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  <1 567
Author
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 09:54
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Norway recently dismissed the Gripen in favour of replacing its aging F-16s with the F-35.
Gripen would of been my first choice, f35 comes with US political strings and is still a WIP. If the scandavians stick together more, it would be very benefical for all of them.
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: 19-Feb-2009 at 12:12
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

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
Are reading what you ask? your orignal question, which I qualified as unanswerable was about a  SU 30 M shooting an F-15.  You didn't even mentioned what type of F-15 so I went for the K. 
 
I'm glad you like that article on fas.org I've pointed at since you reffer so much to it. Maybe you should read and think of what you read instead of being so eager to defend the Raptor.
F-22's strenght is a single feature: stealth. You simply state that stealth works, that noone has yet developed an adequate countermeasure, come up with breathtaking results from exercises, etc.
I'm not questioning the demonstrated qualities of the Raptor, I'm only concerned about questions I've never been able to found an adequate answer. In a previous post I've pointed out the really "strange" weaponry of the Raptor. I'll push this a little further, with questions regarding stealth.
Stealth is the result of a combination of factors, which implemented in an airframe are found in shape, coating and heat supressors. Let's consider these:
- the shape of the F-22, no matter how you take it, is a compromise. The RCS numbers I've found, that extraordinary "marble size", said nothing about aspect. Because it can't have the same RCS on all aspects. And the real problem for the Raptor that I don't found nothing off is what is its RCS from above? That's why I've put Foxhounds in my scenario, because these are planes that operate at high altitude. The fact that there is no report of the Zaslon detecting a Raptor doesn't mean that there have been any tests regarding this possible situation. If you know of such tests and the following results, please enlighten me.
Also I've seen no published informations regarding tests to determine how/if the Raptors can be detected/tracked using passive, bi-static or long-wavelength radars. So stealthness has some problems. I can't help to think of at least three things:
1. Stealth basics were laid down around 1960 by a Russian (Soviet, by then) scientist, Piotr Umfitsev. Were the Russian so stupid not to realise the potential of such a technology since then?
2. Since the F-117 has come to the public eye, constant announcements of various Russian and/or Chinese stealth designs have popped up. Not even a single aircraft of that type was put into service. Instead they kept on improving the weapons, especially the AA missiles and the flying characteristics of their newest airframes. Eurofighter is also not stealth though the Germans had a similar program during the Cold War (I think it was called Lampyridae or something).
3. A Nighthawk was shot down. Most likely with an SA-3 using a 50 years old centimetric radar. Lucky shot, many will say. Nasty surpise, I'll say because it happened while US/NATO forces enjoyed toatl dominance of the skyes, with all the intelligence support. If one asks why didn't they shoot down more I'll give credit to the Serbs for being smart enough to know that it was more important to preserve their defensive capabilities if threatened by an invasion. After all, a war is won on the ground or by the politician decisions.
- coating is an important feature to secure stealth. On fas.org there's an ample article describing on how these coating are made. Look for it. The problem is that it needs maintenance and it's only been proved to work on good weather conditions. Rain badly affects it's effectiveness, for example. And maintenance of this coating is strictly neccessary to maintain the aircraft "stealthy". The only published informations I know about coating maintenance are related to the B-2's that flown over Serbia. And it doesn't look good. I mean, pressurised hangars, specialised personnel, etc. for only one flight! All I know about the Raptors is that they are said to be easier and cheaper to maintain. I also wonder about the weather conditions during the exercises when the Raptors mauled the Eagles. For all I know those took place at Nellis. That means desert, clear. How about blizzard/heavy rain? Most Russian airplanes have all-weather capabilities.
- development off passive DT systems based on visual/IR makes a stealth plane forced to yield heat /exhaust suppressors. The Raptor also has the advantage of being a supersonic cruiser. But it cannot totlly suppress it's exhaust. And the detection capability is strictly in relation with atmospheric conditions. I mean, even at moderate thrust, it will be visible in a cold air environment. At 10.000 meters the air temperature can reach staggering -40C on a beautiful summer day. Does that mean that the Raptor only should fly low? That's how they "shot down" the Eagles? Were they skimming the desert (with climatisation off, otherwise they would have been spotted as "cold bandits"Wink) and snapped AMRAAMs at the high flying enemy? Shall I stress a few points:
- In an interception/interdiction role, the Raptor might be neeeding to attack fast and high inbound bandits. Like a Tu-22 gaggle flying at Mach 1.1 on guess what, supercruise. It is possible then that in order to get into the firing envelope of the AMRAAMS the Raptor must use its afterburners. This is not a joke because those damn things could carry long range missiles. But that's not just it. Russian tactics are known to be of supersaturation. That means that they will attack an objective with a lot of airplanes using different mission profiles (HI-HI-HI, LO-LO-LO, HI-LO-HI for example). With escorts and fighter sweeps in the mix. The odds are than in such a situation a few Eagles and Falcons might be very necessary. But you mothballed those because Raptors were built! And the weapons they carry are inferior in range and accuracy to those of the enemy. Because more money was spent on a delivery platform than on the delivery package! Have you ever checked what kind of payload carries a Flanker in an air-to-air configuration? In the exercises you so often point at, has there ever been a situation where Raptors were put to such a challenge?
 
