backtop


Print 284 comment(s) - last by what4.. on Feb 25 at 1:09 AM


  (Source: Sukhoi Company)

Sukhoi T-50  (Source: Wikipedia)
Russia's fifth generation fighter takes to the air

DailyTech's coverage of the aviation industry in recent years has mainly covered advances in U.S.-centric designs. We've looked at the ongoing Boeing/Northrop-Grumman tanker feud; Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II; and we've covered the Boeing 787 Dreamliner exhaustively.

However, there's exciting news for aviation enthusiasts coming out of Russia. Today, the Sukhoi Company announced the successful first flight of its fifth generation fighter: the T-50. The T-50 prototype's first flight comes 19 years after the original Lockheed Martin YF-22 prototype took to the air and 12 years after the production F-22 Raptor made its first flight.

The Sukhoi T-50's first flight lasted 47 minutes and was a complete success, according to the company.

“In the course of the flight we’ve conducted initial evaluation of the aircraft controllability, engine performance and primary systems operation, the aircraft had retracted and extracted the landing gear, said Sergey Bogdan, the man behind the controls during today's maiden flight. "The aircraft performed excellently at all flight-test points scheduled for today. It is easy and comfortable to pilot”.

According to Sukhoi, the T-50 features a number of new technological advances which reduce the pilot's need to focus on more mundane aspects of flight control in order to focus instead on completing specific missions. In addition, the aircraft makes use of composite materials in addition to stealth technology to reduce its radar cross section.

While the F-35 Lightning II may be the United States' newest fighter aircraft, the Sukhoi T-50 will no doubt be compared most to America's premier fifth generation air superiority fighter: the F-22 Raptor. The Raptor received Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2005 and was certified for Full Operational Capability in 2007. 147 F-22 Raptors have been built and there is money budgeted for an additional 40 planes. Unit cost for each aircraft is estimated to be nearly $147M.

Sukhoi, on the other hand, feels that it's new T-50 will have no problems matching or surpassing the performance of fighters like the F-22 Raptor at a lower cost as well.

“I am strongly convinced that our joint project will excel its Western rivals in cost-effectiveness and will not only allow strengthening the defense power of Russian and Indian Air Forces, but also gain a significant share of the world market,” said Sukhoi Company Director General Mikhail Pogosyan.

In addition, Sukhoi will be selling its aircraft to a number of foreign countries including India. The U.S., however, has banned the export of the F-22 Raptor to other countries (including its closest allies).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh, but wait...
By HercDriver on 1/29/2010 9:35:46 AM , Rating: 4
Let's hear from all those who've posted about how we don't need the F-22, and that it is a "cold war relic" that will never be used. If I had the time, I'd go back and read all the past comments regarding the F-22 and F-35 from all the idiots who say we should just keep making legacy fighters, just to say "what now, jack@$$?" Yeah...let's sit on our asses because "no other country will EVER make an advanced fighter". Well, it looks like Russia and India will soon have their own "F-22", and I'd be willing to be that the Chinese aren't too far behind. Then they'll start being sold to our "friends" like Iran and North Korea. No...there's NO WAY we'll EVER need the F-22.
It's sad when @$$-clowns sit back and "strategize" on what the military should be spending it's money to buy. Oh, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda don't have any jet fighters, so let's not waste our money on the F-22. Let's make all our planning desicions based on what's happening right now, and not look to the future. What do you say, now, huh. Too bad we shut down production of the F-22, and can't build any more. How many of these T-50's do you think the COMBINED industry of Russia, India (and probably China) can crank out? I'll bet our F-22's will be outnumbered by at least 5-1. I'd still bet that the F-22 will remain individually the best fighter, but how long can it hold out against 5-1 odds? Joe Stalin said it best "quantity has a quality all it's own". The sad part is that even if all the critics go back and say that they were wrong, and we really do need more F-22s...IT IS TOO LATE! Thanks a lot, idiots.
P.S. We should have sold the F-22 to Japan and Australia, and some of our European allies, as well. At least then, they'd be there if we ever need their help.




RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By Smilin on 1/29/2010 1:26:33 PM , Rating: 3
Just FYI:

I'm a liberal and I support the F-22 program.

You are a conservative and a presumptuous dick.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By knutjb on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By ArcliteHawaii on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By HercDriver on 1/29/2010 2:57:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Gee, could it be that's because we spend more on military spending than the rest of the world combined?

