dual 32-bit microprocessors. The processing may be optimized for signal processing, data manipulation, or other functions, with data shuffled around on various data busses. The massive amount of processing gives us a lot of amazing capability, but it also can be a nightmare making all the 0's and 1's talk to each other. Throw in the vibrations and temperatures associated with slipping the surly bonds, and you have a local area network that would make even Bill Gates sleepless in Seattle.
So given all that technical background, how have avionics flights gone?
"It was hard to have a conversation - there were too many people talking."
Yogi must have been trying to do flight test in the Atlanta Center airspace when he said that. On our early avionics flights from Marietta, GA, I launched into what must have been prime time for Delta Airlines. Ground delays had been caused by airframe and avionics problems, most of which had been seen before. It is interesting to note that the line between airframe and avionics problems blurs a bit with the F-22. The avionics must properly talk to various subsystem controllers to keep everything running smoothly. (ie the good news…the F-22 is highly integrated. But the bad news is…the F-22 is highly integrated.)
In any case, those early flights identified numerous issues that have been resolved over the years. Since that time, we have thoroughly evaluated all the sensors and the software that integrates all their information. We have proven some amazing systems, such as the Inflight Data Link, that allows us to silently communicate with the other members of our formation. They could be miles away, unseen and unheard, yet each pilot will know the exact position, fuel state, weapons info, and targeting information, all without speaking a word over the secure voice channel. Pretty powerful capability when heading into harm's way.
Looking ahead, I get very excited about matching this outstanding air vehicle to a powerful integrated avionics suite. I have a coffee cup on my desk that I got as a souvenir at the Farnborough Airshow in 1988. I had a chance to get a demo of some early helmet mounted cuing systems, and got the coffee cup which says "I flew the future". Well, looking at this leap in technology represented by the Raptor, it compels me to put a positive spin on another of Yogi's observations as it relates to air combat:
"The future ain't what it used to be."
It'll show you what I mean about hte avionics suite :) That Inflight Data Link is also pretty amazing, too; if you think about it, it's even more detailed than Freespace 2's wingman monitor :D
-
It's cheaper too, ain't it?
well too bad typhoon is a multirole platform whereas F-22 is primarly designed as a air superiority fighter and seeing how even older US F-15s still regularly beat our airforces in exercises (WHERE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ARTIFICIALLY HANDICAPPED) then I would argue that actually yes, Raptor is a much better air-to-air asset than Typhoon or Rafale or pretty much anything else.
Also people seem to be all too quick to forget that the entire point of military is to prevent threats - that includes both current and future threads. Air-to-air combat might be irrelevant now, but it's not completely impossible that in 20 years such scenario could be accurate or, even worse, hot. The amount of R&D the big military projects take can be insanely expensive, but it also takes time - no one can just design and build and have a good modern airplane force in 2 years, much less in 1 month.
-
I will say it again - the Raptor is multirole capable - it's not just an intercepter, hence F/A-22.
From the website:
This aircraft combines stealth design with the supersonic, highly maneuverable, dual-engine, long-range requirements of an air-to-air fighter and will have an inherent air-to-ground capability. The F-22A’s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years.
-
I will say it again - the Raptor is multirole capable - it's not just an intercepter, hence F/A-22.
From the website:
This aircraft combines stealth design with the supersonic, highly maneuverable, dual-engine, long-range requirements of an air-to-air fighter and will have an inherent air-to-ground capability. The F-22A’s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years.
Well that doesn't really change the fact that it is by far designed as a air superiority craft and that's what air force wants it to be - every fighter has inherent air-to-ground ability.
F-15 was designed as a air sup fighter, and F-15E is a strike bomber - but still F-15 was the best air-to-air platform until Raptor got operational. For CAS and multirole the JSF will be the weapon of choice, not F-22.
-
Hmm, having read the article more closely, it's almost as if the US is expecting a conflict with China
Of course they do. Everyone expects there'll be a war with
China before long, and there will be. It might not be an out and out war, but at the very least it'll be a war by proxy, much like Korea and Vietnam were for the Soviets.
The world can't support two benign superpowers for any length of time - it hasn't been able to since the end of WW2, and I doubt it ever will be able to again.
-
I'd suggest the proxy will be Taiwan.
-
Nah, Taiwan would be a direct confrontation. To be a proxy, there would have to be two sides that aren's named "China" and "The United States" but have each side supported by one of the superpowers. With Taiwan, one side of the war would be "China" whether or not the US got directly involved.
