History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedThe best fighter aircraft

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:06
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:


In real world exercises:  4 F-15's vs 1 F-22 => 4 dead Eagles.
If you think "real world exercises" mean "real battlefield conditions" maybe it's time to remind you that in the past "exercises" have shown that:
- bombers don't need fighter escort because they are too fast to catch
- bombers don't need fighter escort because they can defend itselves
- bombers can attack with impunity at night.
- fighters should attack bombers using a long approach from the tail and firing long bursts
- dogfight time is gone; fighters are too fast
- no need for guns or cannons, missiles will take down the enemy before it can come to engage at close range.
- F-117 is invisible; no radar can detect it

What real fighting shown was that:
- fighters are even faster, they can and will catch the bombers and blow them out of the sky.
- bombers without escort got punded like hell because the fighters were not so easy to shoot;
- night fighers were not a joke; they found and blast the bombers
- tailing a bomber according to "execise" was probably the last thing many pilots did; the instructors were probably unaware of the fact that bombers did had defensive weapons and refused to fly straight to be shot down like turkeys
- fortunately in WWII the British pilots were smart enough to "exercise" ont their own acrobatic flying; the pilots who flew the Migs in Korea and in Vietnam never knew that there should be no dogfights; the US flyers got shot down by ignorance;
- same as above except that since they had cannons, the Mig divers were never told that those weapons were obsolete;
- F-117 is visible with low frequency radars; so is the Raptor; not to mention the new emerging passive detection systems.

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

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

Raptor dominated every time.

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

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

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


- F-117 is invisible; no radar can detect it

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

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

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

 
No matter how ample a training program is it won't match the "real thing".

The USAF/USN has real aerial combat experience--much more than Russian/Chinese/Indian pilots.  They also get much more flight ours to keep them at a comparatively high level of "readiness".

LOL, this argument cuts both ways, far more against the Russians than the US.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


How many "kills" were achieved using the Sidewinders or the cannon?
I do admit that in terms of direct engagement the Raptor has no equal but what my previous post was about was the actual value of this aircraft in a large scale conventional engagement facing a competently equipped enemy.

Don't forget, the USAF/USN claim they had a horrific failure rate of their missiles during the earlier part of the air war, i.e. 1965-68.  By 1972-73, missile reliabilty was significantly improved.  (Of course, I have no knowledge of failure rate for N. Vietnamese Mig equipment.)  During the later part of the air war, US pilots were able shooting down Vietnamese migs from BVR (although IIRC, rules of engagement dictated they had to positively id the Mig to avoid fratricide, which is NOT a problem with the secure/reliable communications which modern fighters possess).

BTW, do you really believe that the missiles the US makes now are as unreliable as it was during the 1960's when missiles first came into use?!?  (Missiles, night vision, smart bombs, etc., were introduced in Vietnam, but they were very primitive back then.)  The F-117, a first gen stealth aircraft, if you will, did its job.  The F-22/35 and B-2 are second gen stealth aircraft.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:


BTW, can you show any evidence that a Su-30 M can beat an F-15?!?
The Su 30 M is a multi-role aircraft so is the F-15 (I'll take the K, not the E or the C) . If such an engagement will occur, the most important thing is the mission profile of each aircraft. If the US goes at war with India or China, maybe we will have some statistics on how it goes.


LOL, I'll take that as a resounding "NO."

Seriously, google "air war + North Vietnam + wolf packs", for sooner or later you'll find a relevant url on USAF/USN operations which involved dozens and dozens of fighters and then compare it to your scenario.

Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:12
Originally posted by Roberts Roberts wrote:

Hello, Cezar, very interesting analysis Thumbs Up . What in your opinion is a good fighter (avionics, cost, aeronautic tech., weaponary etc.) out of current 4.5 generation? I read that Romania is considering Swedish Gripens.
Well, here's a personal scale:
1. Sukhoi - latest Flanker models. Their real downside was avionics, but they're catching up pretty quickly. AFAIK the initial problems regarding engines fiability is long gone.
2. JAS Grippen. A very good and cost effective aircraft, well suited for smaller budgets. Underpowered, tough.
3. F-15K. Old Gold. The Eagle was and is still on top. It's airframe is too old to my taste. But it still is a beautiful beast.
4. Typhoon. The Eurofighter is not quite my favourite but it has a lot of features that makes it a top fighter. Too expensive is what makes me rate it so low.
5. F-16. The Falcon still has sharp beak and talons. Like the Eagle, it's just a little too old.
 