Do you (and for that matter everyone else who brings up this point) REALLY know WHY we spend so much money? No, I mean REALLY? Well, let's have a lesson in economics 101. Let's say that the USA and China both want to buy 50 new fighters. Let's even say that both fighters will be almost exactly equal to each other in capabilities. The Chinese military industrial complex is owned by the government, thus do not need to make a profit to survive. The average salary of a Chinese worker is probably less than 10% (more likely less than 5%) of the comparable American worker, who will do the design and construction. American military personnel serve VOLUNTARILY, and must therefore be ENTICED to serve with some sort of monetary compensation that they judge superior to what they'd earn in the private sector. I'm not sayin' we're rich, but I remember reading about a U.S. Colonel talking to his Chinese counterpart about salary. The American replied that he made $12,000. The Chinese said "that's per year, right?" And was completely flabbergasted to learn that it was per month. Do some research on what percentage of our military budget is on personnel. After personnel, you have O&M (operations and maintenance), which includes things like fuel (of which the US Air Force is actually a significant % of the world's total use...even larger than some countries). I'm not going to go through all line items, hoping that you get the point. The bottom line is that for a given weapon, the USA will spend at least 10 times as much as China (and more than anyone else in the world) becasue we have to pay the salaries and expenses commensurate with our HUGE GDP. This is why we try to make people see military spending not as an absolute value, but rather as a percentage of GDP.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By cruisin3style on 1/29/2010 3:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
While I think (hope) most people understand that things are considerably more expensive in the US than China, I think the point is perhaps we could do with less of our military in terms of personnel and assets.

I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just pointing out the rationale.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Cypherdude1 on 1/30/2010 1:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone noticed how the Russian Sukhoi T-50 looks strangely similar to the F-22 Raptor? We know how Russian and Chinese hackers have been penetrating the Pentagon's computers and our contractors' computers for years. Could it be that the Russians have "borrowed" information from the F-22 program to make their own T-50?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By NagoyaX on 1/30/2010 2:26:38 PM , Rating: 1
You know, I though the exact same thing.
When I saw the plane and read that Sukhoi can produce it for less than the F-22, I instantly has the same though


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Jedi2155 on 1/30/2010 4:54:53 PM , Rating: 4
I did as well but I think it has more to do with the physics than it does the copying. We did actually take research from a Russian scientist who pioneered the field that led to stealth technology. A similar event happened with 4th generation fighters like the F-15/Su-27 where although both nations were working independently, they just happened to find the same aerodynamic structure to be optimal.

Russian scientist FYI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ya._Ufimtsev


RE: Oh, but wait...
By LIWEIPINGPP on 1/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By taber on 1/29/2010 4:55:55 PM , Rating: 3
I'm all about an effective military too, but you're missing some points on economics. Trying to compare between militaries based on % of GDP misses lots of variables (country size, technology level, industrial output, honesty of reporting, etc), although we still win on that (not that I really trust any numbers coming out of China):
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ms_...

By your reasoning our spending on military should go up just because the private sector makes 10% more that year. To me a big issue is how much of the federal budget military is; 20%+ (last I checked they were hiding a lot of the costs of Iraq/Afghan elsewhere):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S....

A chart I find interesting is the # of troops, which China easily leads on. Does this mean we should try to double our # of troops?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

Let's not forget the Soviet Union collapsed largely because of spending too much on the military. I think it's perfectly reasonable that people would expect spending less on our military when the economy is down and there are no dire threats. Why is the government giving raises while unemployment rises and those of us without jobs do without cost of living increases and bonuses? 2% for federal and 3.4% for military. Way to be fiscally responsible.
http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/344.cfm
http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/mili...


RE: Oh, but wait...
By knutjb on 1/30/2010 3:09:58 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Let's not forget the Soviet Union collapsed largely because of spending too much on the military. I think it's perfectly reasonable that people would expect spending less on our military when the economy is down and there are no dire threats. Why is the government giving raises while unemployment rises and those of us without jobs do without cost of living increases and bonuses? 2% for federal and 3.4% for military. Way to be fiscally responsible.


Boy do you have a twisted view of the former Soviet economy. Yes Reagan did break them through military spending but that was only the straw that broke the camels back. Their government dictated economic planning was a collapse waiting to happen and NOT caused solely by military spending. When will lefties ever get through their heads that every time the government tries to control the economy it falls farther, harder, and last longer than through normal capitalist ways i.e. government hands off. BTW we are not a capitalist system anymore with all of the government meddling. When the government tries to save selected industries rather than letting them fail and allow a better system to replace them the recovery will be slow like in the depression. That was government meddling at its worst. That is why the Soviets fell. They supported broken industries by artificially making them work and were automatically doomed to fail.

You ignorantly forget we ARE in two major conflicts and you can't cut spending, unless you want to lose. You obviously have never been exposed to a combat environment.

