[NGTM-1R]

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.

[diceman111]

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

[Dysko]

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 )

[jr2]

Anyone here heard of John Boyd?  Take a look here and here... I've read a biography on this guy, his ideas are pretty cool.

The google search results are interesting...

[Dysko]

Hey jr2, I was just wondering when you'd have posted here

[TrashMan]

If I now had a tactical nuke....I would deman of the US gov to bring back the Super Tomcat project...otherwise BOOOOM!!!

[Janos]

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?

[AlphaOne]

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.

[Roanoke]

....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...

[achtung]

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

[Janos]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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. 

[Acer]

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

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.

[Roanoke]

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....

[Flaser]

Uh... you're right... considering range the Typhoon is nowhere close to the F-22 or the Su-30

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...
 
We'll be without long range fighters in 20 years!

(Actually, we survived 30 years with the F-104, which is everything but a long range fighter... )

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).

[Nuke]

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.

[IceFire]

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.

[Thor]

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?

[Janos]

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. 

Raptor was in production in 1990?

[Ghostavo]

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. 

Raptor was in production in 1990?

No, the Raptor was in development in 1990, it only entered production a couple of years ago.