-
I'd go with the Typhoon... she has good breeding: http://www.eurofighter.com/Evolution/EAP/
-
I'd go with the Typhoon... she has good breeding: http://www.eurofighter.com/Evolution/EAP/
DIFFERENT. ROLE. Do you speak it?
That being said, flexible small multiuse aircrafts have proven their usefulness over and over again, whereas dedicated air superiority and interceptor airplanes are becoming more insignificant - right now, right here, and that doesn't say that things will be that way in the future. F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripne, JSF - they are all really versatile and so a much more sensible choice for countries that don't posses practically (or artificially) endless resources. USA can have it's squadrons of Airsup because it can afford it and it's interests are much different than, say, Britain's or France's, not even to speak of smaller countries.
You can stack AIM-9s under a Gripen and shoot down Nazi Commie MiGs that come out from the rising sun, screaming Commmunism Liberal Gay Revolution and bombing children. You can shoot them down. You can stick AIM-9s into a weapon bay of F-22 and see it shoot down much more bad guys, propably while taking less casualties.
You can also stack a bunch of cluster munitions into a weapon bay and bomb the Kidkrusher Mammoth NOD Tanks into smoking, hellish, infernal oblivion. Or you could take a Gripen and do it - cheaper and more flexible.
But as soon as these horrible enemies of humanity stand up and send their own Raptors into fight, then it suddenly looks really dire for you Gripens. Jack of all trades, master of none. This is just what US is doing right now - maintaining a technological edge. It may be ridiculously (note that it is spelled correctly!) expensive and not useful in short term, but hey, those Chinese are crafty. They plot and plan. One day there will be shooting! Or something - preparing for future.
I bet as soon as Vulcans come here as ambassadeurs of peace, we will immediately start to draw plans and construct structures that allow us to bomb those elf-eared subhumans into their respective heavens - it's a proven concept.
-
Oh, I meant within that specific area of combat that the Raptor is designed for. ;)
-
Japan vs North Korea....
-
I'd say the most likely proxy-war would be Israel v Iran. Everyone I know in the US military thinks that will happen in 2 years or less. China will support Iran, US and possibly EU will support Israel. Russia will stay out of it and lick its wounds. (Economically it can't handle a war of any size).
My 2 cents
-
I'd say the most likely proxy-war would be Israel v Iran. Everyone I know in the US military thinks that will happen in 2 years or less. China will support Iran, US and possibly EU will support Israel. Russia will stay out of it and lick its wounds. (Economically it can't handle a war of any size).
My 2 cents
That would entail, for a proper war, the states dividing the 2 becoming involved as well.
I'm not sure either the US or China would want a war in that region, due to their needs for oil and the repercussions such a war would cause across the entire area. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Africa was to become the site for such a proxy war; I believe China has made quite a few economic deals for oil access in that continent.
-
Japan vs North Korea....
You mean one of the world's most technologically advanced nations versus fifty-year old Soviet technology? North Korea's main strength is in numbers and defensive infrastructure, which they have had half a entury to build up. An air war is a forgone conclusion, even with Japan's current (though changing) pacifist stance. They have the money, and Uncle Sam would sell to them in a heart beat.
What's the unit cost on the Raptor anyway? I've heard around 130 million, can anyone confirm this? I think the Typhoon is somewhere in that neighborhood too. Which is what, three or four times the cost of an Su-30? Yeah, that cost efficiency for ya.
-
I think the Typhoon is somewhere in that neighborhood too. Which is what, three or four times the cost of an Su-30? Yeah, that cost efficiency for ya.
It is when your expensive planes (F-22A) can achieve a 10-1 kill ratio against those cheaper (in this case, Su-35).
-
Thing is...the British and American aviation industries were not ready or prepared for WWII. They finally got their acts together about 1943 or 1944. War wasn't particularly expected...on the whole (specific people and leaders sure but not the overall society/industry). So while I'm an advocate of not fighting wars of helping people and of solving problems through diplomacy and peacekeeping when necessary, I'm also fairly adamant about making sure that if you need to go to war...then you are ready to do so.
Patently false. Consider: The specifications to which the F6F Hellcat and P-38 Lightning were built were issued in 1937-1938. (So was that to which the P-40 was built, actually.) The Hurricane and the Spitfire were up and ready to go by the beginning of the war, in large numbers. The Brits were, at the very least, ready to go when the war started.
The problem in the US was not the aircraft industry, but rather the US Congress, which was unwilling to give out the funding for the necessary buildup until the war actually started. (Fortunately export contracts to Europe helped cover some of the gap.) Even so, the next-generation aircraft were reaching front-line units by late 1942 and saw serious action in early 1943.