I also like the Rafale and older aircraft like the Mirage III, Mig 21, Mig 15, F 86, etc.
I must say I'm a fan of warbirds of the WWII. But, that's another discussion... 
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:39
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

Actually, like the now retired Sea Harriers, F-22's themselves can function as AWACS.
Sure, and perform all the duties of a dedicated AWACS platform. Is a clone of Einstein supposed to man the AWACS Raptor?

Wow. Confused

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

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

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


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

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


No, I didn't even mention the possibility of the passive radar. The fact is that if Foxhounds are inbound they are going to come higher than raptors. Which means that raptors must close and fire, thus revealing themselves, well within the range of the weaponry on board the escort. A mix of R-40T and R-33 missiles should mean real trouble then. And a Mig 31 can carry at least twice the payload of a Raptor. Ripple fire is a tactic the Russians are supposed to apply. The US Airforce was never confronted in real battle conditions with this tactic. The fact that the raptors have state of the art counterjamming doesn't mean that it can trick all the missiles. The fact is that simultaneously they must jam radar, possibly SARH, and IR guided missiles, homing on their position.


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

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

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

And don't assume F-15's, F-16's, F-18's won't be doing back up duty, such as guarding the AWACS so that the F-22's are free to do their job, i.e. kill Foxhounds and/or deep penetration strikes.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


The full complement of Intruders aboard a carrier is maybe a little cheaper than a single Raptor.

Sounds like an exaggeration.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


And costs probably less to maintain too.

Source please.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


Do you have any idea how tough is to maintain the integrity of the stealth coating of the F-22?
Enlighten me.  With a real source and not your hyperbole.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


Since Russians are not stupid i guess the terminal guidance must be heatseeker.
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:


That's right, which is why they are scrambling to build Raptorskis and B2-skis.
I don't know what this has to do with my statement.

I would have guessed so.


Edited by TranHungDao - 17-Feb-2009 at 14:45
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:55
Cezar, Bey, etc.

Everything worked out as planned in Iraq 1991, 2003--in the sense of conventional war.  Everything went right in Afghanistan in 2001.  Everything worked out in the Balkans too, but for one lost F-117.  Nicaragua went fine too in 1989.

What went wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan was the insurgent war, not the conventional warIt's good idea to separate the two.

Overall, the Pentagon got is more right than wrong, when it come to conventional war.  Indeed, near perfect (if you ignore civilian casualties, i.e. atrocities).

I'm not pro war by any means.  I'm against both invasions of Iraq, Reagan in Lebanon, invasion of Nicaragua, Grenada, etc.  Only Afghanistan is morally justified.

Russian and China would not be easy as Iraq.  But if they actually have effective anti-stealth radar, then it is impossible.


Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:57
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

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

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

Raptor dominated every time.
Tested is not the same as live battle. Please get out of the virtual world. So where the gunlesss Phantoms, the speedy Blenheims (or Pe-2's if you like), the indestructible B-17'eens. So what?
Quote
Hint:  Why are the Russian, Chinese, and Indians scrambling to build their own Raptorskis?!?
The fact that you call them Raptorskis only shows that you are so confident that only the US has the technological edge. The Russians have shown designs of stealth aircraft before 1995. None of them has reached even the prototype stage. Maybe waht they declare is not what they do. I see that they keep building Flankers.
Quote
Why don't they just take your advice and skip to the sixth gen fighter?
Maybe they are. Not on my advice but on cost considerations. Russians have nasty missiles. They are cheaper. Maybe they are working on UCAV's. Since they have operational ramjets for far more longer than US or Europe. They are not showing it probably because they do not need so much glamour and public display as the USAAF.
Quote The X-factor here is passive radar, which you didn't even bother to mention in your original flights of fancy scenario.  If anti-stealth passive radar works, then it effectively turns the Raptor into a 4.5 gen fighter, i.e. it is not stealthy at all.  In which case, it is impossible to invade any country with a good ground-based anti-air defense based upon passive radar.

But again, no one knows how far passive radar is along now.
Do some reading. Low frequency radar sets are capable of detecting "stealth" aircraft. Passive systems are said too. Radar stealth is now only a jutification for spending your tax money. You can't expect the airforce to admit that they've spent billions on a technology that is now obsolete.
Quote
The USAF/USN has real aerial combat experience--much more than Russian/Chinese/Indian pilots.  They also get much more flight ours to keep them at a comparatively high level of "readiness".

