Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flaser on May 29, 2007, 04:44:24 am
-
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html
Recently I've stumbled upon a great site that details the future of the Australian Airforce.
For once, I've found a site that bashes the current JSF program - or more like marketing - for the right reasons:
The JSF was never intended as a single engine "F-22 clone". It's capabilities leave a lot to be desired in that regard.
Actually you could think of it as a stealthy F-16 with very beefed up CAS (Close-in Air Support) capabilities. A really nifty aircraft if you need that.
The key word here is: CLOSE.
The JSF is a knife-fighter, playing it close to the troops, close to the ground and close to the base. In that area (CAS, tactical bombing, light fighter) it is really good - the best on the maret.
However it is NOT:
an interceptor*
an air superiority fighter
a deep-strike bomber*
The reason why pushing the aircraft into said roles really hurts, is that it can't fufill the roles of the F-14 (leaving the Navy with the F-18 that would need a new missile package/avionics/radar package to handle the job); or the B1/F-111 leaving the Army with the F-15E.
Said aircrafts are more than adequate in their respective roles. They're good.
However they're aging, and supplying that many types of aircrafts puts quite a pressure on the supply chain.
Furthermore these are aging platforms and the teen series aside (F-15, F-16) it's unclear how long they are economical to service.
The real problem for modern airforces outside the US comes from the following craft:
http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html
Su-30MKI/Su-30MKK
This is the new Flanker family, an upgrade to the Su-27 family that the F-22/JSF were built to defeat. The F-22 still has a massive advantage over them, but this would somewhat diminish (but never dissappear!).
However the JSF can beat the Russian family only in its own league - the Mig-29, that the Russians are drawing out of service.
The JSF has really ambigous chances going up against an Su-30 on its own.
Thing to keep in mind during the whole discussion:
It's not a question of which aircraft is better.
It's not a question which is more survivable.
The question is the following:
Given their current economic power, if current Asian airforces field Su-30 in sufficient number (namely not the puny insignificant pocket airforces of 3rd world banana republics),
Will an airforce equiped with the JSF as their main fighter,
a) Mount a sucessfull offensive?
b) Maintain a good defense?
The answer to both of these questions is not a resounding yes, only a quiet maybe; depends....
Read the above articles for further details.
In my opinoin, what NATO forces would need would be:
F-22-s, and a naval and bomber variant.
-
I've always consitered the JSF as a good 'companion blade' to the F-22, it's a nice little fighter that can do a few things well and a whole bunch of things passably.
-
The JSF, as I've understood it, has always been for countries that can't afford to have both the F-22 and the JSF, so they get the less expensive and more versatile JSF instead. That way, they can do everything well, as opposed to doing one thing perfectly.
By the way, does the SU-30 have stealth capabilities? If it doesn't, the JSF IIRC does have minimal stealth, which means they might win due to the fact that the enemy wouldn't see them in time (maybe).
-
f22s are so prohibitively expensive that the the usa can barely afford them. and i doubt that the us is gonna hand over the right to buy them to even its most trusted allies. the jsf was made to fill in the numbers role. aircraft are only really usefull in numbers, no matter how good they are. the loan wolf approach will never work in air combat. sence were limited on the number of f22s we can buy and operate (and i dont need my taxes any higher to pay for them), we need a less expensive aircraft to fill in the void, hence the jsf.
but with the us's usuall choise of banana republics as foes, rather than world powers, it would be better off to but another hundred a-10s and call it a day. the leaders of world powers would sooner play golf with eachother than go to war. china is wracking up the cashflow by filling all our industrial needs, and russia can barely deal with their organized crime problem. as much as i would like to have one, i dont see a ww3 short of a bunch of terrorists with nukes.
-
By the way, does the SU-30 have stealth capabilities? If it doesn't, the JSF IIRC does have minimal stealth, which means they might win due to the fact that the enemy wouldn't see them in time (maybe).
AFAIK, many recent fighters (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su-30 (not sure about this), but also some older ones like the F-16) are considered "low observability" fighters because, due to their shape (blended wings etc.) they are "stealthier" than other planes.
I've read also that the F-35 is not stealth, it's a low observability fighter itself (minimal stealth, as you said). This means that they should have the same odds of detecting themselves in an air combat (given that their radars work at their best).
BTW, I always thought that the F-35 is an airplane that is designed to do too many things, and won't be able to do any. For example, it is designed to be a CAS aircraft, but it can't carry the same amount of ordinance as the A-10 due to internal bays, and I think it's not good for that role for things like single engine etc.
Probably it will only be useful to replace the Harrier on English, Italian and Spanish carriers.
I don't like it because it's also ugly as hell. Better than the X-32 though.
-
The JSF has always seemed to be a mish mash of a Harrier (AV-8 to you merry-cans) an FA-18 for the bomb capabilities and an F22 in its limited super-cruise.
As for controversy, thats been a long running thing :D there was a mega drive game based on it, thats how old the project is :lol:
-
f22s are so prohibitively expensive that the the usa can barely afford them. and i doubt that the us is gonna hand over the right to buy them to even its most trusted allies. the jsf was made to fill in the numbers role. aircraft are only really usefull in numbers, no matter how good they are. the loan wolf approach will never work in air combat. sence were limited on the number of f22s we can buy and operate (and i dont need my taxes any higher to pay for them), we need a less expensive aircraft to fill in the void, hence the jsf.
but with the us's usuall choise of banana republics as foes, rather than world powers, it would be better off to but another hundred a-10s and call it a day. the leaders of world powers would sooner play golf with eachother than go to war. china is wracking up the cashflow by filling all our industrial needs, and russia can barely deal with their organized crime problem. as much as i would like to have one, i dont see a ww3 short of a bunch of terrorists with nukes.
I don't know where the hell you've been for the last 10 years, but instead the Cold War's all out war; what I've seen was conflict through proxy nations over "buffer" territories and intensifying confrontation between Russia and the USA over fossil resources (oil, gas ect.) (...and please, I'm not speaking of Iraq. Check up on what has been going on in Eastern Europe as well as Russian "proxy-states" - nation's unlucky enough to be neighbour to a once again awakening superpower in an ever more hostile international political environment.)
An all out war is not likely - a bloody "remote" conflict like Vietnam, except with a somewhat "official"/"humanitarian" relief from another high-tech party doesn't seem so out of the question.
Furthermore if you look into the problem, it's not only about the US of the A but it's overseas partners: people in need of a plane with capabilities similar to the F-22 if they want to maintain the current status quo.
The reson why the JSF won't cut in in this arena, is that numbers only matter as long as they actually get to play - the current Su-27/30 derivates can outshoot, outmanuever and outlast the plane in the air; and the plane lacks the growth potential for a better radar or longer range missiles wihtout sacrificing its current performance.
Simply put the JSF is unsuited to the interceptor/air-supriority fighter role it is marketed to fufill.
For that role you need a bigger, two engine figher with better air-combat performance, range and true supercruising ability (something the Su-30 could gain within 5 years with their own cooled engines).
I'm not bashing the JSF - it is marvelous plane from several POV that can fufill a lot of roles for several branches of the millitary. However air dominance/superiority or deep strike are not among them.
On final note:
The F-22 was until recently renamed F/A-22 (but the name change revoked under asinin reasons) as it has prooven to be more than multirole capable. So much so, that the F-117 will be replaced by F-22s.
The plane also has a marvelous growth potential, which is rarely spoken of, and usually only the bare-bone baseline performance figures are used, which is based on restrictions to stay within Congress approoved budget.
Furthermore R&D costs are also figured into the plane's rollout costs, but not into the JSF's cost which is pretty nasty given that the same research has resulted in the JSF's existance and are a lot more bloated than the actual cost of building additional crafts (which cost will only go down).
One last thing:
The F-22 will also benefit from the JSF program, as a lot of economic procedures developed in the JSF to reduce manufacturing costs will make their way into the F-22, so the F-22 will be also cheaper.
PS.: Check the damn articles I linked. They have references, they don't do overt numbers dicking or citing experts without laying out plain and prooven facts
<------------------------------------------------->
@The role of stealth in BVR combat:
1) The Su-30 series has very good optical aquisition systems.
2) They will be outfitted with AESA radars within 5 years (currenlty only fielded on the F-22 and JSF)
3) The JSF hasn't got all aspect stealth as the F-22 does, and the stealth optimisation on its engine is limited to a number of radar bands over the F-22's wide spectrum optimisation
4) The Su-30 radar signature will likely reduced by adding RAM materials. (It will be in the same league as the F-18/Eurofighter ect., obviously with worse results as it is a larger plane.)
To fire the JSF will have to light up its radar, thereby giving away its location. Once it has done so, it's victory is not a forgone conclusion as it would be the case with the F-22 (which isn't even than, just very likely).
The now enjoyed information upper hand also wouldn't be that availible in the above scenarios as current Flanker doctrines all start with cruise missile attacks against radar platforms.
A final not is how "relativly cheap" the Su-30 variants are.
As for the next generation Russian aircraft, you should check up project PAKFA.
-
By the way, does the SU-30 have stealth capabilities? If it doesn't, the JSF IIRC does have minimal stealth, which means they might win due to the fact that the enemy wouldn't see them in time (maybe).
AFAIK, many recent fighters (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su-30 (not sure about this), but also some older ones like the F-16) are considered "low observability" fighters because, due to their shape (blended wings etc.) they are "stealthier" than other planes.
I've read also that the F-35 is not stealth, it's a low observability fighter itself (minimal stealth, as you said). This means that they should have the same odds of detecting themselves in an air combat (given that their radars work at their best).
BTW, I always thought that the F-35 is an airplane that is designed to do too many things, and won't be able to do any. For example, it is designed to be a CAS aircraft, but it can't carry the same amount of ordinance as the A-10 due to internal bays, and I think it's not good for that role for things like single engine etc.
Probably it will only be useful to replace the Harrier on English, Italian and Spanish carriers.
I don't like it because it's also ugly as hell. Better than the X-32 though.
Actually the F-35 is a very good CAS plane, as it has best IR warnign system to date; and an over-the-shoulder laser/optical guided missile launch sytem that has to be seen to be belived.
Furthermore, once airsuperiority is achieved, the plane can take off with external munitions too; as stealth won't be critical anymore.
It can also deliver precision munitions without sacrificing payload for the apropiate designator equipment.
All in all it's a pretty nifty aircraft that could manage to fufill a very wide range of roles in several branches of the millitary, but as I said airsuperiority or interception isn't among them.
In air-to-air engagements it main objective is to defend itself as well as take out the enemy CAS aircraft in the area similar to how F-16 are meant to operate.
-
Okay, you want to compare it to the F-16. Well, that's gonna cost you, because when you get right down to it the F-16 is as physically capable an interceptor and air superiority fighter as the F-22 is at the moment. Both are AMRAAM-capable (with superb heatseeker all-aspect backup in the F-16's case; the F-22 generally does not have those) and both are BVR-engagement-capable, both can generally rely on (superior) AWACs support. (Which obviates the need to turn on their radar actually, the AMRAAM is a fire-and-forget weapon that can do its own homing.) The F-16 can actually carry a bigger weapons load (external stores) and has marginally superior performance in the dogfight (partly lower speed, partly because it wasn't built for speed).