Look, I don't say the Raptor is a junk, I really like the beast, but the fact remains that I'm not so ready to give in the much too optimistic propaganda regarding it's capabilities.
And history shows something quite different:
- the P-51 was considered the best fighter of WWII not because it featured amazing advanced technical features that the opposition never had. As a matter of fact, the techno-crazy were the Germans. No, the Mustang won its status mainly because pilots were better trained and tactics were superior.
- The Sabre was the better fighter in Korea for the same reasons. The Mig 15 bis was quite a match in technological terms to the F-86.
- The Phantom was the better fighter in Vietnam for, guess what, the same reasons. The Mig 21 was in some aspects superior to the F-4.
The fact is that F-22 is useful only if its stealthy. But that means severe limitations to the pilots actions. NO after burners. NO AST. You know what that means? That means predictability. And predictability in a war gets you killed.
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: 19-Feb-2009 at 14:13
Ok, this the last time I respond to you: Angry

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Are reading what you ask? your orignal question, which I qualified as unanswerable was about a  SU 30 M shooting an F-15.  You didn't even mentioned what type of F-15 so I went for the K. 

Sorry, I confused my own questions. Embarrassed

But in my defense, you're jumping all over the place.  Worse, I could immediately tell right from the start you were just making stuff up, which is why I told you I don't want to debate you any more.

Regardless, my answer addresses your lame rhetorical question (a different one which you posed) about the cost effectiveness (which you know nothing about) of the Raptor:  Technology is a force multiplier, which is why the US is constantly pursuing advanced technology.  Ultimately, this super expensive weapons systems maintain the geopolitical power imbalance favoring the US.

Did you noticed that I used your own link/source to expose you on your rants about how the Raptor is so fragile and expensive (high maintenance) compared to 4th gen US fighters?  I knew you were just making things up.  You don't know this. I don't either.  Ultimately no one can know without see classified data.   So stop making claims without evidence.


Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


I'm not questioning the demonstrated qualities of the Raptor, I'm only concerned about questions I've never been able to found an adequate answer. In a previous post I've pointed out the really "strange" weaponry of the Raptor. I'll push this a little further, with questions regarding stealth.

It's avionics the most powerful.  It's aeronautical agility ain't to shabby either.  Ermm


Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


Stealth is the result of a combination of factors, which implemented in an airframe are found in shape, coating and heat supressors. Let's consider these:
- the shape of the F-22, no matter how you take it, is a compromise. The RCS numbers I've found, that extraordinary "marble size", said nothing about aspect. Because it can't have the same RCS on all aspects. And the real problem for the Raptor that I don't found nothing off is what is its RCS from above? That's why I've put Foxhounds in my scenario, because these are planes that operate at high altitude. The fact that there is no report of the Zaslon detecting a Raptor doesn't mean that there have been any tests regarding this possible situation. If you know of such tests and the following results, please enlighten me.

F-15 pilots who fly against the Raptor in combat exercises say they often can NOT even get their missiles to lock even though they see the Raptor right in front them.

No, I don't know what the top RCS is, but the shape of the F-22, or any stealth fighter for that matter, is not a compromise, it is its strength.  The geometry was designed to bounce radar away from the source, on top of absorbing it:  Incoming radar is either absorbed or bounced away from the source.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


Also I've seen no published informations regarding tests to determine how/if the Raptors can be detected/tracked using passive, bi-static or long-wavelength radars. So stealthness has some problems. I can't help to think of at least three things:

Yeah.  That's why I keep bringing it up.  The Raptor will kill any 4th gen fighter.   Only anti-stealth radar can make it vulnerable.

A 30:1 kill ratio advantage against the Su-27 translates to ~ 24:1 kill ratio against the Su-30 M.