LOL, this argument cuts both ways, far more against the Russians than the US.
It certainly does and I'm the fisrt to admit that a proper training is required to keep the pilots in good shape. Whithout the glamour of the Red Flag or Top Gun or whatever. Do you know for sure that Russia isn't training her pilots? Maybe they just have fun reading the Western media that shows them as yokels at a stick. Last year I spoke with a pilot who flew a Lancer. He had been trained also by the Soviets. He did appreciated the NATO instructors but never said that Russians were inferior. The political officers were the bane of the VVS or of any former communist airforce, not the pilots or the instructors. Anyway, the way I see it, if Russia would make public the real level of training of their airforce only, the media will skyrocket and point again at the bloody bear. Though the largest military budget is still USA's.
Quote
Don't forget, the USAF/USN claim they had a horrific failure rate of their missiles during the earlier part of the air war, i.e. 1965-68.  By 1972-73, missile reliabilty was significantly improved.  (Of course, I have no knowledge of failure rate for N. Vietnamese Mig equipment.)  During the later part of the air war, US pilots were able shooting down Vietnamese migs from BVR (although IIRC, rules of engagement dictated they had to positively id the Mig to avoid fratricide, which is NOT a problem with the secure/reliable communications which modern fighters possess).

BTW, do you really believe that the missiles the US makes now are as unreliable as it was during the 1960's when missiles first came into use?!?  (Missiles, night vision, smart bombs, etc., were introduced in Vietnam, but they were very primitive back then.)  The F-117, a first gen stealth aircraft, if you will, did its job.  The F-22/35 and B-2 are second gen stealth aircraft.
The fact remains that after countless "exercises" and training the guns were removed from the aircraft only to be reintroduced after battle experience proved them to be necessary.
Do you know that IAF pilots asked for a gun on board their Mirages? Because the French were about to remove them too.
The unpaired capabilities of the Raptor have never been proved in live warfare. All we have are evaluations of its capabilities.
Quote LOL, I'll take that as a resounding "NO."
No, just take it as "don't ask unanswerable questions". I could reply with a witty: "Do you know of any F-15 shooting down a SU 30 M?". I mean a real fight, not an "exersise".
Based on this kind of consideration, I should conclude that the Hind is a better attack helicopter tha the Apache. Why? Because during the Iraq-Iran war an Iraqi Hind shot down an Iranian F-4. It seems that this is the only documented instance when a helicopter downed a jet fighter. Do you know of any Apache that shot down a Mig 21Dead?

Quote Seriously, google "air war + North Vietnam + wolf packs", for sooner or later you'll find a relevant url on USAF/USN operations which involved dozens and dozens of fighters and then compare it to your scenario.
If my country was at war with Andorra, we could also send in dozens of airplanes. The last time I checked USA lost the war with Vietnam. I know, it was Rogue Squadron and the 181'st who helped them, on their way to fight the Ssii-ruuk. And the proton torpedoes left over by Jean Luc Picard.


Edited by Cezar - 17-Feb-2009 at 14:59
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 15:05
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

The last time I checked USA lost the war with Vietnam.

Last time I checked, USA won the air war in Vietnam with a 2:1 kill ratio advantage.

Last time I checked, USA won the conventional war in Vietnam.  2-4 Million:58,000 kill ratio, depending on the estimate.

Do you even know the difference between conventional war and an insurgencyDo you know that the Iraqis can still beat the US in Iraq if they wanted to, without ever shooting down a single fighter aircraft?  Do you know that the Afghans can still beat the US in Afghanistan without ever shooting down a single fighter aircraft?

You're arguments are so totally random.  You don't even know about the air war in Vietnam to even talk about fifth gen fighters.

Sorry, but I'm pretty much done here.  And trust me, it's not b'coz you're winning, it's because you don't know what you're talking about and you don't cite anyone.


Edited by TranHungDao - 17-Feb-2009 at 15:13
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 362
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 15:26
anyone know about the Mig 44 as far as when it is coming out or if it is being used?
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 15:27
Sorry, but I've got to respond to this one:

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

No, just take it as "don't ask unanswerable questions". I could reply with a witty: "Do you know of any F-15 shooting down a SU 30 M?". I mean a real fight, not an "exersise".
Based on this kind of consideration, I should conclude that the Hind is a better attack helicopter tha the Apache. Why? Because during the Iraq-Iran war an Iraqi Hind shot down an Iranian F-4. It seems that this is the only documented instance when a helicopter downed a jet fighter. Do you know of any Apache that shot down a Mig 21Dead?