The protestation here misses a great, perhaps vital point in complaining about the Sukhoi being better aircraft: they are. They are superior to anything in Western service, because Western aircraft have evolved to another level of performance, but not to the point where they didn't have to sacrifice for it. The great step forward in aircraft design the F-22 was meant to represent has not, from the standpoint of the commander, materialized. Might not have ever existed at that. The F-22 and to a lesser extent JSF have suffered from one very critical defect: they advanced their aerodynamics at the cost of their capablities as a warplane. They are undoubtedly marvelous aircraft to fly, but less so when it comes down to missiles in the air and bombs on the target.
The F-22 and JSF are therefore, in a very real sense, concepts before their time; not because the world was not ready for them, but because they were not ready for the world.
-
im personally glad were not retiring the a-10 for at least another 10-11 years. that bird with its new avionics package and its good old huge honking mother of a gatling gun can stay forever as far as im concerned. people seem to miss the point that for the cas role you want a slow aircraft, going too fast in that roll will only lead to frequent overshoots. and at a mere 8 million a pop, the a-10 is a bird we can definately afford.
i am liking the stovl varient of the jsf, at the very least it will help advanced the vertical takeoff technology, a feature which id like to see become an aspect of general aviation. it will be nice when you can park your plane in the lot, take off vertically and fly to work. so long as theres a military intrest in vtol/stovl the technology will continue to evolve.
-
im personally glad were not retiring the a-10 for at least another 10-11 years. that bird with its new avionics package and its good old huge honking mother of a gatling gun can stay forever as far as im concerned. people seem to miss the point that for the cas role you want a slow aircraft, going too fast in that roll will only lead to frequent overshoots. and at a mere 8 million a pop, the a-10 is a bird we can definately afford.
i am liking the stovl varient of the jsf, at the very least it will help advanced the vertical takeoff technology, a feature which id like to see become an aspect of general aviation. it will be nice when you can park your plane in the lot, take off vertically and fly to work. so long as theres a military intrest in vtol/stovl the technology will continue to evolve.
I also think that retiring the A-10 (or God forbid pimp the AH-64 in the desert as the best thing) would be a mistake. But the A-10 had the many casulties from radar guided missiles which they were ill-built to avoid.
The JSF is an entierly different beast, so while it can't replace the A-10 it can do a wide variety of things the A-10 can't - namely engage ground targets with its very sophisticated AESA radar from far away.
As I see it, it would be up to the F-22 to do the initial deep-strike missions, and later on the JSF to do the radar-mop-up; then the A-10 can thunder in, and pulverise the ground pounders (plenty of them left, they're just not the "prime" dangers of the initial network).
@ngtm1r:
Please, quote a single study that makes the F-16 as good as an F-15 or the JSF.
I grant, you may be right, I'm just pretty hard pressed to believe so.
On heat-seeking missiles: YGBSM.
The F-22 has side mounted bays for mounting the very missiles you speak of.
Final note:
As an interceptor the F-16 could only be viable in the Eurpoean Cold War Scenario.
It lacks the endurance or the all quoted supercruise (it is only superdash capable) that make the F-22 such a fearsome fighter.
A smaller deployment radius as well as the inability to intercept a cruise missile in time is hardly what I would call "physically as capable".
You're definitly right in one thing though: The JSF is not a light fighter that eventually evolved into a multirole craft, and the F-16 does outperform it in that role.
The JSF was a multirole strikecraft from the get go, with a fighter role tucked on, under the isistance of the F-16 community..
However in a BVR engagement in the long run, I still think it would perform better thanks to its lot more sophisticated radar system.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html
-
In air-to-air engagements it main objective is to defend itself as well as take out the enemy CAS aircraft in the area similar to how F-16 are meant to operate.
Actually, the F-16 was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft. It was designed as a "lesser brother" to the F-15: while the F-15 is the heir to the F-4, big, fast and with a lot of missiles, the F-16 was meant to be a pure dogfighter, which sacrified speed for maneuverability.
I have also to correct ngtm1r: first versions of the F-16 (like the ones the Italian Air Force has on lease now :ick: , the F-16A Block 15 ADF) were not AMRAAM-compatible, so they didn't have BVR dogfights capabilities.
I think in the dogfighting role the F-16 is not better than the F-15, but in the multi-role capabilities it far exceeds the F-15: while there are 2 different F-15 versions for dogfighting and ground attack (F-15C for aerial combat, F-15E for ground attack, but the F-15E is also a fairly good dogfighter if it has already unloaded its ground-attack weapons), you can arm an F-16 with ground-attack weapons and another aircraft of the same version with air-to-air missiles, or even loading a single aircraft with a mixed payload (but this will make the F-16 slightly disadvantaged in both dogfight and ground attack).
F-16 better than the F-35... well... surely the F-35 will be better than our F-16A Block 15 ADF, but I'm not so sure that an F-35 would be better than an F-16C Block 60 or an F-16I.
-
In air-to-air engagements it main objective is to defend itself as well as take out the enemy CAS aircraft in the area similar to how F-16 are meant to operate.
Actually, the F-16 was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft. It was designed as a "lesser brother" to the F-15: while the F-15 is the heir to the F-4, big, fast and with a lot of missiles, the F-16 was meant to be a pure dogfighter, which sacrified speed for maneuverability.
I have also to correct ngtm1r: first versions of the F-16 (like the ones the Italian Air Force has on lease now :ick: , the F-16A Block 15 ADF) were not AMRAAM-compatible, so they didn't have BVR dogfights capabilities.
I think in the dogfighting role the F-16 is not better than the F-15, but in the multi-role capabilities it far exceeds the F-15: while there are 2 different F-15 versions for dogfighting and ground attack (F-15C for aerial combat, F-15E for ground attack, but the F-15E is also a fairly good dogfighter if it has already unloaded its ground-attack weapons), you can arm an F-16 with ground-attack weapons and another aircraft of the same version with air-to-air missiles, or even loading a single aircraft with a mixed payload (but this will make the F-16 slightly disadvantaged in both dogfight and ground attack).
F-16 better than the F-35... well... surely the F-35 will be better than our F-16A Block 15 ADF, but I'm not so sure that an F-35 would be better than an F-16C Block 60 or an F-16I.
As I wrote it was a "light fighter" that gained impressive multirole capabilities.
Anyway what you wrote about the F-16C or I is probably right.
(However if I recall ngtm1r compared the F-22 to the F-16 whereas the later was pants down beat in the interceptor (which is not the same as the fighter) game by the F-15.)
-
How about the Euro-Figther or the Swedish made JAS-39 Griffon (Wich is acctualy in service unlike all the others and have been for a few years)
-
JSF is an odd sort of thing. I've been reading the debate for a while now and there's some really solid material out on the web. The F-35 really is an amazing aircraft in that it has some fantastic capabilities...its about equal with the F-16 in air to air capability and it tacks on LO/stealth (depending on definitions) capabilities, the latest techno gadgetry, datalinks and the like and then it even has the F-35B with Harrier like abilities. Thats pretty impressive as a package. But its not perfect...doesn't have a second engine (although it has an extremely powerful single engine)...the radar stealth capabilities aren't quite as good as the F-22 (but apparently better than the F-117...not sure how that goes) and the ability to carry weapons internally is a pretty good advantage in itself. I'm not sure if it has supercruise or not...I keep hearing different arguments back and forth.
I think it'd probably be a pretty ideal aircraft for many nations and its absolutely ideal as a companion aircraft to the F-22 but for Australia...that might be a bit of a problem. They need something in between...cheaper but more capable in the air to air.
Also...RE: weapons carrying capaibilities...the F-35 can carry allot of ordinance externally trading stealth for payload. If its used as its predecessors have then by the time they start carrying around lots of bombs the enemy air defense will be a shambles anyways. If not...then they are limited to a pair of AMRAAM's and a pair of 2000lb laser or GPS guided bombs. Not bad either.
-
JSF is an odd sort of thing. I've been reading the debate for a while now and there's some really solid material out on the web. The F-35 really is an amazing aircraft in that it has some fantastic capabilities...its about equal with the F-16 in air to air capability and it tacks on LO/stealth (depending on definitions) capabilities, the latest techno gadgetry, datalinks and the like and then it even has the F-35B with Harrier like abilities. Thats pretty impressive as a package. But its not perfect...doesn't have a second engine (although it has an extremely powerful single engine)...the radar stealth capabilities aren't quite as good as the F-22 (but apparently better than the F-117...not sure how that goes) and the ability to carry weapons internally is a pretty good advantage in itself. I'm not sure if it has supercruise or not...I keep hearing different arguments back and forth.
I think it'd probably be a pretty ideal aircraft for many nations and its absolutely ideal as a companion aircraft to the F-22 but for Australia...that might be a bit of a problem. They need something in between...cheaper but more capable in the air to air.
Also...RE: weapons carrying capaibilities...the F-35 can carry allot of ordinance externally trading stealth for payload. If its used as its predecessors have then by the time they start carrying around lots of bombs the enemy air defense will be a shambles anyways. If not...then they are limited to a pair of AMRAAM's and a pair of 2000lb laser or GPS guided bombs. Not bad either.
It's not A2A capability that's lacking per se, but range and speed.
Those two are critical for an interceptor, or a deep penetration strike craft.
The JAS-39 and the Eurofighter are good planes, but they're still a generation behind; they are more on par with a beefed up Mig-29 (which would still outperform them), then the next gen fighters.
Actually my country (Hungary) too has purchased JAS-39s, but that just shows how small a budget we have. I think of the JAS-39 as the Eurofighter mini, or economic model.
It is more than sufficient for monitoring the airspace of a small nation, but if I were a Defense Minister of a nation with real millitary capital; I wouldn't invest in the model.
The Eurofighter is a very European thing, as it is a light fighter that would have been ideal for the very same Cold-War scenario the F-16 was built for.
The Typhoon also has a lot of controversial data on it; so I won't yet comment on how well it does in A2A. Earlier it was stated that it could outperform anything beside the F22. (I guess that means the JSF too).
However with the Su-30 family on the rise, I'm not so sure anymore. Unless the plane gains thrust vectoring, I would still put my bet on the Sukhoi in a dogfight - and in a BVR the Sukhois so far have a hard to dismiss shoot-first, shoot-farther and shoot a lot more missiles advantage.
(If anyone comes up with how 'trash' Russian missiles are, I recommend checking out the stats on the Vympel R-27. Although mostly SAR (semi active radar) and heat seeking variants are in use, it has a longer range than the AMRAAM, - especially the exnteded range, booster fitted versions - but there are anti-radiation and active radar variants as well. This is already the mainstay missile of the Su-30 family and will gain said capabilities (antirad, active radar) very soon. The new Vympel misssile, the R-77 is downright scary as it is ramjet powered has range that only the Phoenix could even compare to, and can do manuevers at 12g. In other words if you're far enough into the enemy's launch profile, and therefore the missile has enough energy left, it will outturn you! So far only heat-seeking close-range missiles could do that.)
PS.: antiradiation missiles home-in on, the enemy's radar or jamming. (IIRC The AIM-120 AMRAAM already has a home in on jam capability).