And just so you know, I'm well aware of that argument you brought up about US have stealth fighters only to lose to insurgents.  Critics of the Raptor who say this are overlooking some important big picture issues:

1.  As I said previously, the US wants to maintain its position in the world.  The only way to do this is to be technologically ahead, since technology is a force multiplier.  Otherwise, everyone will eventually catch up.
2.  We are a long ways away, but in 100 years or so, AI/Robots and other types of weaponry may be able to defeat insurgents without committing atrocities, or even causing permanent bodily damage, which is one of the biggest reasons why insurgencies work.  Getting the enemy to commit civilian casualties  is a key tenent of insurgent warfare.  You cannot get to such advanced technology without developing all kinds of intermediate weapons systems that will eventually lead to it.
3.  The Arms Race:  If the US doesn't do it, then others will eventually.  Which means the balance of power will tilt away from the US.  In game theory, the side that is most powerful, most aggressive, even most belligerent, invariably walks away with the biggest portion of the pie.
4.  Lastly, critics who say this dialectical process wherein the more powerful the US becomes technologically, the more their opponents are forced to resort to insurgency, since the conventional war option is at best a NULL choice, since they can't even afford one Raptor much less a fleet of them, are forgetting that most of the time you don't need to occupy a country.  Maybe you just want to knock out their nuke reactors, or punish them for terrorist acts.
5.  What if the Raptor works just as promised?  It just might.  In fact, it still works over the high seas or neutral territory where there are no passive radar systems yet intalled.





Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


1. Stealth basics were laid down around 1960 by a Russian (Soviet, by then) scientist, Piotr Umfitsev. Were the Russian so stupid not to realise the potential of such a technology since then?

Yes.  Or more to the point, they lacked computing power.  Stealth fighters are aerodynamically unstable, and must use computers to stabilize them in flight.


Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


2. Since the F-117 has come to the public eye, constant announcements of various Russian and/or Chinese stealth designs have popped up. Not even a single aircraft of that type was put into service. Instead they kept on improving the weapons, especially the AA missiles and the flying characteristics of their newest airframes. Eurofighter is also not stealth though the Germans had a similar program during the Cold War (I think it was called Lampyridae or something).

*sign* They don't have the technology, they don't have the money. Ermm

Everything the Chinese have is either bought or stolen.  This has been the pattern since the Russians gave the Chinese nuke reactor technology back in the 1950's and then the Chinese stole the Russian atomic bomb secrets (which was developed at Los Alamos in WWII).  The Chinese are far from being able to do anything by themselves, outside of reverse engineering.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


3. A Nighthawk was shot down. Most likely with an SA-3 using a 50 years old centimetric radar. Lucky shot, many will say. Nasty surpise, I'll say because it happened while US/NATO forces enjoyed toatl dominance of the skyes, with all the intelligence support. If one asks why didn't they shoot down more I'll give credit to the Serbs for being smart enough to know that it was more important to preserve their defensive capabilities if threatened by an invasion. After all, a war is won on the ground or by the politician decisions.

Thus far, only one Stealth aircraft has been lost, and that was the F-117.  F-22 is much more advanced to say the least in EVERY respect.

LOL, I was under the impression that Kolchuga shot it down.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


- coating is an important feature to secure stealth. On fas.org there's an ample article describing on how these coating are made. Look for it. The problem is that it needs maintenance and it's only been proved to work on good weather conditions. Rain badly affects it's effectiveness, for example. And maintenance of this coating is strictly neccessary to maintain the aircraft "stealthy". The only published informations I know about coating maintenance are related to the B-2's that flown over Serbia. And it doesn't look good. I mean, pressurised hangars, specialised personnel, etc. for only one flight! All I know about the Raptors is that they are said to be easier and cheaper to maintain.

Coating is a key feature.  But shape is by far more important.  Stealth designers have a saying:  "The four most important elements of stealth are shape, shape, shape, and materials."


Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


I also wonder about the weather conditions during the exercises when the Raptors mauled the Eagles. For all I know those took place at Nellis. That means desert, clear. How about blizzard/heavy rain? Most Russian airplanes have all-weather capabilities.

Raptors are also tested in Alaska.  I don't know what the weather conditions are specifically.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


- development off passive DT systems based on visual/IR makes a stealth plane forced to yield heat /exhaust suppressors. The Raptor also has the advantage of being a supersonic cruiser. But it cannot totlly suppress it's exhaust. And the detection capability is strictly in relation with atmospheric conditions. I mean, even at moderate thrust, it will be visible in a cold air environment. At 10.000 meters the air temperature can reach staggering -40C on a beautiful summer day. Does that mean that the Raptor only should fly low? That's how they "shot down" the Eagles? Were they skimming the desert (with climatisation off, otherwise they would have been spotted as "cold bandits"Wink) and snapped AMRAAMs at the high flying enemy?

I do know that the F-117 would fly very low and slow in missions.  When that F-117 got shot down over Kosovo/Serbia, some thought that maybe the Russians had spies in Aviano AFB in Italy where it was taking off from.  And they simply timed it right, i.e. they were expecting to visually see a low flying F-117.

As for heat suppression, all I know is that it is classified and supposed to be very good.