No.  The question is blatantly answerable.  If a non-stealth fighter faces off against a stealth fighter, then it is dead.  That is why the Russians, Chinese, and Indians are scrambling to build their own Raptorskis. 

I could have also asked:   If Raptors are so useless, then why are the Russians, Chinese, and Indians scrambling to build passive anti-stealth radar? 

Short Answer:  Stealth works, so they need to counter it.
Long Answer:  Generally speaking, the Pentagon wants its weapons systems to work--and it usually does, but if not, then they still force their opponents to spend inordinate sums of money to keep up.  Most countries simply cannot afford it, period.  But even for countries that can, they always lag behind.  This way, the US is always on step ahead, perpetually in a position of relative strength, or even total domination depending on the opponent.  In addition, they make a lot of arms sales on the side. 
Long Story Short:  Technology keeps the current imbalance of power favoring the US.  The US is currently the lone superpower.  (Hint:  Without it's air power in Vietnam, the US could have even lost the ground war, i.e. the conventional war to the Vietnamese.  This is not nationalistic hyperbole.  Look at the Korean War and Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979.)

You are so totally random. 

BTW, F-15's have slaughtered Mig 29's.  In Korea, a P-51 Mustang (a propeller plane) shot down a Russian Mig.   During the Vietnam War, Vietnamese using small arms fire brought down US fighters.  Anyone can be totally random.  Cool




Edited by TranHungDao - 17-Feb-2009 at 15:43
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 15:36
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

The last time I checked USA lost the war with Vietnam.

Last time I checked, USA won the air war in Vietnam with a 2:1 kill ratio advantage.

Last time I checked, USA won the conventional war in Vietnam.  2-4 Million:58,000 kill ratio, depending on the estimate.

Do you even know the difference between conventional war and an insurgencyDo you know that the Iraqis can still beat the US in Iraq if they wanted to, without ever shooting down a single fighter aircraft?  Do you know that the Afghans can still beat the US in Afghanistan without ever shooting down a single fighter aircraft?

You're arguments are so totally random.  You don't even know about the air war in Vietnam to even talk about fifth gen fighters.

Sorry, but I'm pretty much done here.  And trust me, it's not b'coz you're winning, it's because you don't know what you're talking about and you don't cite anyone.
So, the Raptor is a fighter that will win the air war but the US will loose the war? Good choice for an aircraft.
I'm glad you stressed yourself to make me understand that scores ... sorry, .. dozens of US aircraft were buzzing over Vietnam 24/7. Maybe that's why they got that ugly kill ratio: when a vietnamese fighter was coming up, there were sooo many american ones that US pilots needed the vietnamese too shoot one of them to realise it's an enemy. If the vietnamese wouldn't have fired a shot, the kill ratio would have been 0:0.
Trung, only if you look at the weapons that a Raptor can carry you should realise that its only a design meant to compete against an inferior though highly capable airforce. Something the size North Korea, Syria or, to some extent Iran may have. If USAAF is going to attack a country that only yields some 100 late model fourth generation aircraft and a few (10-20) advanced SAM systems then the Raptor is the key to rapidly achieve air superiority. Against a larger opponet, like Russia or China, the offensive capabilities of the Raptor are challenged. You quoted www.fas.org in one of your posts. There are a lot of links there to articles that debate the problem of why the F-22 is necessary. I'll give you a link to one: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-111.pdf. It's an older one but the point still stands: the Raptor is not to get over Russia or China, is to keep the lead against other opponents.
*it's still too expensiveTongue!!!
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 15:37
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

Sorry, but the Japanese never approached 1:1 with the Americans at any point during WWII.  The figures in 1942 were really crappy too.  Nothing to brag about.
You must be reading the neo con revisionist history.  Japanese pilots either out performed or performed equally to US pilots in a battles in 1942.  This includes Coral Sea, Midway and Guadacanal Battles. By 1943, they were hsowing deficninces and 1944 was the era of the "Turkey Shoots".
 