-
I've been saying it for ages. The UK should have just bought Mig29s back when Russia was super-skint and we could have got them cheap. Now we've invested millions in Euro Fighter, have jobs depending on it etc and are stuck with no way back and, no doubt, more delays to endure.
-
How about the Euro-Figther or the Swedish made JAS-39 Griffon (Wich is acctualy in service unlike all the others and have been for a few years)
Actually, the Typhoon has been in service with the Royal Air Force, the Aeronautica Militare Italiana, the Luftwaffe and the Ejercito del Aire for at least a couple of years.
The Eurofighter is a very European thing, as it is a light fighter that would have been ideal for the very same Cold-War scenario the F-16 was built for.
The Typhoon also has a lot of controversial data on it; so I won't yet comment on how well it does in A2A. Earlier it was stated that it could outperform anything beside the F22. (I guess that means the JSF too).
However with the Su-30 family on the rise, I'm not so sure anymore. Unless the plane gains thrust vectoring, I would still put my bet on the Sukhoi in a dogfight - and in a BVR the Sukhois so far have a hard to dismiss shoot-first, shoot-farther and shoot a lot more missiles advantage.
The Typhoon can be considered everything but for a light fighter... It belongs to the same generation as the F-22 and the Rafale (which is a French "spin-off" of the Typhoon). Also, it is more similar to the F-15 than the F-16, because it was designed as a pure air superiority fighter. The only aspect in which it is disadvantaged in comparison to the F-22 is that the Typhoon lacks pure stealth capabilities.
It should have had also a naval version with thrust vectoring, but it could take-off and land only from American-like carriers (like the French Charles de Gaulle). England, Italy and Spain have much smaller carriers, and Germany doesn't have any carrier at all, so it was considered a waste of money to develop a naval version. That's why France abandoned the Eurofighter team and developed the Rafale by themselves.
-
How about the Euro-Figther or the Swedish made JAS-39 Griffon (Wich is acctualy in service unlike all the others and have been for a few years)
Actually, the Typhoon has been in service with the Royal Air Force, the Aeronautica Militare Italiana, the Luftwaffe and the Ejercito del Aire for at least a couple of years.
The Eurofighter is a very European thing, as it is a light fighter that would have been ideal for the very same Cold-War scenario the F-16 was built for.
The Typhoon also has a lot of controversial data on it; so I won't yet comment on how well it does in A2A. Earlier it was stated that it could outperform anything beside the F22. (I guess that means the JSF too).
However with the Su-30 family on the rise, I'm not so sure anymore. Unless the plane gains thrust vectoring, I would still put my bet on the Sukhoi in a dogfight - and in a BVR the Sukhois so far have a hard to dismiss shoot-first, shoot-farther and shoot a lot more missiles advantage.
The Typhoon can be considered everything but for a light fighter... It belongs to the same generation as the F-22 and the Rafale (which is a French "spin-off" of the Typhoon). Also, it is more similar to the F-15 than the F-16, because it was designed as a pure air superiority fighter. The only aspect in which it is disadvantaged in comparison to the F-22 is that the Typhoon lacks pure stealth capabilities.
It should have had also a naval version with thrust vectoring, but it could take-off and land only from American-like carriers (like the French Charles de Gaulle). England, Italy and Spain have much smaller carriers, and Germany doesn't have any carrier at all, so it was considered a waste of money to develop a naval version. That's why France abandoned the Eurofighter team and developed the Rafale by themselves.
Pardon my language, under light fighter I was refering to size; as well as tonnage. AFAIK the EF Typhoon is nowhere near as big as the F-15 or the Su-27. It fills the same role as the Mig-29 does.
In my book the later is also a short range light fighter.
Vicious and deadly A2A fighters, but not in the heavy weight league that the F-22 and the Su-30 occupy.
As I was already stating, this disctintion isn't about lethality or dogfight capacity (well designed light fighters actually tend to do better in those roles, as they can be more nimble), but range - the ability to do a sufficient number of sorties per day, to loiter for sufficient times to secure the airspace.
The laws of physics and fuel consumption dictate, that larger planes do better in those roles. If you're on the defensive, you might not need those precise missions, but if you're force projecting overseas; chances are - unless you have an airfield close to the target - that a bigger plane will be better.
PS.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_fighter
It seems, you had the definition better down than I did.
Than the distintion would be better between heavy weight, and medium weight classes.
@Mig-29 purchase: although there is a naval variant, IMHO the fighter is only viable as part of a defense grid; and is wholly unsuited to force projection due its short range.
-
Uh... you're right... considering range the Typhoon is nowhere close to the F-22 or the Su-30 :nervous:
Hmm... the Typhoon does not have a really long range... same thing for the F-35... in 20 years the Italian Air Force will have only Typhoons and F-35s...
:eek:
We'll be without long range fighters in 20 years! :shaking:
(Actually, we survived 30 years with the F-104, which is everything but a long range fighter... :nervous:)
-
Interception duty by nature implies that the targets will come to you. They have to. The F-16, and the JSF, have short range, but that is acceptable for a defensive mission. They're not particularly good at BARCAP either due to lack of endurance, but that's what tankers are for. This is of course in landbased interception. No fighter aircraft currently in service anywhere (Possibly excepting the MiG-31 if the Russians are still messing about with those, but that would never fit on a carrier.) really has the kind of speed and range to make a good carrier interceptor, because the Backfires are still out there.
This concept you seem to be holding in your head of going into enemy airspace and seizing it like it's territory, then loitering around waiting for someone to try and take it back...well. That's about as tactically bankrupt as it gets. That's not how air combat works. Posession is meaningless. Granted that they have short legs for strike escort (but see the tankers comment above), but then again, dedicated strike aircraft are conspiciously absent from the new Western aircraft lineup, so you would be escorting aircraft of similarly short legs.
The A-6s and F-111s have all gone away; France still has some Mirage 2000 variant strike aircraft IIRC; not sure of status of the Brit's Jaguars, but they never had long legs to begin with; the Russians have recently added something like a scaled-down F-111 to their inventory. Basically, deep strike is dead, except for the B-2 and B-1B. The short legs of the JSF are rather meaningless in that light.
-
The JAS-39 and the Eurofighter are good planes, but they're still a generation behind; they are more on par with a beefed up Mig-29 (which would still outperform them), then the next gen fighters.
Actually my country (Hungary) too has purchased JAS-39s, but that just shows how small a budget we have. I think of the JAS-39 as the Eurofighter mini, or economic model.
It is more than sufficient for monitoring the airspace of a small nation, but if I were a Defense Minister of a nation with real millitary capital; I wouldn't invest in the model.
Well considering that the Jas-39 was designed for sweden it dosent need that big of an action radious (Russia or Former Soviet Union is pretty close) asfor it being it old it was designed to be upgraded asfar as I know Hungary has the latest version that has just been developed (but considering you are only leasing 14 of them I dont know how big part of your airforce that makes up) Still the newest ones that are being developed (with Norway who will proberly replace there old US figthers with it aswell as denmark) it will most likely perform just asgood as the Eurofigther.
Also asfar as the Mig 29 goes the JAS was made to combat that aircraft.
Anyway it was made as a defence figther and arent really supposed to be an equvilent to the F22-Raptor for an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
Also I just want to say that the F22-Raptor looks really cool
/Dice
-
the Russians have recently added something like a scaled-down F-111 to their inventory.
Are you talking about the Su-24 Fencer? That's not really recent (1967 for maiden flight).
Unless you are talking about the Su-34 Fullback, in that case that's quite recent (but it looks more lik a bigger Su-27 because it's basically a 2-seater with side-by-side seats version, than a scaled-down F-111 :))
-
Anyone here heard of John Boyd? Take a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-Manueverability_theory)... I've read a biography on this guy, his ideas are pretty cool.
The google search results (http://www.google.com/search?q=john+boyd+art+of+war) are interesting...
-
Hey jr2, I was just wondering when you'd have posted here :D
-
If I now had a tactical nuke....I would deman of the US gov to bring back the Super Tomcat project...otherwise BOOOOM!!!
-
I've been saying it for ages. The UK should have just bought Mig29s back when Russia was super-skint and we could have got them cheap. Now we've invested millions in Euro Fighter, have jobs depending on it etc and are stuck with no way back and, no doubt, more delays to endure.
But MiGs suck compared to western designs, why the hell would anyone buy scrap metal and then spend untold millions in trying to get their electronics into NATO standards?
-
Because they do not suck as much as you think!
Also the biggest downside to the Mig29 was its avionics wich were desperetly outdated. That is why the RoAirforce spent lots of money to upgrade them and make them better fighters. Sure they had to retire them eventualy but the Mig29 was more then a math to the F16 in its day altough i do not believe that to be the case with the latest variants of the F16.
Also I remember reading from a link which was posted right here on the forum about the russian involvement into stealth tech and incorporating it into its airplanes.
People seem to forget that even wihtout the huge economical backup that the US spent on developing new fighters Russia somehow managed not only to produce planes of equal value but sometimes beat the western powers in terms of aircraft design and aerodinamics not to mention thrust vectoring which is incluede into the F22 the russians had implement said tech into its Su family.
-
....not sure of status of the Brit's Jaguars, but they never had long legs to begin with; the Russians have recently added something like a scaled-down F-111 to their inventory....
Retired recently. Retired early due to budget cuts, if you believe the newspapers...
-
People seem to forget that even wihtout the huge economical backup that the US spent on developing new fighters Russia somehow managed not only to produce planes of equal value but sometimes beat the western powers in terms of aircraft design and aerodinamics not to mention thrust vectoring which is incluede into the F22 the russians had implement said tech into its Su family.
All thanks to clever espionage. ala B-29
-
Because they do not suck as much as you think!
Oh, why did Germany "sell" their MiGs to Poland then, which is considering getting rid of them?
Also the biggest downside to the Mig29 was its avionics wich were desperetly outdated. That is why the RoAirforce spent lots of money to upgrade them and make them better fighters. Sure they had to retire them eventualy but the Mig29 was more then a math to the F16 in its day altough i do not believe that to be the case with the latest variants of the F16.
More than a match for older F-16s is not exactly a flattering comment in 2007, pretty much everything is more than a match for them nowadays.
Modern air combat is not about manouverability or sleek looks, it's more about stealth and ability to kill BVR, detecting your enemy and so on.
Also I remember reading from a link which was posted right here on the forum about the russian involvement into stealth tech and incorporating it into its airplanes.
Because developing stealth tech means it's in use immediately? Stealth is difficult and costly and it takes decades to implement. People tend to forget that even newest fighter planes that actually are in production are either upgrades of older hulls (Su-30MKIs and so on) or result of decades of planning (Typhoon, Raptor, F-35, Rafale).
People seem to forget that even wihtout the huge economical backup that the US spent on developing new fighters Russia somehow managed not only to produce planes of equal value but sometimes beat the western powers in terms of aircraft design and aerodinamics not to mention thrust vectoring which is incluede into the F22 the russians had implement said tech into its Su family.
Yeah yeah, nice, well show me where MiGs defeat western planes and what these planes are. And tell me why all western countries, even those with close ties to Russia, scrap their old Soviet tech, don't buy new stuff from Suhoi, but instead focus on Western stuff.