 
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


Shall I stress a few points:
- In an interception/interdiction role, the Raptor might be neeeding to attack fast and high inbound bandits. Like a Tu-22 gaggle flying at Mach 1.1 on guess what, supercruise. It is possible then that in order to get into the firing envelope of the AMRAAMS the Raptor must use its afterburners. This is not a joke because those damn things could carry long range missiles. But that's not just it. Russian tactics are known to be of supersaturation.

First, the chances of the US going to war with a nuke power inside it's own border is basically ZERO.

Second, basic military doctrine says attackers should out number defenders 3 to 1.  But that is land warfare.  It may also be true in aerial combat too.  But as I keep saying technology is a force multiplier, which is why coalition forces were only about 500K in 1991 vs 1-1.5 Million Iraqis.  The US didn't need 3-4.5 million soldiers to invade Iraq, due to their technological advantage--and boy did they slaughter.  Anyway, understand that the US, or anyone else for that matter, is going to plan an attack where the force ratio guarantees 100% success.  That is, if only 4th gen jets are used, they must outnumber the Russian 4th gen jets by 3:1.  If they can't, they'll take out the airfields via (stealth) cruise missiles effectively grounding a much of the enemy fleet to begin with.  This is an assumption you need to make, for without it, your battle plan is a TOTAL JOKE.   The corresponding F-22 only mission means they don't need anywhere near a 3:1 numerical advantage in fighters, but the force ratio will still be at least 3:1.  To figure out how many F-22's you need, do the math yourself based on kill ratio advantages that the F-22 is supposed to hold over other 4th gen jets.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


That means that they will attack an objective with a lot of airplanes using different mission profiles (HI-HI-HI, LO-LO-LO, HI-LO-HI for example). With escorts and fighter sweeps in the mix. The odds are than in such a situation a few Eagles and Falcons might be very necessary. But you mothballed those because Raptors were built!

Again, another lousy assumption.  Another hopelessly optimistic assumption.  In fact, there's at least two lousy assumption here.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


And the weapons they carry are inferior in range and accuracy to those of the enemy. Because more money was spent on a delivery platform than on the delivery package! Have you ever checked what kind of payload carries a Flanker in an air-to-air configuration? In the exercises you so often point at, has there ever been a situation where Raptors were put to such a challenge?

You keep assuming Chinese and Russian pilots are getting adequate hours of flight time enabling them to be fully proficient pilots of the respective jets they fly.  STOP THIS. Ermm

In 2006, the PLAAF started its own "top gun" school since they were constantly getting their butts kicked in mocked battles with what they fought, which were supposedly  equivalent to Taiwanese F-16's.

I have no reliable link, but in another blog, a Russian guy said Russian pilots only get 1/10 of the flying time that US pilots do.

You're also assuming the Russian stuff is better.  STOP THIS TOO. Ermm
 
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

The fact is that F-22 is useful only if its stealthy. But that means severe limitations to the pilots actions. NO after burners. NO AST. You know what that means? That means predictability. And predictability in a war gets you killed.

Don't forget, there's also battles over the high seas and in neutral territory.   I've said it before and I'll say it again:  The chances of the US going to war with a nuke power, espcially a major one, violating that country's borders is ZERO.

What is likely is the US engages Russia or China on the high seas or in neutral territory, where there may be no passive radars installed.

The far more likely case is the US goes against some small country.  And that country will back down rather than even fight the US since they don't have stealth fighters nor anti-stealth radar.  China does this to Vietnam all the time in the Spratly island dispute.  China would get its ass kicked it if tried to invade Vietnam.  And in a prolonged war, it would lose it's entire air force due to SAMs and anti-aircraft (the N. Vietnamese shot down over 4000 aircraft in about 5 years of air war with US.) But on the high seas, Vietnam is totally helpless, since its Navy fleet is practically non-existent.

-----------------------------------------

I'm telling you, you're make way to many ridiculous assumptions for your battle plan to be anywhere near realistic.  And where you do have a good point, you then immediately launch into one authoritative claim after another without any evidence.

LOL, on the web, there's an often cited Australian/Russian analysis of the F-35 "Pidgeon", as they derogatively call it, which is totally ridiculous in its assumptions:  1 F-35 vs 2 Flankers.  TOTAL UTTER GARBAGE. 

First:  1 F-35 can take on and defeat two Flankers.  (At least that what the claim is by the USAF).
Second:  Why are they assuming there will only be one F-35 to begin with?