 
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:


And LOL, how many third world countries even had an air force in 1943-44?  LOL
In many ways, Japan was a third world country with a veneer of industrialization. They were able to compensate for their lack of indutrialization by carefully designing a small number of weapns and then training a small number of men to an extremely high level. The first "zero" fighter was moved from the factory to the test field by ox cart on a dirt track.
 
Really, there is far more to history than memorizing radar systems and plane performance tables Wink


Edited by Cryptic - 17-Feb-2009 at 15:47
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 15:48
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

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

Source please.

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

Also, the Flying Tiger unit in China also had like a 40:1 kill ratio, IIRC.
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 15:53
LOL, Japan industrialized since like 1858, even before many European countries.  Historically, Japan has always been productive.  Historically, Asia was more productive to Europe, which is why Asians outnumber Europeans (lately the affluence lifestyle/declining birthrates in Europe are adding to this).

Do you even know what the US was like during the depression, the Dust Bowl, the turn of the century?  How was Europe after WWI?  Back in WWII, virtually all countries were 3rd world, by todays standards.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 16:20
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:


Out performed?  Once the US entered the war, the Japanese got their butts kicked up and down Asia and across the Pacific. 
Really, the Japanese pushed US out of the Phillipines, Coral Sea was a tie, Midway was a ties (in aerial combat losses), so were the Solomons. 
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:


Also, the Flying Tiger unit in China also had like a 40:1 kill ratio, IIRC.
Wow 40-1! That is amazing. Are you sure it was not 60-1?  Maybe I shot down three zeros on my way to work this morning. Propaganda is useful, believing ones own propaganda is foolish.
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

.  Yeah, Japanese pilots were so good that the high command resorted to Kamikaze attacks.
They did in October 1944, after they lost their 700-1,000 trained pilots.  There were no Kamikaze attacks while Japan could fight on equal or near equal terms in the air.
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:


Do you even know what the US was like during the depression, the Dust Bowl, the turn of the century? 
Even during the depression, ther US had many times the Japanese industrial potential. in WWII, we built scores of carriers, the japanese built a dozen at most.  We also built tens of thousands of four engine aircraft. Care to guess how many Japan built?
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 17-Feb-2009 at 16:28
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 16:28
Quote
Increased Reliability and Maintainability

Reliability and Maintainability were designed into the F-22, from the start.  Ease of maintenance in the field and high reliability rates were required before each design element was considered complete.  The F-22 will higher mission capable rates while generating higher sortie rates than current fighters.  It will do with fewer support personnel and less maintenance equipment.  Studies indicate the F-22 will be able to fly 8.5 sorties before requiring major maintenance compared to 5.4 sorties for the F-15 Increased reliability and maintenance will allow USAF to generate more combat power with less logistical support and reduced life-cycle costs.

The F-22's increased reliability and maintainability will help USAF accomplish the core competency of Agile Combat Support since F-22 support requirements will be less, therefore easier to meet than the current fighters.


SOURCE:  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-111.pdf
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 16:37
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Care to guess how many Japan built?

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 17:01
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Care to guess how many Japan built?

You need to put the respective productivities in their proper context, i.e. that of population size, geography, etc., of each country.  LOL.
I am well aware of that.  The final point is that Japan was not fully industrialized by European standards in 1939.  They were behind even when compared to Germany and Great Britain. 
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 17:06
Quote
Simulation Comparisons


In an effort to quantify the F-22's capabilities, the Air Staff conducted a computer study in 1997 using the Cray-based Extended Air Defense Simulator (EADSIM).  This study compared results from two strike missions against a selected target in a notional country with advanced IADS in the 2010 time frame.  The first mission Enhanced Conventional Fighters (ECF), which were armed with Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW).  The ECF is a notional fighter very similar to the F-15 "X" discussed above and to the Navy's newest fighter, the F/A-18E Superhornet.  The second mission employed the F-22 armed with JDAM.  Both missions assumed it was day one of the war with enemy air defense forces at full strength.  Each mission was force sized to ensure 100% success.

The first mission required 66 ECF aircraft, 4 EA-6B Prowlers for SEAD support and 72 Tomahawk Land-Air Missiles.  When counting support aircraft, such as tankers, the total value of all the assets at risk was $4.8 BillionThirty ECF's were lost during the mission to enemy's IADS.