Thrust vectoring is very nice but it's a gimmick - it can help, but it's definitely not high on the list of the features that make an airplane efficient kill machine.
To be honest I simply do not understand where this entire "WELL RUSSIAN THINGS" comes from. In early 1980s their stuff was impressive and their missile tech is still equal, if not even superior, to Western design. However, it's pretty much a universal rule that Western planes defeat Soviet planes in realistic scenarios. Now someone is going to pull that Indian training out of their sleeve and no, it does not count as any way realistic scenario. USAF thought they would lose, and so they did, but they lost more than they anticipated, and that's exciting!
Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?
Then there are the impressive testbeds but they are just that - testbeds, technology demonstrators. Russians know how to make beautiful, beautiful planes with some innovative feature, but this does not matter because they aren't in use. Building a new aircraft or crucial parts, testing them, incorporating them into use, finishing the product - it takes a lot of time. Just because they have a tech demo of thrust vectoring - nice for airshows, but not much else if you can't see the enemy but he can see you! - does not mean ALL their planes have it.
I blame the internet for this. It gives too much way for rampant fanboyism. Speculation is made into fact and then said "well it's established THAT" and so on. Where are the sources? By what standards are these Russian planes superior to Western planes? What planes? Su-44? Well MY future airplane can shoot TANKS!
We have to deal with what we know and what we know of 1990s Russian stuff isn't very flattering. Sure, nice planes, can do some nice tricks, are not very good in any relevant aspect when compared to western planes of similar age. Su-30MKI is a very promising plane and an exception, but it's also very drastically modded and definitely not very similar to Russian planes from the inside.
I have no idea what's going to happen in next 20 years, what with Russian's economy booming, India being a very large customer for them and whatever. Everything's possible! But it would also demand US to peak or start to slow down their military spending, which isn't happening anytime soon. Whatever US develops and puts into use soon comes into use in other Western countries. See PAC-3 for example.
-
Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?
In production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA#Maiden_Flight) :P
-
More than a match for older F-16s is not exactly a flattering comment in 2007, pretty much everything is more than a match for them nowadays.
Well its not fair to compare the baseline mig-29 with modern f-16 variants either, you should be comparing them to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-35)
Military hardware purchases are as much a political thing as a technical one, no surprise NATO countries buy american.
Yeah yeah, nice, well show me where MiGs defeat western planes and what these planes are.
Pretty much every single russian-made jet downed in combat was a less capable export version operated by less than capable airforces with no support aircraft (tankers, awacs, etc)
As for the german migs, their pilots held them in high esteem. They even keep a website with info on the planes and their status in the polish airforce. The fact that they were replaced with typhoons should come as no surprise either as germany is a major partner in that project.
-
wikipedia, about the JSF:
Directed-energy weapons may be installed in conventional takeoff F-35 Lightning IIs, whose lack of a direct lift fan frees up about 10 ft³ (0.28 m³) of space and whose engine provides more than 27,000 hp (20 MW) for electrical power.[39] Some concepts, including solid state lasers and high-power microwave beams, may be nearing operational status.[40]
hmmmmmnnn....
-
Uh... you're right... considering range the Typhoon is nowhere close to the F-22 or the Su-30 :nervous:
Hmm... the Typhoon does not have a really long range... same thing for the F-35... in 20 years the Italian Air Force will have only Typhoons and F-35s...
:eek:
We'll be without long range fighters in 20 years! :shaking:
(Actually, we survived 30 years with the F-104, which is everything but a long range fighter... :nervous:)
Gee....
....that's exactly what I said.
As well as the fact, that you need heavy fighters if you want / or need to do force projection...
...otherwise you don't.
<---------------------------------------------->
About the Mig-29:
The reasons IMHO why the type is universally retired is multifold:
a) it's a short range defense fighter
b) the Russians are no longer doing as intensive research into its upgrades as the Su family
c) the Su family has better growth potential and can already fufill more roles
d) - This is a major issue - Those planes are damn expensive to maintain.
e) - This is a major issue - Replacement parts in the future are not guaranteed as the aircraft is not in production
f) - This is a major issue - A western built aircraft could be a hell lot more economical and would have growth potential. It would also use standard NATO parts and weapons, so inordinate strain that the odd-Warshav pact planes put on the supply chain can be relieved. (It is simply not good to have a too varied aircraft park, it costs too much).
The Mig-29 achieves its phenomenal performance, by operating all its components at peak performance. Wear and tear on the aircraft is very intense. The engines have a very short life - so much so, that Germany back-tuned their engines to prolong their life.
<---------------------------------------------->
At the issue over the "non-issue" of range:
Please read up on that.
The number of sorties per day, as well as the workload of refueling pluss operating the tankers can really put a dent into your operation.
As for deep penetration:
Please read up on that.
It was actually the very thing that was done in Iraq during both wars, and what has estabilished the supremacy of the American Airforces.
Stealth is a key aspect here - which the JSF lacks to fufill this role.
Range is also needed, as you can't put your tankers too close to the enemy before their initial defenses are broken.
On defense set-up:
Speed is an essential thing when you try to intercept. If you're slow, it means your time to intercept as well as the airspace you can give up is also smaller. Simply put I can't see the JSF as a denfense fighter either. The Mig-29 was that, but it sacrificed range for immense speed and phenomenal performance (and astronomical operation cost).
<---------------------------------------------->
The issue of the "feebleness" of Russian Millitary Aircraft:
If you think, that assymetrical engagements against third world countries with outdated technology and/or a massivly understrengh airforce could show any indication to the aircrafts feebleness, YGBSM.
However by the same note, I don't think the Malaysian excersize should be taken at face value either.
On the bottom line, the which fighter is better arguement is moot (as far as western-russian debate goes), since the question - as I already wrote earlier - is not about individual performance, but the outcome of war.
Said thing often depends on simple capabilites, and by purchasing a substantial number of 4th generation Sukhoi fighters upgraded with modern avionics a lot of Asian nations - new and upcoming major countries with substantial economy - will just gain a dramatic boost in their millitary potential; that the repercussions can't be washed over.
In the future should conflict arise where the USA/NATO will has to interfere against said nations, warfare will be very different from current assymetric affairs; and if the current status quo of a massive millitary edge is to be maintained; said capabilities have to be very carefully considered when building your own offensive force.
The JSF has a definite role, that it will have to fufill. CAS and battlefield bombing.
Deep penetration as well as air superiority are not one of them.
For that role you need something like the F-22 (or something just as capable as the SU-30 variants).
-
If I now had a tactical nuke....I would deman of the US gov to bring back the Super Tomcat project...otherwise BOOOOM!!!
in the end the tomcat was a maintainance whore. the navy was just spending more time repairing them than flying them. it was just its time.
-
As far as I know, regarding the deep penetration strike capabilities, there is a FB-22 concept thats being worked on thats been mentioned in a variety of places. Its basically a F-22 with a full delta wing with greater internal capacity for fuel/armament. Probably sacrifices some of the F-22's fighter capabilities but it sounds like a good idea...you keep parts commonalities up so replacements are cheaper and you get an already capable platform and give it bigger bombs and more range.
It might have been canceled but they seem to waffle on these decisions.
EDIT: Here we go...Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB-22
Also...those Russian Su-27 derivatives are some serious customers.
-
I'm sure canada will buy some JSF's in time for the 7th gen fighters to come out... or maybe we'll drag the avro arrow out of the lake and kick y'all in the arse.
...go hornets go?
-
Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?
In production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA#Maiden_Flight) :P
Raptor was in production in 1990?
-
Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?
In production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA#Maiden_Flight) :P
Raptor was in production in 1990?
No, the Raptor was in development in 1990, it only entered production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Production) a couple of years ago.
-
As far as I know, regarding the deep penetration strike capabilities, there is a FB-22 concept thats being worked on thats been mentioned in a variety of places. Its basically a F-22 with a full delta wing with greater internal capacity for fuel/armament. Probably sacrifices some of the F-22's fighter capabilities but it sounds like a good idea...you keep parts commonalities up so replacements are cheaper and you get an already capable platform and give it bigger bombs and more range.
It might have been canceled but they seem to waffle on these decisions.
EDIT: Here we go...Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB-22
Also...those Russian Su-27 derivatives are some serious customers.
I heard they will still go with a wing geometry similar to the F/A-22's.
IMHO the whole program looks eerily like, how the Su-34 "Fullback"/"Playtypus" was born.
(http://www.napo.ru/img.php?id=348)
-
Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?
In production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA#Maiden_Flight) :P
Raptor was in production in 1990?
No, the Raptor was in development in 1990, it only entered production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Production) a couple of years ago.
No **** Sherlock. Raptor's maiden flight was in September 1990. PAK-FAs announced maiden flight will be in late 2008. It does not mean PAK-FA is in production. It only means the first prototype will be ready to fly then and then things go on and on and on.
Why do people assume that because some Russian vaporware jet is ready to fly in next 2 years it will immediately enter production and is immediately ready? No piece of military hardware is, especially not 4th/5th generation fighters! Most take well over a decade to plan and put into use, and then another decade before they serve in their full power.
-
Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?
In production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA#Maiden_Flight) :P
Raptor was in production in 1990?
No, the Raptor was in development in 1990, it only entered production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Production) a couple of years ago.
No **** Sherlock. Raptor's maiden flight was in September 1990. PAK-FAs announced maiden flight will be in late 2008. It does not mean PAK-FA is in production. It only means the first prototype will be ready to fly then and then things go on and on and on.
Why do people assume that because some Russian vaporware jet is ready to fly in next 2 years it will immediately enter production and is immediately ready? No piece of military hardware is, especially not 4th/5th generation fighters! Most take well over a decade to plan and put into use, and then another decade before they serve in their full power.
Because it is in construction? And the final design has already been made? I'm not saying that it will be ready by 2009 with a fleet of 500.
Hell, I've only answered your question of where the Russian "vaporware jet", as you called it, that is going to be compared to the F-22 is, either it is in production or in development or in conception.
-
Let's take a look at what Russian stuff is actually functional. List is pretty short: It's updates of Flanker (Su-30s, Su-34) - by no means bad planes, far from it - and Su-39. Updates, all using well-known tech from 1980s with updates. Where are the fighter crafts comparable to F-22 and F-35? Huh?
In production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA#Maiden_Flight) :P
Raptor was in production in 1990?
No, the Raptor was in development in 1990, it only entered production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Production) a couple of years ago.
No **** Sherlock. Raptor's maiden flight was in September 1990. PAK-FAs announced maiden flight will be in late 2008. It does not mean PAK-FA is in production. It only means the first prototype will be ready to fly then and then things go on and on and on.
Why do people assume that because some Russian vaporware jet is ready to fly in next 2 years it will immediately enter production and is immediately ready? No piece of military hardware is, especially not 4th/5th generation fighters! Most take well over a decade to plan and put into use, and then another decade before they serve in their full power.
Because it is in construction? And the final design has already been made? I'm not saying that it will be ready by 2009 with a fleet of 500.
Hell, I've only answered your question of where the Russian "vaporware jet", as you called it, that is going to be compared to the F-22 is, either it is in production or in development or in conception.
PAK-FA's scheluded maiden flight is in 2009.
Not a single ready PAK-FA exists.