I don't know of any USAF/USN missions in N. Vietnam that involved less than 4 fighters.  Dozens was by far the norm. Ermm

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: 19-Feb-2009 at 14:23
Quote

China Goes Top Gun

June 5, 2006: Another example of how serious China is about creating world class armed forces, is their establishing a "Top Gun" school. That means some of their Su-27 aircraft would have their pilots trained to use fly and fight like F-16's (in particular, Taiwanese F-16s). The 28 ton Su-27 is actually a larger aircraft than the 17 ton F-16. But the only F-16 class aircraft China has is the new JF17. There are not enough JF17s available to serve in an "aggressor squadron", and the JF17 is actually only equal in performance to older model F-16s. The Su-27 can do the job, even if it's more similar in size to the F-15. The Chinese were encouraged to go this way when, during realistic training exercises, their Su-27 pilots were easily defeated when up against aircraft fighting like Taiwanese pilots in F-16s.


Actually, it had been noted that flying skills of Soviet pilots was declining in the 1980s, as economic problems in the USSR caused a cut in flying time. During that period, American pilots were actually getting more flying time.



LINK:  http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20060605.aspx

Cesus,

I keep telling you, you need to make more realistic assumptions.   BTW, I'm assuming the author of this article has, unlike you, done his research. Ermm

That's it, I'm done here. Dead

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: 19-Feb-2009 at 17:26
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