By comparison, the F-22 mission required only 20 F-22's and 16 Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missiles.  Again including support aircraft, the total value of all assets at risk for the mission was $1.4 Billion.  When counting battle damage, only 1.7 F-22's were lost during the mission.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Edited by TranHungDao - 18-Feb-2009 at 07:30
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 17:10
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

I am well aware of that.  The final point is that Japan was not fully industrialized by European standards in 1939.  They were behind even when compared to Germany and Great Britain. 

Then why didn't you mention it explicitly, when you were giving me that sob story on why Japan was so backwards compared to the US.

Listen, I'm not gonna debate Japanese WWII productivity anymore.  And I certainly don't buy into your version of it.

In fact, I'm gettin' sick of this thread. Dead
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 12:30
Quote SU 27 the world's best fighter? I doubt that. Mind you the F-15 and F-16 were tested many times in battle but the SU-27 wasn't so you might be right Bey.
SU 27 was the best fighter 20 years ago. Today I don't think so. As to F-15s and F-16s I don't think they were tested many times in battle. They were used against far inferior opponents. I am sure they are good aircraft, but when West German F-16s faced East German Mig 29s after unification they were defeated. If F-15s had faced Soviet (not Russian) Su 27s, they would have been defeated as well. 
 
Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 16:38
Just came a cross a new article at StrategyPage on the F-22.  Very interesting stuff.  Though I'm not sure where they're getting it from specifically.  They say it an official press release by the USAF.

Quote

F-22 Secrets Revealed


February 12, 2009: The U.S. Air Force has released some performance data on the F-22. The stealthiness factor of the F-22 has turned out to be better than predicted. For radar purposes, the F-22 is about the size of a steel marble. The F-35 comes out as a steel golf ball. The AESA radar turned out to have a longer effective range of about 210 kilometers, versus a 200 on the official spec sheet. The AESA radar is also able to detect enemy radars at a considerable distance, meaning that, if an approaching enemy aircraft is using its radar, an F-22 can detect it about 300 kilometers distant. That gives the F-22 more time to get into position for a decisive first shot at the enemy aircraft.

These goodies are being released as the air force makes a pitch to delay some F-35 production in order to build more F-22s. The air force generals point out that the first 500 or so F-35s will cost $200 million each (without taking R&D into account), while F-22s only cost $145 million each (without taking R&D into account). The construction cost of the F-35 will eventually go to about $100 million each as more are produced.

The air force also points out that their simulations (which are classified, so it's difficult for anyone check their accuracy) indicate the an F-22 would destroy 30 Su-27/MiG-29 type aircraft for getting destroyed. But the F-35 would only have a 3:1 ratio, while the F-15 and F-16 would only have a 1:1 ratio (there are a lot of F-15 and F-16 pilots who would dispute this). Thus the need for more F-22s, even if it means fewer F-35s (in the near and long term.


The air force also points out that, with a force of 183 F-22s (all Congress will allow them to build at the moment), only about a hundred would be available for combat (the rest would be down for maintenance or used for training.) By building another 60-100 F-22s, and reducing initial F-35 production by that much, American air superiority would be much improved, at no (well, not much) additional expense. Or so goes the pitch.

LINK


Note:  I think the guy who wrote this article made a mistake on the respective pricings of the F-22 and F-35, i.e. the idiot got in in reverse.

The price of the F-22 including R&D should be about $360 per plane according to some estimates.  And the price, including R&D, for the F-35 should be about $200 each.

Anyway, in the computer simulation I cited above, it is still much cheaper to lose 1.7 Raptors than 30 enhanced F-15's.  Of course, this is certainly not the case if the enemy has an vast network of effective anti-stealth radar which also controls SAMs and anti-aircraft.  Regardless, the steath genie is out of the bottle.  If the US tries to attack a country with stealth fighters, it has to have stealth fighters, whether or not that country also has anti-stealth radar.

What's really striking in this article is it claims the F-22's AESA can detect enemy radar making it effectively able to detect enemy planes up to 300 km.   Note also the new kill ratio claim:   30 Su-27/Mig-29's would be down for every 1 F-22.

Note that before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Ukrainians were caught selling the Kolchuga system to the Saddam.  This really pissed off the US.  I believe it was funneled thru Jordan, IIRC.  How many Kolchuga systems were sold, I do not know.  Obviously, it played no role in the 2003 invasion.  But then again, did Iraq even have any SAMs left by 2003?



Edited by TranHungDao - 18-Feb-2009 at 16:43
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.