If maiden flight were any indication, then Raptor would have been in production in 1989 and Eurofighter Typhoon in 1993.
PAK-FA is not in production. It's in development. The final thing will probably be quite different, if not externally then internally, from the product we may see in late 2008. If it was in production then production lines would be pumping the finalized type A products, but noooo they aren't.
Maiden flight does not mean production. Usually it's one plane which will fly and then it's taken apart and things progress slowly.
-
Then clear this doubt for me.
(...)The Russian Federation has approved the final PAK FA design, this remains secret but we will have to wait till late 2007.
(...)
The Novosibirsk Chkalov Aviation Production Association (NAPO) has begun construction of the fifth generation multirole fighter.(...)
From the article I linked in wikipedia.
What does this mean exactly? Construction = development? Final design = draft?
-
Then clear this doubt for me.
(...)The Russian Federation has approved the final PAK FA design, this remains secret but we will have to wait till late 2007.
(...)
The Novosibirsk Chkalov Aviation Production Association (NAPO) has begun construction of the fifth generation multirole fighter.(...)
From the article I linked in wikipedia.
What does this mean exactly? Construction = development? Final design = draft?
They construct a working "final" prototype. It will then fly. This is called the maiden flight of the plane. It's either A) oh it works quite well nothing dramatical or more likely B) ....**** return to drawing boards pronto. Usually.
Then the small problems are cleared and finally, after months and years, the production version is roughly ready (yes there will be more flights here and there but they're not very dramatical).
And then the real production starts. And then all the small errors and faults are fixed.
PAK-FA, whatever it's designation is, Su-XX, is not a ready product. Far from it. 4th and 5th generation fighters take usually more than 15 years to put into use, and that's with a lot of spending guaranteened for every year. Even Russia's own plans differ - in 2002, they said that they would have the ready PAK-FA in 9 years (insanity)! So I have no idea how anyone can say that because PAK-FA's working prototype is scheluded to fly next year, it means it's in production now. It does not work that way!
Also suspicious to those familiar with Russian arms sales is the silence around this plane. Su-35BM, "The Last Flanker", which is considered to be last Flanker variant before PAK-FA (which doesn't really have a name yet, except T-50), is heavily advertised, meaning Su-35BM is much closer to ready product than the secretive pakfa (unless Russia is not even aiming at export markets, something I do not simply believe). This, of course, does not prove anything.
-
Thanks for clearing that up. :D
Just one last point, why are you so rilled up about the russians? :p
-
Thanks for clearing that up. :D
Just one last point, why are you so rilled up about the russians? :p
hahaha I AM A FINN I HATE THEM RAARGH
Nyah. I just find it completely mid-boggling that despite all evidence to the contrary Internet is filled with people who believe "cheap and high-quality Russian technology" is a solution to all problems and whatever the Russians plan is immediately in use and far superior to technology that has been developed for decades with ridiculous budgets. It's very weird form of fanboyism, and after more than enough years in the internet I've become to despise it as a phenomenon.
-
...unless Russia is not even aiming at export markets, something I do not simply believe....
retaining their best tech would be pretty consistant with the Ruskies though
-
Back on topic sort of ;)
if i was the aussie defence minister i would consider talking to northrop
and saying "do a deal with us and the f23 will live"
the problem with the jsf is that america wont give anyone acess to to software ie: source code
so maybe the gripen would be a better choice
-
...unless Russia is not even aiming at export markets, something I do not simply believe....
retaining their best tech would be pretty consistant with the Ruskies though
Since 1990s Russia has always aimed their top-notch products at the export market. It has paid them well. You just have to look at their top products - their best tanks, apcs, planes and naval assets have quite consistently been aimed at export. It pays them well. Until lately Russian army itself has been unable to fund necessary assets, so Suhoi especially has been getting money from exports. Just look at India!
-
I thought they always stripped the electronics, etc out & dumbed it down for export?
-
i wouldnt doubt it, they just dont tell anyone they did :D
-
I thought they always stripped the electronics, etc out & dumbed it down for export?
Yup. Until lately, because now Sukhoi needs money (who cares about MiG anyways). It doesn't matter though, most customer countries install their own electronics or build their own versions under licence.
-
As far as I know, regarding the deep penetration strike capabilities, there is a FB-22 concept thats being worked on thats been mentioned in a variety of places. Its basically a F-22 with a full delta wing with greater internal capacity for fuel/armament. Probably sacrifices some of the F-22's fighter capabilities but it sounds like a good idea...you keep parts commonalities up so replacements are cheaper and you get an already capable platform and give it bigger bombs and more range.
It might have been canceled but they seem to waffle on these decisions.
EDIT: Here we go...Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB-22
Also...those Russian Su-27 derivatives are some serious customers.
I heard they will still go with a wing geometry similar to the F/A-22's.
IMHO the whole program looks eerily like, how the Su-34 "Fullback"/"Playtypus" was born.
Interesting...no doubt its something they are considering. Given how much the F-22 cost and how "easy" it would be to create a medium bomber off the same platform. Economically it could make sense and the F-22 is such a hot performer that it might make sense militarily as well. Yeah the similarities are pretty shocking.
-
didnt the article reference an extended range extended payload version of the f22 to allow it to perform a deep penetration role.
-
Well to clear up something. People seem to forget that russians have a very diferent way of dooing things when compared to theyr western counterparts. They do not spen a s*** load of money in testing in labs each and every component. they usualy take something they know that work and try to imptove it as they build the blasted thing. This has enabled them to produce planes and not just planes at far cheaper costs then western powers . Also because they do not sped a lot of time on the drawing boards by the time the plane is ready to leave the prototipe stage and go into production most of its testing has already been done. Why? Beacause the engeniers are give the blueprints and they work out each and every bug they find on the grounds so to speak no time and money wasting sending the blueprints back etc etc.
Also as far as roket tech goes the russians beat the s*** out of every other nation out there. Not even NASA with all of its hundreds and hundreds of billions of dolars of buget managet to make a ...well.......basicly a turbocharged rochet to put it bluntly.
So Russia in order to gather up some more money for they space programs decided to sell a couple of these imposible to acieve tech to the US leaving them shoked that such a tech not only was developed but it actualy worked.
The only reason why russia has such a bad image in terms of space flight goes is mostly because of bad publicity and lack of funds to maintain theyr equipment. ISS is up ther because the russians gave they oxigen purifing tech for its developement among lots of other things.
So enough about bashing them cuz well its not exactly fair.
Also why does the US and errr.....allies decided to go short range planes? I believed they were aiming to have theyr fighters as far back as posible and sheling them missiles. I mean what they sudenly decided to reintroduce old style dogfighting up in the skyes of battlefields?
-
as i understand it the russians are far comfortable with taking risks. rather than spend lots of money testing the aircraft every time they change a rivit, the russians try to make sure the systems are as bug free as possible then hope for the best. that way they can build one plane which works well enough to test the crap out of it. testing is performed and many adjustments are made. now this may just be a common stereotype. im not exactly sure what techniques the russians are using. but the fact of the matter remains that their stuff is pretty good considering what they spend in development.
the us designed their next gen planes for the us. we really dont need range as it stands. it would be nice but its a comprimise made to give some other advantage that we think we need more. we have alot of long range hardware, we have bases all over the world we can use. so range wasnt important for us. note that they didnt consult other countries what they wanted in the jsf, they just did what their militarys wanted. we simply dont give a damn about anyone else.
and dont jump to the conclusion that dogfighting is obsolete. we assumed that back during nam, and that didnt seem to work out too well. its better to have a gun when you dont need it. than to be missing one when you do. the old rules of air combat have always applied and never was there a situation where they didnt.
-
Heck, they were trying to assume that dogfighting was over at the close of WWII. #$@!ing bomber generals in TAC. :mad:
-
Well to clear up something. People seem to forget that russians have a very diferent way of dooing things when compared to theyr western counterparts. They do not spen a s*** load of money in testing in labs each and every component. they usualy take something they know that work and try to imptove it as they build the blasted thing. This has enabled them to produce planes and not just planes at far cheaper costs then western powers .
Yes you can build a cheap plane but the point is that they are usually not as good as expensive planes.
Also because they do not sped a lot of time on the drawing boards by the time the plane is ready to leave the prototipe stage and go into production most of its testing has already been done. Why? Beacause the engeniers are give the blueprints and they work out each and every bug they find on the grounds so to speak no time and money wasting sending the blueprints back etc etc.
what the ****?
Of course they test their material. What are your examples? Now you give us sources. What the hell are you talking about? Are we talking about original designs or refits of already existing ones?
Also as far as roket tech goes the russians beat the s*** out of every other nation out there. Not even NASA with all of its hundreds and hundreds of billions of dolars of buget managet to make a ...well.......basicly a turbocharged rochet to put it bluntly.
When, after WW2 when Russia had captured the V2 and basically just painted a red star on the side, thus immediately gaining a working tech, compared to Nasa+von Brauns who had to start from the scratch, with theory in mind?
So Russia in order to gather up some more money for they space programs decided to sell a couple of these imposible to acieve tech to the US leaving them shoked that such a tech not only was developed but it actualy worked.
What are these? Sources?
The only reason why russia has such a bad image in terms of space flight goes is mostly because of bad publicity and lack of funds to maintain theyr equipment. ISS is up ther because the russians gave they oxigen purifing tech for its developement among lots of other things.
I think that the lack of funds to maintain their equipment is a pretty damn good reason to have bad publicity. I do not believe it's true, either - among other things Baikonur has supplied ISS quite a few times when shuttles have been rendered unoperational for whatever reason, like exploding.
So enough about bashing them cuz well its not exactly fair.
Also why does the US and errr.....allies decided to go short range planes? I believed they were aiming to have theyr fighters as far back as posible and sheling them missiles. I mean what they sudenly decided to reintroduce old style dogfighting up in the skyes of battlefields?
[/quote]
-
When, after WW2 when Russia had captured the V2 and basically just painted a red star on the side, thus immediately gaining a working tech, compared to Nasa+von Brauns who had to start from the scratch, with theory in mind?
After world war 2 the russians took a V2 factory, while the Americans took components for 300 units. Also the Americans were much better off at copeing the technology as not only did they have the lead designer (von Braun), but also the majority of the engineers, while the russians only had the factories and factory workers. In fact immediately after the war, the Americans were ahead with the Bumper project (firing a sounding rocket from the nose of a V2 at the top of it's flight).
As for dogfighting, it's still there but not in the old style. in the recent war in Iraq, there was only one aircraft kill with a gun, and that was a helicopter being hit by an A-10's GAU-8.
Most modern dogfights seem to involve wide high-speed turns and the aim of getting a missile lock, while avioding the enemies lock and missiles, which between them result in fighting at much longer ranges than even in Vietnam.
-
dogfighting will immideately become more common if we ever go to war with a country thats capable of maintaining a large airforce. even then entering a dogfight is the last thing you want to do as a pilot. ideally you want to get in, take the shot, and get out, before the enemy's wingman figures out that you just shot down his buddy.
-
Actually, you select multiple targets BVR and, being stealth, fire two missiles & take out said fighter and his wingman. :p
-
Actually, you select multiple targets BVR and, being stealth, fire two missiles & take out said fighter and his wingman. :p
...Shortly before you get reprimanded for violating the rules of engagement.