Ok, this the last time I respond to you: Angry
If you are Vietnamese, I kind of realise why you won the wars with everyoneTongue
Quote Sorry, I confused my own questions. Embarrassed
No problem.
Quote
But in my defense, you're jumping all over the place.  Worse, I could immediately tell right from the start you were just making stuff up, which is why I told you I don't want to debate you any more.
I'll try to make it simple in the future. Think you can manage to follow if I use only "yes" and "no"?
Quote Regardless, my answer addresses your lame rhetorical question (a different one which you posed) about the cost effectiveness (which you know nothing about) of the Raptor:  Technology is a force multiplier, which is why the US is constantly pursuing advanced technology.  Ultimately, this super expensive weapons systems maintain the geopolitical power imbalance favoring the US.
DamnAngry! I knew that my B. Sc. in Economics was a fake. Thanks for telling me. I'm going to sue the University!
Yeah! technology is a force multiplier. Only if it's the proper one(s). If a technological advance is a leap into a hole then it's an enemy force multiplier.
Quote
Did you noticed that I used your own link/source to expose you on your rants about how the Raptor is so fragile and expensive (high maintenance) compared to 4th gen US fighters?  I knew you were just making things up.  You don't know this. I don't either.  Ultimately no one can know without see classified data.   So stop making claims without evidence.
The fact is that the reason I gave that link is because it only looks like a politicians speech. No charts, no data, no estimations, nothing solid. Just speculative thoughts.
Quote
It's avionics the most powerful.  It's aeronautical agility ain't to shabby either.  Ermm
Agree, with a slight correction: avionics are the most advanced or rather most sofisticated. Power might mean another thing especially when we talk about AST systems.
Quote F-15 pilots who fly against the Raptor in combat exercises say they often can NOT even get their missiles to lock even though they see the Raptor right in front them.
Did they used EOST/IRST devices comparable with the Russian ones. Or they just attempted a radar lock? Why didn't they used their guns?
Quote
No, I don't know what the top RCS is, but the shape of the F-22, or any stealth fighter for that matter, is not a compromise, it is its strength.  The geometry was designed to bounce radar away from the source, on top of absorbing it:  Incoming radar is either absorbed or bounced away from the source.
The shape of a stealth fighter is a compromise because it has to fly and be edged. Otherwise it would look much like a Flanker. The shape of that plane is more aerodinamically adequate that that of the Raptor. If you think that the shape of the F-22 can totally absorb radar impulses coming from above then you really need some reading studying abouth how stealth works.
Quote Yeah.  That's why I keep bringing it up.  The Raptor will kill any 4th gen fighter.   Only anti-stealth radar can make it vulnerable.
You are totally barinwashed. Ever heard of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". If no testing have been made how can you know the Raptor is "unseen" to those specific types of radar?
Quote A 30:1 kill ratio advantage against the Su-27 translates to ~ 24:1 kill ratio against the Su-30 M.
Translation from the sort of ancient sanscrite you use to pop up these figures is not my strentgh. That doesn't mean you're wrong, only the translation might differ from the original so it's hard for me to comprehend
Quote And just so you know, I'm well aware of that argument you brought up about US have stealth fighters only to lose to insurgents. 
I never stated such a thing. I merely pointed out that the Raptor's usefulness is not so obvious, the last two conflicts in which the US got involved not requiring the existence of such techno-marvels
Quote
Critics of the Raptor who say this are overlooking some important big picture issues:
1.  As I said previously, the US wants to maintain its position in the world.  The only way to do this is to be technologically ahead, since technology is a force multiplier.  Otherwise, everyone will eventually catch up.
This works only if the advance you make keeps you ahead no matter what the others do. If stealth is a dead end then you need to catch up. Missiles and detection systems are first to come into my mind.
Quote 2.  We are a long ways away, but in 100 years or so, AI/Robots and other types of weaponry may be able to defeat insurgents without committing atrocities, or even causing permanent bodily damage, which is one of the biggest reasons why insurgencies work.  Getting the enemy to commit civilian casualties  is a key tenent of insurgent warfare.  You cannot get to such advanced technology without developing all kinds of intermediate weapons systems that will eventually lead to it.
Why is stealth the leading path to UCAV's or combat drones?
Quote
3.  The Arms Race:  If the US doesn't do it, then others will eventually.  Which means the balance of power will tilt away from the US.  In game theory, the side that is most powerful, most aggressive, even most belligerent, invariably walks away with the biggest portion of the pie.
Some big share of the pie the Germans got at the end of WWII! Game theory is an instrument, not reality. And is of limited use because handling all variables is impossible.
Quote
4.  Lastly, critics who say this dialectical process wherein the more powerful the US becomes technologically, the more their opponents are forced to resort to insurgency, since the conventional war option is at best a NULL choice, since they can't even afford one Raptor much less a fleet of them, are forgetting that most of the time you don't need to occupy a country.  Maybe you just want to knock out their nuke reactors, or punish them for terrorist acts.
You have a point here. And I did made a statement in this sense in one of my previous posts. Care to read?
Quote
5.  What if the Raptor works just as promised?  It just might.  In fact, it still works over the high seas or neutral territory where there are no passive radar systems yet intalled.
I can use a balloon over the high seas or neutral teritory. Why should a such exensive tinkertoy as a Raptor be used in such low threat areas?
Quote
Yes.  Or more to the point, they lacked computing power.  Stealth fighters are aerodynamically unstable, and must use computers to stabilize them in flight.
The SU 27 is aerodynamically unstable. What is they considered that it is counterproductive and it leads to a dead end since no total stealthiness is feasible?
Quote *sign* They don't have the technology, they don't have the money. Ermm
They have known the basic technology. The money is another issue. Both Russia and China had and have the money. They didn't spent the money on advanced stealth technologies, wich is another thing. If I have million dollars and buy a Mercedes instead of a Rolls Royce it doesn't mean that I don't have the money. It's just adequate spending