-
I think the Typhoon is somewhere in that neighborhood too. Which is what, three or four times the cost of an Su-30? Yeah, that cost efficiency for ya.
It is when your expensive planes (F-22A) can achieve a 10-1 kill ratio against those cheaper (in this case, Su-35).
Are you're reffering to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_21st_century_fighter_aircraft#DERA_study)? I wouldn't say that it has that much of an advantage, not in the real world anyway. The Su-30MKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30), built for the Indian Airforce has all the 5th generation bells and whistles, and can be considered to be in the same class as the F-22 and Typhoon, even being superior in some respects.
Anyway, as I said, the likelyhood of these planes ever actually encountering each other on the battlefield is very remote.
-
The Su-30 is not equal to the F-22 in any way. The F-22 can pull maneuvers and treat it's engines in ways that the Su-30 could only dream of. Granted, the two are both very advanced, but the F-22's avionics is next generation, beyond all other aircraft on the planet; the Su-30 simply isn't capable of the sensor integration that the F-22 has.
-
Anyway, as I said, the likelyhood of these planes ever actually encountering each other on the battlefield is very remote.
But that doesn't stop the US from burning a fairly large hole in it's budget. :p
-
What's the unit cost on the Raptor anyway? I've heard around 130 million, can anyone confirm this? I think the Typhoon is somewhere in that neighborhood too. Which is what, three or four times the cost of an Su-30? Yeah, that cost efficiency for ya.
I think the Typhoon is considerably cheaper actually, depending on the Avionics suite.
-
The Su-30 is not equal to the F-22 in any way. The F-22 can pull maneuvers and treat it's engines in ways that the Su-30 could only dream of. Granted, the two are both very advanced, but the F-22's avionics is next generation, beyond all other aircraft on the planet; the Su-30 simply isn't capable of the sensor integration that the F-22 has.
Su-30MKI. It has thrust vectoring and other Really Cool Things (including advanced avionics), which puts it, if not exactly on par with the F-22, then rather close, certainly well above the 4th generation fighters. Read the Wikipedia article.
-
It's close, but not on par - the F-22 has more advanced avionics, non-afterburner Mach 1 capability, a stronger airframe, thrust vectoring, better maneuverability, and stealth. :)
-
The Su-30 is not equal to the F-22 in any way. The F-22 can pull maneuvers and treat it's engines in ways that the Su-30 could only dream of. Granted, the two are both very advanced, but the F-22's avionics is next generation, beyond all other aircraft on the planet; the Su-30 simply isn't capable of the sensor integration that the F-22 has.
Su-30MKI. It has thrust vectoring and other Really Cool Things (including advanced avionics), which puts it, if not exactly on par with the F-22, then rather close, certainly well above the 4th generation fighters. Read the Wikipedia article.
Hmm I wonder then why western airplanes have repeatedly beaten their Russian coutnerparts in evaluation simulations and just how the Russians make up for much, much worse avionics, fire control, stealthiness and generally gagdet power?
In current air combat it's more important to lob missiles at your opponents from a safe distance and minimal fuzz than to make glorious immelmanns and whatelse.
Also I would trust Defence Evaluation and Research Agency more than I would trust some internet doods, but that's just me then.
One reason why Suhoi's and Migoyan's late designs are always glorified is the fact that they are really cool-looking machines that are not in common service and even if they are, not too much info is leaked on public. Suhoi's newer designs are basically updates on an older chassis - a good idea - but that chassis wasn't so good as it was made up to be.
-
Are you're reffering to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_21st_century_fighter_aircraft#DERA_study)? I wouldn't say that it has that much of an advantage, not in the real world anyway. The Su-30MKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30), built for the Indian Airforce has all the 5th generation bells and whistles, and can be considered to be in the same class as the F-22 and Typhoon, even being superior in some respects.
Anyway, as I said, the likelyhood of these planes ever actually encountering each other on the battlefield is very remote.
Simulation>Speculation.
The Su-30MKI is not what you originally referenced. While the MKI IS a considerable fighter, it most certainly cannot match the F-22A.
-
Thing is...the British and American aviation industries were not ready or prepared for WWII. They finally got their acts together about 1943 or 1944. War wasn't particularly expected...on the whole (specific people and leaders sure but not the overall society/industry). So while I'm an advocate of not fighting wars of helping people and of solving problems through diplomacy and peacekeeping when necessary, I'm also fairly adamant about making sure that if you need to go to war...then you are ready to do so.