-
When, after WW2 when Russia had captured the V2 and basically just painted a red star on the side, thus immediately gaining a working tech, compared to Nasa+von Brauns who had to start from the scratch, with theory in mind?
After world war 2 the russians took a V2 factory, while the Americans took components for 300 units. Also the Americans were much better off at copeing the technology as not only did they have the lead designer (von Braun), but also the majority of the engineers, while the russians only had the factories and factory workers. In fact immediately after the war, the Americans were ahead with the Bumper project (firing a sounding rocket from the nose of a V2 at the top of it's flight).
Yup, checked again and it went like that. Mein mistake, kamrade.
-
Actually, you select multiple targets BVR and, being stealth, fire two missiles & take out said fighter and his wingman. :p
...Shortly before you get reprimanded for violating the rules of engagement.
What!? :wtf: Please tell me you aren't serious. Or are we being redcoats again, and trying to "play by the rules"?
-
Actually, you select multiple targets BVR and, being stealth, fire two missiles & take out said fighter and his wingman. :p
...Shortly before you get reprimanded for violating the rules of engagement.
What!? :wtf: Please tell me you aren't serious. Or are we being redcoats again, and trying to "play by the rules"?
It happened in Vietnam and Korea. Its not new. In Korea it was certain parallels that weren't supposed to be crossed (although they were) and in Vietnam there was a huge problem with IFF and trying to figure out how to shoot. Thats when they realized that the Sparrow was pretty much useless to them because even if they did have good ID the missile wouldn't work...and if they didn't have good ID then it was just dead weight as they closed to Sidewinder range and with no gun to back you up from that point it was just bad news.
So its nothing new. Depending on modern day operational requirements, the level of sophistication, active and passive jamming being employed...it may be required to get in close with the enemy and ignore your BVR capability altogether. Its still handy to have stealth even at that point but its not impervious to either being locked on radar/IR or detected using some sort of electroptical sight and so forth. AWACs and Datalink and all of those things benefit figuring out who to shoot but I think you have to wisely assume that you don't have those abilities when you go ahead and put together a fighter. The enemy could take out the AWACs or send out so much electronic interference that things get dicey.
Given how all of this can go down...its perfectly possible that formations of fighters will exchange BVR shots at each other, kill some of the opposing forces, and then continue to close after the initial engagement to visual range and continue the battle till its over. Even with the AIM-120C and locking up multiple aircraft at the same time and all of that...you can be only half (or a bit more than half) sure that the missile will kill its target. And thats with a pretty good missile.
-
No, I meant being court-marshalled for violating the rules of engagement?!? :wtf: with that?
-
No, I meant being court-marshalled for violating the rules of engagement?!? :wtf: with that?
Probably depends on what happened. I'm sure you could be court marshalled for violating the rules of engagement. The rules are generally in place for a reason. Could be political or strictly military. Either way...its the military...thats what they have. Rules and discipline and thats about it.
Going back to the Korea thing for a moment...its well documented that F-86 Sabres engaged outside of the rules of engagement and generally speaking so did the Mig-15 pilots and it was either covered up or swept aside and the incident forgotten or glossed over. WWII was much simpler for the combat pilot...
-
Politicians need to learn that wars are not to be fought with one hand tied behind your back. More people end up dying, despite the glowy feeling the pols get when they make insane rules like they always do. Fight a war all out, win quick, and you won't have as much of a problem (ala Vietnam... we pretty much won that war before we lost it).
-
Politicians need to learn that wars are not to be fought with one hand tied behind your back. More people end up dying, despite the glowy feeling the pols get when they make insane rules like they always do. Fight a war all out, win quick, and you won't have as much of a problem (ala Vietnam... we pretty much won that war before we lost it).
Actually ROE were made to insure you don't shoot down your own planes.
Sometimes, it simply couldn't happen, so ROE could be ignored....other times things could be really dicey.
-
Politicians need to learn that wars are not to be fought with one hand tied behind your back. More people end up dying, despite the glowy feeling the pols get when they make insane rules like they always do. Fight a war all out, win quick, and you won't have as much of a problem
I was really surprised you actually held that sentiment. But then, I read this:
(ala Vietnam... we pretty much won that war before we lost it).
...and it all made sense.
-
Politicians need to learn that wars are not to be fought with one hand tied behind your back. More people end up dying, despite the glowy feeling the pols get when they make insane rules like they always do. Fight a war all out, win quick, and you won't have as much of a problem (ala Vietnam... we pretty much won that war before we lost it).
Does war serve politics or do politics serve the war? Which one is more important? Against whom?
I know these kind of blanket statements are cool and you can always blame "them". Whoever they might be. I'll bet 5$ that ten years from now people will blame Democrats or media for losing the Iraq war and say that if only, if only the military would have had free hands then US would have win. But hey, military is the hand of the nation, not the nation itself - military is supposed to gain a set of goals, not to define what those goals are.
Vietnam is a great example: Full of mission creep, failing military objectives and finally everyone figures out that they had fought for nothing. I shudder to think what would have happened if military hadn't been kept on a leash - leash was long but it existed.
I personally find this kind of "what-iffing" really annoying. It has the suspicious reek of military worship, even though it is not on the surface. People like to talk about all-out wars - but against whom? Against a huge enemy which actually stands a chance of hurting you? Sure, most nations do that every time they face a really great threat. Against some goatherders in the middle of somewhere? Well - just how would you go about it?
So, I'll ask you a question: Just what do you mean in your post? In what circumstances?
-
I have a couple of comments about this aircraft controversy:
JSF seems to fit well in to current US doctrine, the only problem is that it sounds a bit same like the F-111 fiasco where secretary of defence wanted to make a single air plane for the US Navy and Airforces. The configurations are vastly different, but they might have been able to solve them today when more advanced manufacturing techniques are available. But the stealth capabilities might suffer in the naval climate as there is more water and humidity around the aircraft.
However, I'm slightly afraid that in the long run the advances in stealth technology might turn against US. My understanding is that the stealth technology was necessary to counter Russian radar SAM technology which admittedly has gotten better and better. Current systems have quite high probabilities of kills - which are probably exaggerated but still remarkable, the performance of the recent shoulder launched IR systems (was it SA-13?) have been quite devastating against Allied aircraft (Dropping a flare? Switch to UV!).
According to my understanding, Russians have favored semi-active missiles (cheaper!) with a strong base radar system that transmits guidance commands and have gotten them quite ECM proof. Also thinking that the Russian SARH missiles have longer range than US AMRAAM, a SARH missile will warn US pilot immediately when it is launched thus forcing the US fighter to stop whatever he is doing and start evading the missile which distracts him from firing an AMRAAM. So based on this context stealth was a good idea.
However, now when Russians either develop or "obtain" the manufacturing techniques for stealth materials, they might (read: probably) decide that the aircraft is stealthy enough when say only half hemisphere of the aircraft doesn't have mentionable radar cross section. This will give quite a reduction of cost in the manufacturing, and in the end they will have an aircraft which is stealthy enough to avoid detection from the frontal section (the most important direction), but have them in higher numbers.
Consider a scenario, where US has 450 F/A-22s (real number) distributed around, they might locally quickly run out of fighters when the radar-guided missiles cannot be used and the air combat goes back to within visual range fighting (which is Russia's game plan from the beginning!). And given that Russians have the more advanced IR technology already installed, I do hope US has thought a counter for this also.
Mika
-
I know these kind of blanket statements are cool and you can always blame "them". Whoever they might be. I'll bet 5$ that ten years from now people will blame Democrats or media for losing the Iraq war and say that if only, if only the military would have had free hands then US would have win. But hey, military is the hand of the nation, not the nation itself - military is supposed to gain a set of goals, not to define what those goals are.
Vietnam is a great example: Full of mission creep, failing military objectives and finally everyone figures out that they had fought for nothing. I shudder to think what would have happened if military hadn't been kept on a leash - leash was long but it existed.
I personally find this kind of "what-iffing" really annoying. It has the suspicious reek of military worship, even though it is not on the surface. People like to talk about all-out wars - but against whom? Against a huge enemy which actually stands a chance of hurting you? Sure, most nations do that every time they face a really great threat. Against some goatherders in the middle of somewhere? Well - just how would you go about it?
So, I'll ask you a question: Just what do you mean in your post? In what circumstances?
I was speaking of the BS such as "you are not allowed to operate north of xx parallel", these are not created by military commanders; they are created by negotiators in Washington. Wars should be fought like we did in Japan: all-out, make 'em surrender, then build them up to be the ally they are today. Instead, we hamstring ourselves. In Vietnam, we wouldn't bomb the NV like we should have. Endless talks & negotiations... we should have told them: "look, you either stop your attacks southwards in 1 week, or we will destroy you." And then we should have done it.
Now, we did finally reach a sort of acceptable compromise in that we trained the South Vietnamese to fight for themselves, and pulled most of our troops out, with the promise of matching the SVs with equipment equivalent to whatever the USSR was giving the NVs. Then Congress cut the funding. Oopsie. Way to treat your allies.
War is not nice, and it would better be avoided, but if you have to do it, do it right. Pols seem to think the enemy thinks like we do. No, because if they did, they would not be fighting. The only thing the enemies seem to understand (Nazis, Commies, Militant Islamics) is overwhelming brute force. You try to show them mercy or compromise, and they think you are weak, and try to exploit that to their advantage. Look at Hitler taking over Europe. USSR expansion in Europe & 3rd world countries. Need I mention the Radical Islamic terrorists?
Their reasoning is corrupt; they do not understand that we really want to just get along, or if they do, they don't consider accepting, except as part of a plot for using it for our eventual downfall. So the only option is to fight until they wave the white flag, and then still keep both eyes on them.
About Iraq: if we hadn't tried to "get along" with Saddaam for so long, and had taken him out when he first used WMDs (better yet, not give them to him in the first place), we wouldn't have such a mess. But no, we were trying to use Saddaam to counter Iran, because we didn't want to make war with Iran. Heck, squash them both.
I would be all for negotiating and compromise if it could be done with honest good will on both sides. But think about it. They attacked/invaded/pillaged/raped/took hostages/blew up innocent civilians, and you think they are going to play nice with you?? Whatever you are smoking must be pretty potent. Perhaps it started as a misunderstanding, but by the point you get this far into the game it is too late to change the perception; their mind is made up; you can only stop it by force. You can't be nice to them and hope that they'll come to the conclusion that they were wrong about you.
-
I was speaking of the BS such as "you are not allowed to operate north of xx parallel", these are not created by military commanders; they are created by negotiators in Washington. Wars should be fought like we did in Japan: all-out, make 'em surrender, then build them up to be the ally they are today. Instead, we hamstring ourselves. In Vietnam, we wouldn't bomb the NV like we should have. Endless talks & negotiations... we should have told them: "look, you either stop your attacks southwards in 1 week, or we will destroy you." And then we should have done it.
Rules that that are generally made for a reason. Orders that come down telling soldiers "not to cross such-and-such parallel" aren't arbitrary, they usually have a damn good reason. Wars have rules because wars need rules. Let's not even go into the fundamental problems of comparing the War in the Pacific to the Vietnam War.