Quote Everything the Chinese have is either bought or stolen.  This has been the pattern since the Russians gave the Chinese nuke reactor technology back in the 1950's and then the Chinese stole the Russian atomic bomb secrets (which was developed at Los Alamos in WWII).  The Chinese are far from being able to do anything by themselves, outside of reverse engineering.
This pretty much sums your level of knowledge: narcisism to say the least. 
Quote Thus far, only one Stealth aircraft has been lost, and that was the F-117.  F-22 is much more advanced to say the least in EVERY respect.
LOL, I was under the impression that Kolchuga shot it down.
The problem is not about "how many" it's just "how". Kolchuga, if ever you had an idea of what you're talking about, is Ukrainian. And most reports concur that it was an SA-3. If you don't know what that is take a look here: http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rasa.htm
 *I wonder what number of flight accidents have been recorded. Couldn't find any reports regarding such events. All aircraft in service have/had suffered losses due to non-combat related events. If the "stealths" records of such events are clean then they are forged.
Quote Coating is a key feature.  But shape is by far more important.  Stealth designers have a saying:  "The four most important elements of stealth are shape, shape, shape, and materials."
The words "key feature" are the "key". There's too little info about Raptor's hide. Classified, you will say.  Maybe, but I'm not comfortable.
Quote Raptors are also tested in Alaska.  I don't know what the weather conditions are specifically.
And the results?
Quote As for heat suppression, all I know is that it is classified and supposed to be very good.
"Supposed" is the "key" here.
Quote First, the chances of the US going to war with a nuke power inside it's own border is basically ZERO.
Why are you bringing nukes into discussion?
Quote
Second, basic military doctrine says attackers should out number defenders 3 to 1.  But that is land warfare.  It may also be true in aerial combat too.  But as I keep saying technology is a force multiplier, which is why coalition forces were only about 500K in 1991 vs 1-1.5 Million Iraqis.  The US didn't need 3-4.5 million soldiers to invade Iraq, due to their technological advantage--and boy did they slaughter.  Anyway, understand that the US, or anyone else for that matter, is going to plan an attack where the force ratio guarantees 100% success.  That is, if only 4th gen jets are used, they must outnumber the Russian 4th gen jets by 3:1.  If they can't, they'll take out the airfields via (stealth) cruise missiles effectively grounding a much of the enemy fleet to begin with.  This is an assumption you need to make, for without it, your battle plan is a TOTAL JOKE.   The corresponding F-22 only mission means they don't need anywhere near a 3:1 numerical advantage in fighters, but the force ratio will still be at least 3:1.  To figure out how many F-22's you need, do the math yourself based on kill ratio advantages that the F-22 is supposed to hold over other 4th gen jets.
Now that's some thinking! Brilliant! I never realised that if a conflict was to emerge, the Russians will seat on their asses on their planes on the ground and wait for the USAAF/USN to rain down on the with smart munitions and cruise missiles.Dead The way things work now with the US Airforce, the Russian should not spend money in for radars to know if an attack is on the way, they just need to watch CNN.
Quote Again, another lousy assumption.  Another hopelessly optimistic assumption.  In fact, there's at least two lousy assumption here.
Of course it is! Raptors rulz! You're not the one being over optimistic about Raptors capabilities, I'm the one being optimistic about its uncapabilities.
Quote
You keep assuming Chinese and Russian pilots are getting adequate hours of flight time enabling them to be fully proficient pilots of the respective jets they fly.  STOP THIS. Ermm
You keep assuming that you know better. I just stated that there is no reliable information about the ammount of training they get. To assume that they are inadeqately trained is a very dangerous way of considering a potential enemy.
Quote In 2006, the PLAAF started its own "top gun" school since they were constantly getting their butts kicked in mocked battles with what they fought, which were supposedly  equivalent to Taiwanese F-16's.
I have no reliable link, but in another blog, a Russian guy said Russian pilots only get 1/10 of the flying time that US pilots do.
It's the kind of stuff I keep reading since the fall of the USSR. I think it's just too much propaganda into it. Seeing your previous comment about China and Russia makes me think that you imagine the Russian and Chines pilots are too scared to fly sober.
Quote
You're also assuming the Russian stuff is better.  STOP THIS TOO. Ermm
Some Russian stuff is better. Like guns, missiles (of all kind), artillery.
Quote
Don't forget, there's also battles over the high seas and in neutral territory.   I've said it before and I'll say it again:  The chances of the US going to war with a nuke power, espcially a major one, violating that country's borders is ZERO.
Then why are you so pissed off because I said that the Raptor cannot be used for such a thing?
Quote
What is likely is the US engages Russia or China on the high seas or in neutral territory, where there may be no passive radars installed.
I'm more concerned that NATO engages Russia in a limited conflict to reset the dominance in Centra/Easet Europe. In which case my country might become an area of conflict . That's why I look so critical at the Raptor. If it's capabilities aren't so high it's not the USA that will suffer the worst consequences.
Quote
The far more likely case is the US goes against some small country.  And that country will back down rather than even fight the US since they don't have stealth fighters nor anti-stealth radar.  China does this to Vietnam all the time in the Spratly island dispute.  China would get its ass kicked it if tried to invade Vietnam.  And in a prolonged war, it would lose it's entire air force due to SAMs and anti-aircraft (the N. Vietnamese shot down over 4000 aircraft in about 5 years of air war with US.) But on the high seas, Vietnam is totally helpless, since its Navy fleet is practically non-existent.
You did not read my posts, did you? I did stated that the Raptor is the key to gain air supremacy against an enemy with a competent airforce.
Quote
I'm telling you, you're make way to many ridiculous assumptions for your battle plan to be anywhere near realistic.  And where you do have a good point, you then immediately launch into one authoritative claim after another without any evidence.
Actually, according to you I never had a good point. And I made no claims. My "scenarios' were mere attempts to point/stress at my questions about the lack of evidence I have regarding Raptor's capabilities
Quote
LOL, on the web, there's an often cited Australian/Russian analysis of the F-35 "Pidgeon", as they derogatively call it, which is totally ridiculous in its assumptions:  1 F-35 vs 2 Flankers.  TOTAL UTTER GARBAGE. 