Patently false. Consider: The specifications to which the F6F Hellcat and P-38 Lightning were built were issued in 1937-1938. (So was that to which the P-40 was built, actually.) The Hurricane and the Spitfire were up and ready to go by the beginning of the war, in large numbers. The Brits were, at the very least, ready to go when the war started.
The problem in the US was not the aircraft industry, but rather the US Congress, which was unwilling to give out the funding for the necessary buildup until the war actually started. (Fortunately export contracts to Europe helped cover some of the gap.) Even so, the next-generation aircraft were reaching front-line units by late 1942 and saw serious action in early 1943.
The Spitfire really didn't get a huge amount of support till things started to turn bad in Europe. True the timeline was much earlier. My point was not really about the actual designs as the US and British designs were doing their best to keep upto what Hitler had his bunch already doing. My point was more about manufacturing capability. They had the designs ready but not the actual aircraft in production. Or at very reduced rates. Full manufacturing capability combined with lessons learned and some serious improvements to the original P-38, F6F, P-40, and other types didn't really come into place until 1943 and 1944. The P-38 for instance really reached its peak in the middle of 1943 or the middle of 1944 with the J model and then the J-25 with dive brakes and all sorts of other things that were really needed.
-
I will say it again - the Raptor is multirole capable - it's not just an intercepter, hence F/A-22.
From the website:
This aircraft combines stealth design with the supersonic, highly maneuverable, dual-engine, long-range requirements of an air-to-air fighter and will have an inherent air-to-ground capability. The F-22A’s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years.
Thats unfortunately quite a bit of PR work. Most of the air to ground capability is in the form of 250lb JDAM's. I'm actually not sure if any other types have been used or tested on the Raptor. Apparently I've just read that the F/A-22A has had the A designator dropped. So its a F-22A. It does have a A-to-G mode but its not anywhere close to what the Typhoon can do (multiple types of ship killing missiles, stealth cruise missiles, standoff attack weapons, cluster munitions, conventional bombs, and so on). No quite honestly the F-22A is mostly a fighter...and its likely the best thats ever been put together. Strictly speaking. But if you're talking bang for buck...the Typhoon I think looks like a better candidate because its got a very extensive multi-role capability.
The thing is...in a NATO wartime situation, having the F-22, multiple nationalities of Typhoons, theoretically multiple nationalities of F-35's, and some AWAC's support means for a VERY effective and serious force to contend with. And thats just with various types of fighters. If put up against Su-30MKI's, the very latest Mig-29s (which also have something of a supercruise ability), and whatever the Chinese build out of the J-10 technology demonstrator...I'd feel pretty good being with the Typhoons and F-22's.
-
The Su-30 is not equal to the F-22 in any way. The F-22 can pull maneuvers and treat it's engines in ways that the Su-30 could only dream of. Granted, the two are both very advanced, but the F-22's avionics is next generation, beyond all other aircraft on the planet; the Su-30 simply isn't capable of the sensor integration that the F-22 has.
Su-30MKI. It has thrust vectoring and other Really Cool Things (including advanced avionics), which puts it, if not exactly on par with the F-22, then rather close, certainly well above the 4th generation fighters. Read the Wikipedia article.
Hmm I wonder then why western airplanes have repeatedly beaten their Russian coutnerparts in evaluation simulations and just how the Russians make up for much, much worse avionics, fire control, stealthiness and generally gagdet power?
In current air combat it's more important to lob missiles at your opponents from a safe distance and minimal fuzz than to make glorious immelmanns and whatelse.
Also I would trust Defence Evaluation and Research Agency more than I would trust some internet doods, but that's just me then.
One reason why Suhoi's and Migoyan's late designs are always glorified is the fact that they are really cool-looking machines that are not in common service and even if they are, not too much info is leaked on public. Suhoi's newer designs are basically updates on an older chassis - a good idea - but that chassis wasn't so good as it was made up to be.
The Indian Airforce begs to differ. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051128/wl_csm/otopgun). In any case, I agree that dogfighting is not where it's at. Hell, you could win or lose before you even came in visual range of the opponent. And while the MKI may not be in service in Russia, vanilla Su-27s and 30s are, and Mig-29s are serving in a dozen foreign countries. Keep in mind, the F-22 isn't in full, or even partial deployment either; not yet. And the F-35 is still in development, years away from actual deployment. The EU probably has the best fighter, pound for pound, at the moment, but I wouldn't begrudge Russia, China, India and others their slightly inferior technology, given that the US has something like 30 times the money to play with.
-
In any case, I agree that dogfighting is not where it's at.