It's also worth noting that Vietnam is probably a poor example for what you're trying to argue. There was just too much going on behind the scenes and on the greater political stage for such simple conclusions to be drawn from it.
Now, we did finally reach a sort of acceptable compromise in that we trained the South Vietnamese to fight for themselves, and pulled most of our troops out, with the promise of matching the SVs with equipment equivalent to whatever the USSR was giving the NVs. Then Congress cut the funding. Oopsie. Way to treat your allies.
What exactly are you trying to say? Politicians screw up wars? Yeah, we know. That doesn't mean governments should let their military run riot without any oversight. Wars don't take place in isolated bubbles, everything that occurs during a conflict is closely watched by the rest of the world and can gravely affect global politics.
And, for the record, it's worth noting that - again - the collapse of South Vietnam is a poor example for what (I believe) you're trying to argue. By the time the US finally pulled out, the South had become so hopelessly dependent on American support that collapse was all but inevitable. Aside from the mounting economic and social pressures at home, there was no real way to justify that kind of expenditure on a nation that was doomed to collapse regardless. Moreover, global politics had simply moved beyond the region, it no longer served any real purpose and was most definintely in the interest of US leaders to move on and try to forget the whole thing had happened.
War is not nice, and it would better be avoided, but if you have to do it, do it right. Pols seem to think the enemy thinks like we do. No, because if they did, they would not be fighting. The only thing the enemies seem to understand (Nazis, Commies, Militant Islamics) is overwhelming brute force. You try to show them mercy or compromise, and they think you are weak, and try to exploit that to their advantage. Look at Hitler taking over Europe. USSR expansion in Europe & 3rd world countries. Need I mention the Radical Islamic terrorists?
Do you honestly believe all war is black and white? Do you honestly believe that there has always been, and always will be, a clearly defined barrier between right and wrong? Good and evil?
Their reasoning is corrupt; they do not understand that we really want to just get along, or if they do, they don't consider accepting, except as part of a plot for using it for our eventual downfall. So the only option is to fight until they wave the white flag, and then still keep both eyes on them.
Yeah! Blow them to itty-bitty pieces with our biggest and most expensive weapons, that'll show 'em we just want to get along and be friends!
About Iraq: if we hadn't tried to "get along" with Saddaam for so long, and had taken him out when he first used WMDs (better yet, not give them to him in the first place), we wouldn't have such a mess. But no, we were trying to use Saddaam to counter Iran, because we didn't want to make war with Iran. Heck, squash them both.
And Iraq relates to this discussion... how?
Okay, now your sentiments of overbearing military worship and delusions of total conquest are really starting to scare me. "Crush them both"? Are you simple or something?! Do you have any idea what the hell you're talking about, or are you just spouting patriotic, "us-against-them" drivel?
I would be all for negotiating and compromise if it could be done with honest good will on both sides. But think about it. They attacked/invaded/pillaged/raped/took hostages/blew up innocent civilians, and you think they are going to play nice with you?? Whatever you are smoking must be pretty potent. Perhaps it started as a misunderstanding, but by the point you get this far into the game it is too late to change the perception; their mind is made up; you can only stop it by force. You can't be nice to them and hope that they'll come to the conclusion that they were wrong about you.
Who is this phantom enemy you speak of? Who is this group that opposes everything you stand for, wretches at your continued existence, and will stop at nothing to destroy everything and everyone you hold dear? This shadowy collection of sub-human, warmongering evil-doers? Who are these dastardly individuals so that we might set the military loose of all restraints and annihilate them in the name of peace?
I hope you realise the irony here, because that phantom enemy is actually people who think like you.
-
I know these kind of blanket statements are cool and you can always blame "them". Whoever they might be. I'll bet 5$ that ten years from now people will blame Democrats or media for losing the Iraq war and say that if only, if only the military would have had free hands then US would have win. But hey, military is the hand of the nation, not the nation itself - military is supposed to gain a set of goals, not to define what those goals are.
Vietnam is a great example: Full of mission creep, failing military objectives and finally everyone figures out that they had fought for nothing. I shudder to think what would have happened if military hadn't been kept on a leash - leash was long but it existed.
I personally find this kind of "what-iffing" really annoying. It has the suspicious reek of military worship, even though it is not on the surface. People like to talk about all-out wars - but against whom? Against a huge enemy which actually stands a chance of hurting you? Sure, most nations do that every time they face a really great threat. Against some goatherders in the middle of somewhere? Well - just how would you go about it?
So, I'll ask you a question: Just what do you mean in your post? In what circumstances?
I was speaking of the BS such as "you are not allowed to operate north of xx parallel", these are not created by military commanders; they are created by negotiators in Washington. Wars should be fought like we did in Japan: all-out, make 'em surrender, then build them up to be the ally they are today. Instead, we hamstring ourselves. In Vietnam, we wouldn't bomb the NV like we should have. Endless talks & negotiations... we should have told them: "look, you either stop your attacks southwards in 1 week, or we will destroy you." And then we should have done it.
Those rules are in place for a reason. Flight 665 would be one and it's a pretty damn good reason.
Wars are not fought in a vacuum. Wars are part of the greater scheme, whatever that scheme might be - usually to gain a set of goals. I don't know how much to stress this, because you don't apparently understand since you spew the same empty rhetoric again. If and when war follows politics, then restrictions that take place in peace-time politics must and will in some way exist in wartime as well.
As for Vietnam - well yeah, it worked really well in Cambodia! And what with 2,5 - 5 million Vietnamese dead and absolutely nothing gained. And for funny thing is - people saw USA as an occupier so they fought mainly against the US, not for communism. It was quite a shock for some people.
Now, we did finally reach a sort of acceptable compromise in that we trained the South Vietnamese to fight for themselves, and pulled most of our troops out, with the promise of matching the SVs with equipment equivalent to whatever the USSR was giving the NVs. Then Congress cut the funding. Oopsie. Way to treat your allies.
But well before that Australia and New Zealand had already withdraw, and US had cut their participation in Vietnam? Besides, what the hell was the US even doing there? And if a congress of a country decides something then very well. They cannot be bogged down in these kind of moral dilemmas, since their mission is to defend their own country's goals and in these case they clearly favoured withdrawal.
Someone once pointed at me that this entire "OH NO FIFTH COLUMN" only appeared like 10 years after the Vietnam war. I have no idea if it is true.
War is not nice, and it would better be avoided, but if you have to do it, do it right. Pols seem to think the enemy thinks like we do. No, because if they did, they would not be fighting. The only thing the enemies seem to understand (Nazis, Commies, Militant Islamics) is overwhelming brute force. You try to show them mercy or compromise, and they think you are weak, and try to exploit that to their advantage. Look at Hitler taking over Europe. USSR expansion in Europe & 3rd world countries. Need I mention the Radical Islamic terrorists?
Are there only one kind of wars? I have no idea what your Hitler-thing is doing there. First you were talking about Vietnam, then about Hitler. We're dealing with wars in general, do not try to muddy the waters.
Do you think that one set of rules for wars is enough? And if you go with this - well, just who do you bomb?
Their reasoning is corrupt; they do not understand that we really want to just get along, or if they do, they don't consider accepting, except as part of a plot for using it for our eventual downfall. So the only option is to fight until they wave the white flag, and then still keep both eyes on them.
holy ****
"we want to live in peace so we bomb them"
About Iraq: if we hadn't tried to "get along" with Saddaam for so long, and had taken him out when he first used WMDs (better yet, not give them to him in the first place), we wouldn't have such a mess. But no, we were trying to use Saddaam to counter Iran, because we didn't want to make war with Iran. Heck, squash them both.
And risk oil and possible ammo exchange with Soviet Union (I think we're talking about 1980s)? Cool!
I would be all for negotiating and compromise if it could be done with honest good will on both sides. But think about it. They attacked/invaded/pillaged/raped/took hostages/blew up innocent civilians, and you think they are going to play nice with you?? Whatever you are smoking must be pretty potent. Perhaps it started as a misunderstanding, but by the point you get this far into the game it is too late to change the perception; their mind is made up; you can only stop it by force. You can't be nice to them and hope that they'll come to the conclusion that they were wrong about you.
Who? Where? When? What? What are you talking about? Whom are you talking about? What do you mean by this? I see a lot of bad, empty rhetoric which does absolutely nothing to raise the bar of this discussion (this thread is horribly derailed but so it goes). Who are these people you refer to?
-
Guess what, there's almost never a country bent on total destruction of the entire world, and when there is it's called Germany, the USSR, or the US
-
Eh.. sorry to bust your bubble, but if the US was bent on the destruction of the world, it would be rubble. Nucular is da bomb, man! :lol: Seriously, if we didn't have moral considerations, it wouldn't take too much... We'd just build nuclear proof bunkers and let 'em rip. The rest of the posts before that will have to wait until I have time to reply in further detail.
-
The main reason for avoiding BVR engagements is not to make the enemy make the first move, but to avoid friendly fire incidents, especially when an allied force is in the theatre of operations (allied forces are notoriously bad at informing each other where their forces are).
-
I've always consitered the JSF as a good 'companion blade' to the F-22, it's a nice little fighter that can do a few things well and a whole bunch of things passably.
I guess the jsf is the new apollo.
-
Eh.. sorry to bust your bubble, but if the US was bent on the destruction of the world, it would be rubble. Nucular is da bomb, man! :lol: Seriously, if we didn't have moral considerations, it wouldn't take too much... We'd just build nuclear proof bunkers and let 'em rip. The rest of the posts before that will have to wait until I have time to reply in further detail.
Nuclear annhialation doesn't make any money, the US for instance prefers to consume it to death.
-
If we'd switch to nuclear power, that wouldn't be so much of a problem. (Like the rest of the world :rolleyes: ) But, no, we've got NIMBY pansies squeaking every time we try. (Which we haven't for 30 years.)
-
Nuclear power is clean, efficient, and good for the environtment. The only exhaust it has is steam from stack towers. I feel bad for the army base here in alaska. Ft. greely had a nuclear power plant a while ago, until someone sabotaged it. Reminds me of the anti-ballistic missile base i live 5 miles outside of, ****ing greenies come up out of nowhere and protest no nukes (the anti-ballistic missiles are not nuclear based in anyway). I hate stupid green people. Stupid green people fail to realize as technology advances and new innovations are found, less energy is consumed, and emissions get cleaner. The only exception to this rule is some certain weapons mainly in the area of explosives and bombs :lol:
-
How about the not-so-advanced, yet still more efficient diesel engine? Some of those get 50 - 70 mpg, but they hate those. Although now they are finally getting around to putting better filters & injectors etc into them to improve their eco friendlyness.
-
jr2 why aren't you answering our questions about how wars should be fought
-
well or one wars should not be left to politics. If politics rules a war well....er... you have a disaster like vietnam or the more current day Iraq war which IMO is a political war first based on money and politics it has notjing to do with nuclear biological or other such threats.
Sure politics can guide the course of a war because if we leave it up to warmongering generals then we would never have peace but politics should only go so far in the developement of a war.
As for the rocket tech of the russians can remember what was the name of the roket but it was a documentary on this subject a while back. I'l do some searches and get back to you.