First:  1 F-35 can take on and defeat two Flankers.  (At least that what the claim is by the USAF).
Second:  Why are they assuming there will only be one F-35 to begin with?
Why are you telling me this? Do you want me to discuss the F-35 too?
Quote
I don't know of any USAF/USN missions in N. Vietnam that involved less than 4 fighters.  Dozens was by far the norm. Ermm
Actually there were pairs, flights (two pairs usually), squadrons (a dozen aircraft, but a few more or less could be used) and groups. I don't know about wings.


Edited by Cezar - 20-Feb-2009 at 08:14
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 11:41
The avionic in the raptors are good, the f-35 if it gets off the ground will be better in this regard, until they put in the raptor.

Cezar raises some very good points, but I may add the raptor is a package, the stealth qualities is simply a part of it. No need to go on about stealth, the plane was desgned to come in very fast at lower detection than the opponents. It simply has an advantage in the look and shoot first part, but it can be seen.

I dont know why anyone is comparing the raptor to any 4th gen fighter, would it be a suprise the F15 has the upper hand over a phantom? pff


Edited by Leonidas - 20-Feb-2009 at 11:42
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 13:35
Hello to you all
 
One note here, the Saddam's total forces were about 300k in 91 not 1 million. The coalition gathered about 750k.
 
Al-Jassas
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: 24-Feb-2009 at 14:53
First of all are you talking about the first Guld war or second? (prolly st with coalition and all)I'm not sure if that's true because I heard from a show I watched on the History channel that at the time Iraq's army was the 2nd or 3rd largest in the world with alomst 1 million soldiers
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 15:27
Exaggerations. The total population in 91 was about 15 million with some 40% of the population under 20. Iraq never had an army more than half a million strong at a single point and that was during Iran-Iraq war.
 
AL-Jassas
 
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: 26-Feb-2009 at 22:34
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

The avionic in the raptors are good, the f-35 if it gets off the ground will be better in this regard, until they put in the raptor.
I also have some problems with the avionics on the planes but I think I've already spent my "doubt credit"Wink!
Quote No need to go on about stealth, the plane was desgned to come in very fast at lower detection than the opponents. It simply has an advantage in the look and shoot first part, but it can be seen.
I agree with you, but my posts were only oriented on a person who stated that the Raptor is some kind of ultimate weapon. And I'm still very concerned about the efectiveness of "stealth"
Quote I dont know why anyone is comparing the raptor to any 4th gen fighter, would it be a suprise the F15 has the upper hand over a phantom? pff
That was my point too. The Raptor has the upper hand in a one on one engagement. The fact is that wars are not won by "best fighter" or aces, not even by the "kill ratio". No matter how extraordinary a fighter might look the real challenge is the usefulness proven for real, not in "exercises".
Since I'm a tireless addict of the WWII warbirds, I can come with an example: the P-47. It looked more like a bomber. When it was firs tested in Engalnd, the Spit riders laughed of it. It eventually proved to be a damn good fighter/bomber. And it wasn't the ultimate end in aircraft technology.
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2009 at 02:11
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

That was my point too. The Raptor has the upper hand in a one on one engagement. The fact is that wars are not won by "best fighter" or aces, not even by the "kill ratio". No matter how extraordinary a fighter might look the real challenge is the usefulness proven for real, not in "exercises".


There was a USAF study where they look at every air to air victory since WWI.  The study outcome was that the greater majority, over 95 percent, of air to air kills were done when the enemy aircraft was shot before he knew the enemy was there.  Either the attacker attack out of the sun, pounced from inside a cloud cover, or just by pure luck, most of the kills happend this way.  The F-22 raptor takes this approach to the next level.  Its very low observability gives it more chances of sneaking up on the enemy.

I understand your stand about the conclusions of military exercises.  But consider this:  the F-22 was only every shot down more down a handful of times in thousands of simulated air battles.  When the F-15 first went into service in mid 1970's, did it enjoy a similar kill death ratio against the F-4's? 
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2009 at 10:33
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

The avionic in the raptors are good, the f-35 if it gets off the ground will be better in this regard, until they put in the raptor.
I also have some problems with the avionics on the planes but I think I've already spent my "doubt credit"Wink!
Quote No need to go on about stealth, the plane was desgned to come in very fast at lower detection than the opponents. It simply has an advantage in the look and shoot first part, but it can be seen.
I agree with you, but my posts were only oriented on a person who stated that the Raptor is some kind of ultimate weapon. And I'm still very concerned about the efectiveness of "stealth"
Quote I dont know why anyone is comparing the raptor to any 4th gen fighter, would it be a suprise the F15 has the upper hand over a phantom? pff
That was my point too. The Raptor has the upper hand in a one on one engagement. The fact is that wars are not won by "best fighter" or aces, not even by the "kill ratio". No matter how extraordinary a fighter might look the real challenge is the usefulness proven for real, not in "exercises".
Since I'm a tireless addict of the WWII warbirds, I can come with an example: the P-47. It looked more like a bomber. When it was firs tested in Engalnd, the Spit riders laughed of it. It eventually proved to be a damn good fighter/bomber. And it wasn't the ultimate end in aircraft technology.
Cezar my post wasnt aimed at you (maybe a little bitWink). The raptor can get the 'best' title in isolation. how they use it and what the Chinese/Russians do, will complicate what happens in real life operations.





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: 05-Mar-2009 at 15:18
dunno if this was mentioned before, but I book I read a while back had good things to say about the SU-27.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
  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 0.108 seconds.