They thought that before Vietnam, too. And before Desert Storm. They haven't been right yet. In practice BVR engagements tend to fall before concerns of positive identification of your target. The dogfight is also a great equalizer between those with lesser technology aircraft and those with higher tech planes, so there are lots of folks out there who spend their time coming up with ways to force a dogfight. The general idea is to take no chances, ever since it was discovered that building the original F-4s without an integrated cannon was A Bad Idea.
-
The Indian Airforce begs to differ. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051128/wl_csm/otopgun). In any case, I agree that dogfighting is not where it's at. Hell, you could win or lose before you even came in visual range of the opponent. And while the MKI may not be in service in Russia, vanilla Su-27s and 30s are, and Mig-29s are serving in a dozen foreign countries. Keep in mind, the F-22 isn't in full, or even partial deployment either; not yet. And the F-35 is still in development, years away from actual deployment. The EU probably has the best fighter, pound for pound, at the moment, but I wouldn't begrudge Russia, China, India and others their slightly inferior technology, given that the US has something like 30 times the money to play with.
That training is rigged. US was denied AWACS, AMRAAMS, the results were constantly changed and the numerical situation was less than favourable. Ok ok, Su-30s can shoot down F-16s (hell, not even airsup fighters, F-16s!) which have their command grid pretty neutered.
-
What i know from military circles (have few relatives there) most of the pilots consider Russian SU-27 and it's descendants to be the best fighter planes in deployment at the moment. For the actual flying part. And atleast some of the Russian missiles have long been believed to be outperforming (no real tests have been made) their Western counterparts (Sidewinder vs. Archer). Again for the general performance parts. American (ie. top of the line Western) technology is generally better (avionics, computers etc.) but has for a long time dragged behind in aerodynamics and in general flying performance. So it might best not to ridicule the Russian or some other non-Western technology until it has been proven in real tests.
-
Interesting debate about K/D ratio.
You know, it's not just the equipment the pilots have, but also their training and the tactics used. It seems that less and less actual piloting skills are required to fly these automagically computer assisted, aerodynamically instable planes, and also the pilot is not required to have a "flexible neck" any more, when all information required is visible on one single display. But still, the pilot's role IS important.
You might want to familiarize yourselves with achievements of the FAF (Finnish Air Force) during Winter War 1939-1940 and the Continuation War 1941-1944 against the Russian Air Force.
Example: The FAF bought 44 Brewster 239's (On US Navy, the type was known as Brewster F2A-2) on 1940, but the planes arrived too late to have any meaning in Winter War. So, when the Continuation War begun in 1941, the plane type was already starting to get obsolete, as Russian air forces could upgrade their material on a much regular basis. On the beginning of Continuation War, FAF had 40 Brewsters on service, and during the war 19 of them were shot down in aerial combat, whereas Brewsters achieved 447 confirmed kills against Russian planes. That's about K/D = 23,5 planes shot down for one lost Brewster. Of course most of the shot down planes were bombers, but still...
By the way, Ilmari Juutilainen scored in total 92 (confirmed) kills against Russians in 437 sorties, flying Fokker D.21s, Brewsters and Messerschmitts. His plane was never hit in combat.
Oh, back to the subject. Russians generally had better planes to fly; Yakolevs, MiGs, LaGG's were all good fighters - and of course they received several Hurricanes, P-51 Mustangs, Thunderbolts and stuff from the west. From 1943 to end of war Finland had in total 159 Messerschmitts, which were practically only planes that were compatible with all Russian planes. Still the Finnish Air Force managed quite well in both wars. That was mainly due very advanced and efficient training and modern air combat tactics developed by Eka MAgnusson and Richard Lorenz...
Of course, if all pilots had the same skills and followed same tactics, the results would certainly show that better plane would have better K/D ratio. This is obviously never that simple...
-
That training is rigged. US was denied AWACS, AMRAAMS, the results were constantly changed and the numerical situation was less than favourable. Ok ok, Su-30s can shoot down F-16s (hell, not even airsup fighters, F-16s!) which have their command grid pretty neutered.
On the other hand the Indian military isn't exactly the best in the region.
-
Aside from Pakistan, who they massively outnumber, I only see China as the other possible rival. (And Russia ain't exactly in any shape to fight a war afaik)
-
Shush now. Tsar Putin is fixing all that.
In any case, I think that both China and Russia, and to a lesser extent India have some sort of informal understanding which says "let's not squabble, so we can keep the Americans the hell off our contintent".
-
Shush now. Tsar Putin is fixing all that.
In any case, I think that both China and Russia, and to a lesser extent India have some sort of informal understanding which says "let's not squabble, so we can keep the Americans the hell off our contintent".
Something like that, yeah.