As for the way they aquired the tech well let's just say the same way the US did smugling out what they could of of Germany. The US smugld out papers and scientists the russians the rokets and what else they could find so the are both square in this regard.
Btw. why dont they use the russian space shuttle Buran to make flights to the ISS cuz from what i read it is somewhat safer then its american counterpart. It doesnt use ceramic tiles for heat shielding but something else if i'm not mistaken (cant remember what).
Also when does the new NASA space shuttle make its firts flight?? I heard it doesnt use external tanks or roket solid boosters. Is this corect?
-
The new space shuttle isn't a space shuttle at all. Its an Apollo like design under the overall name of "Orion". I've seen bits and pieces and its basically a "conventional" rocket with rocket boosters. Its supposed to be a heavy lift system so they can go back to the moon.
-
But wouldnt they be actualy gooing back to the same problem they have with the existing shuttle i mean with the damaging of the heat shield and so on ?? Also will they be using the same roket solid boosters or liquid boosters?? I was under the impresion that liquid boosters were somewhat more safe and powerfull.
-
Here's (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html) the main page about the new NASA vehicle, which is known as the Constellation program. It's actually somewhat of a "back to the future" plan; the crew will ride in Apollo-esque capsules (though these are much larger, accomodating 4 people for lunar missions and 6 for ISS trips), and I'd assume the heat shield material would be something vaguely similar to what was used back then, although obviously upgraded. There are actually two separate booster rockets (called Ares) in the program; the smaller Ares I rockets will be used to launch the crew capsules (called Orion), while the larger Ares V is the heavy-lifting vehicle that will take over the shuttle's current role of cargo-carrier. (It will also be used to launch the lunar module portion of lunar missions.) Both rockets have a certain degree of interchangeability and feature both liquid and solid booster segments.
-
Oh...so now the crew capsule is Orion. Good info!
-
NASA should just go right back to basics. Start from the ground up in a new direction...
Monkeys from outer-space, protecting the future of the human race!
-
jr2 why aren't you answering our questions about how wars should be fought
When I get around to it.*
*When I feel like it.
-
well or one wars should not be left to politics. If politics rules a war well....er... you have a disaster like vietnam or the more current day Iraq war which IMO is a political war first based on money and politics it has notjing to do with nuclear biological or other such threats.
Do wars exist in a vacuum completely independent of greater political enviroment surrounding them?
Sure politics can guide the course of a war because if we leave it up to warmongering generals then we would never have peace but politics should only go so far in the developement of a war.
How far? Do you agree with my previous statement?
Do you think that wars are just another way of continuing politics - as cliched the Clausewitz citation might be? Are all wars similar (you already said no so I assume your answer would be no). And since they are not similar, then they cannot be conveniently handled as similar because the circumstances and objectives of each war are different. Then how come it is possible to make a blanket statement that "wars should not be left to politics", since all wars are different in strategy, geopolitics, objectives and execution?
That's why the entire "wars shouldn't be political" is pretty dumb - some wars are very political in both motivations and execution (see Iraq for the latest example) and some are not as explicitly political (see World War 2 since that's so obvious), but they all have very strong underlying currents.
Negotiations, limitations and control. Governments control the military, not vice versa, because military could decide just how wars would be fought USSR and USA would have been in shooting war in April 1945 and Iraq wouldn't have happened the way it happened. I cannot stress the fact that the military is just the arm of the nation, meaning that the nation controls the military and military does the heavy hitting when appropriate.
Btw. why dont they use the russian space shuttle Buran to make flights to the ISS cuz from what i read it is somewhat safer then its american counterpart. It doesnt use ceramic tiles for heat shielding but something else if i'm not mistaken (cant remember what).
They don't use Buran becase Buran flied only one flight in 198something and the only unit was destroyed when a house fell on it like 18 years later so there aren't any Burans. :)
-
In ww2 the russians had the most interesting fighter planes. They had so many designs employing scramjets and rockets. They even made a way to towe tanks in back of airplanes. The one russian fighter that didn't make it off the drawing books was a fighter that could go underwater and back out again.
-
The russians didn't actally have Scramjets in WW2, due to a lack of basic understanding of sonic shockwaves. Of course they had Ramjets, which they then mounted on a biplane. Their basic production was underarmed, under-protected, and massively supplemented by Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Spitfires and Hurricanes. Their only top-notch production aircraft was the Il-2 due to it's massive armament and protective armour.
It has to be said that Russian fighter pilots died far too easily.
-
But on the other hand, it didn't matter if they had lots of them.
I remember that Soviet Union calculated they needed some 10 tanks to destroy a single German Tiger. So naturally the tank crews refused to attack them. But, when the central command heard about this, they simply calculated the numbers and came to conclusion there was no need to develop a better tank because the Germans would run out of Tigers long before Soviets would run out of tanks, even with these casuality ratios. And ordered the Soviet divisions to attack.
There are other examples, like a truck that didn't have a fuel tank that could be refilled. Useless waste of time when the truck will be destroyed anyways.
The same goes with the Air Force. Which brings me to my former question, are those 450 F/A-22s surely enough?
Mika
-
The russians didn't actally have Scramjets in WW2, due to a lack of basic understanding of sonic shockwaves. Of course they had Ramjets, which they then mounted on a biplane. Their basic production was underarmed, under-protected, and massively supplemented by Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Spitfires and Hurricanes. Their only top-notch production aircraft was the Il-2 due to it's massive armament and protective armour.
It has to be said that Russian fighter pilots died far too easily.
Mmmmm...well the Russians received P-39's in the largest numbers. They outright rejected the P-51, and used the P-47 and Spitfire in PVO (city defense basically) duties only because the high altitude performance was better than their frontline fighters. The Russians also didn't much like the Hurricane and Spitfires tempermental engine (by Russian standards) and didn't like the Hurricane at all. Most of the Hurricane action with the Soviet Air Force (VVS) was at Murmansk (at the hands of RAF pilots often working to train the Russian pilots) and at Leningrad where it was used mostly as ground attack.
The primary fighter in the Russian air force was the Yak series which came in a number of different types and were produced into the many thousands. The Yak-9U produced in early 1944 is essentially equal to the Mustang and in many ways better than the Mustang (depending on altitude) and should not be discounted or discredited. The LaGG-3 wasn't much of a performer but Lavochkin did turn that plane around with the La-5 (particularly the FN model) and the La-7 which was an extremely capable performer. What the Russian planes didn't have were good radios, sophisticated gunsights, pilot comfort (the P-47 was like a Cadillac of WWII fighters), or long lasting air frames. The majority of the frontline VVS in WWII was Russian made...IL-2s were excellent once they got the details worked out but the Yak series carried the VVS through the war with continual improvements. The Yak-3 in particular was a hot little fighter and there is an oft quoted Luftwaffe report suggesting that the Yak-3 (identifiable by its radiator configuration) not be engaged under 10,000 feet (3000 meters).
FYI.
EDIT: And yes the Yak series in general did subscribe to the same kind of ideals as with the T-34 tanks. Produce large numbers and wear down the enemy till they run out of superior aircraft and the skies are flooded. Unfortunately for the Germans the Yak's at the end of the war were just as good if not better for the tasks they were given so it was a huge problem being out performed (usually only at low altitude where the Russians flew most of the time) and outnumbered.
-
NASA should just go right back to basics. Start from the ground up in a new direction...
Monkeys from outer-space, protecting the future of the human race!
THat would require many billions more and might make the program unaffordable for the time frame they are looking at. They want to get man back to the moon by 2020 so they are going with the tried-and-true method rather than a ground up program. I dont blame them for wanting to get back to the moon so quickly. Face it.. sending probes into deep space and other planets is boring and, as many people in the general population see it, doesnt further mans reach into space because people arent actually there. NASA is trying to revitalize the publics interest in space to get more funding.
-
Well since they believe Ice is also located on the moon on the dark side of the moon we might even see some sort of a base or lauch platform for Mars missions somewhere in th enear future. Actualy it is rather funny we already have the tech to go all the way to Mars and eve beyond(if money alows it) but we are just not suited for these long term exposures to no gravity. Kinda funny dont ya think?
-
BTW, the moon is also supposed to be a source of Helium-3, which, when fused with itself in a fusion reaction, is supposed to directly produce energy with radioactive byproducts. Woot!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3_Propulsion
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/space_com063000.pdf
-
Well since they believe Ice is also located on the moon on the dark side of the moon we might even see some sort of a base or lauch platform for Mars missions somewhere in th enear future. Actualy it is rather funny we already have the tech to go all the way to Mars and eve beyond(if money alows it) but we are just not suited for these long term exposures to no gravity. Kinda funny dont ya think?
Yeah..... I have to add, i'm not that big on 40 year + voyages.
45mins a day commuting is enough to do my head in frankly :)
-
I don't know where you get the idea it would take 40 years to ge to mars from. All the estimates I have seen are that:
1) it would take between 3 weeks and a year
2) people have already been in space for the period of time as the small end of the estimate.
The real problem with going to mars is the size of the rocket needed, as many of the proposals involved rockets larger than saturn 5 - and that's assuming it is assembled in orbit!
-
The USSR sent people into space in the high estimate... and we all know how they ended up.
-
Then again so did NASA! Both of them have they sins. Well whi not use the ISS for the construction of a roket big enough to get to mars?
-
Then again so did NASA! Both of them have they sins. Well whi not use the ISS for the construction of a roket big enough to get to mars?
Because you would have to ferry base materials up, which would probably be just as costly.
-
IMO, we'd need either that gravity-negating disc that they've been working on (Pop Mech) or anchor an asteroid(s) to Earth using a tether, and hoist stuff up with elevator(s).
-
there are many problems with the concept of a space elevator, in that to start with there is no material known that is strong and light enough to be practical (even nanotubes are too heavy). Also the act of pulling something up the elevator (or even having something hanging from it) would pull the anchor downward, causing it's orbit to destabilise unless boosted. as for launching a mars mission from the ground, the section that leaves orbit would be the size of a Saturn 5, and adding launch stages to that would greatly increase it's size, resulting in something so large that it is impractical. Remember, with Saturn 5, more than half the length of the rocket (and two thirds of the volume) were used just to reach orbit.
-
Gravity disc it is, then.
-
Gravity disc it is, then.
Could you elaborate on this magical disc? I've never heard of it before.
-
ERg... I'm gonna have to dig it up.
-
There are two options for the so-called 'gravity disc'. The first uses EM waves to generate a plasma around it and pushes it backward, and so as it is an air-breathing engine, it unsuited for anything except first-stage use, and as it needs a lot of power, a nuclear jet would probably be better (or even better an Nulclear liquid air cycle engine). The other so-called gravity disc utilises a superconducting annulus, spinning at high speed, to pruduce an apparent upward force on anything above it. However, the experiment has only rarely been repaeted (not enough to prove that the results of the original experiment was not due so some other factor. If this works however, this has only been seen above a horizontal spinning disc, and so is more use for simulating zero-G than as propulsion. In fact the only (theoretical) propulsive effect that this branch of science has produced a design for, is a gravitational/electromagnetic transducer, and this design doesn't even have a disc (it has a slab).
-
Got it:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281736.html
http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html
-
Thanks, I hadn't heard of Li's work before.