You have a list of incredibly unsupportable claims. They read like: if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if we had eggs.

Here is some recommended history reading that your liberal educational institution will not teach you. Read about the creation of federal income taxes starting in 1912 through 1924. Don't forget to read how a low rate sky rocketed and how the revenues corresponded in relation to them. Then read about Woodrow Wilson. Pick several books from the period and current versions.

Finally, who said we want to increase spending, we are merely stating to not decrease it. Add the Constitution to that reading list and see what the Congress IS required to provide. Oh and add the Federalist Papers #10.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By taber on 1/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By siuol11 on 2/4/2010 12:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
I am a combat vet, and let me say this; you are a partisan, ignorant hack. I'm not going to dignify your rant with a reasoned response because I know it would simply be a waste of time.
The end.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By F4iHorn on 2/1/2010 6:03:57 PM , Rating: 3
To add to HercDrivers excellent statement, when the govt. spends money on advanced programs such as this they are effectively directing money to research and education. When these programs are in the R&D phase they require solutions to problems that have never been dealt with before. Solutions that only the highly educated can resolve. These positions have to be filled, which creates a void and an incentive for high school and college kids to get into these fields. It's one of the few examples of the federal government creating private sector jobs. And defending the country is actually in the constitution, where education and research are not. Education is a power reserved to the states or the people.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By UNCjigga on 2/4/2010 2:03:24 PM , Rating: 1
Its not fair to make an economic argument as to why the US needs to spend more without pointing out that the defense contracting process does not take full advantage of our mutual defense programs and multi-lateral trade agreements. What's the point of NATO and free-trade if the military-industrial complex won't take advantage?

The EU seems to pull this off better than we do--they can pool resources from multiple countries for designing/building aircraft using components sourced from all members. Here in the US, if Airbus or BAE wins a contract, Boing/Lockheed through a hissy fit and the whole thing gets thrown out. Or, the winning bidder is forced to swallow some poison pill and farm out part of the work to American companies at a higher cost.

Worse still, for the most ambitious (read: expensive) projects our Defense Dept. still feels the need to exclude our most loyal allies, because they want to maintain some sense of American air superiority or whatever. So the US ends up being sole bidder and contractors can't make economies of scale by selling to other countries. Hey wait, where's that rallying cry of "double our exports"?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:05:12 PM , Rating: 4
"Why is it taboo to discuss reductions in defense spending? "

Why is it taboo to discuss reductions in social security, welfare, or medicare/medicaid spending?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mcnabney on 1/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By MamiyaOtaru on 1/30/2010 4:55:20 AM , Rating: 3
"more than the rest of the world combined"

That's no longer accurate. Granted, it's pretty close, which says almost the same thing


RE: Oh, but wait...
By cruisin3style on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By thekdub on 1/29/2010 4:13:23 PM , Rating: 4
And who votes these politicians into office?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By rlandess on 1/30/2010 11:22:41 AM , Rating: 3
We can all go tit for tat insulting each others political affiliation. Most politicians, regardless of party, are too inept, spineless, or otherwise incapable of doing the public justice. What blows about our current situation is that our liberals and conservatives agree on a lot of core issues. They mostly disagree of the priority of those issues. No one likes high taxes or big governments. Everyone would probably like to give help to the unfortunate and equal opportunities to everyone.

The real issue is "How awesome are the new generation of long range interceptors?" and "How much money will it take to get me one?"


RE: Oh, but wait...
By lightfoot on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By gamerk2 on 1/29/2010 9:45:32 AM , Rating: 3
No really. Personally, the SU-35 would give anything we have a decent fight as well, but it was never mass produced due to monatary problems. And just like the US, Russia tends to cripple export versions of its jets to make then affordable [and easy to shoot down, if the situation arises].

Call me when an F-15 gets shot down in air-to-air combat. Sure, its old, and top Russian fighters could give it a run for its money, but lets face it, the F-22 is an overpriced monster that would be impossible to mass produce if a war ever did come.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By gamerk2 on 1/29/2010 10:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
Please. The F-22's have significant problems still left unresolved (one of the famous ones being how rain destroys their redar absorant skin, which rules out missions in bad weather).

Secondly, with production of individual parts so spread out over the country (a tactic used to make it near impossible to ever cancel large government programs), a failure at any production point stalls production of the plane. Not a problem is times of peace, but should a war ever come, the failure of just one or two facilities would halt all production capabaility. Nevermind the F-22 isn't the quickest plane to put together to begin with.

Thirdly, we have a fleet of several thousand fighter planes. Its not economical to replace then at $150 million apiece, nevermind the costs of maintaining them over time.

Forthly, there is nothing in mass production that is better then the most recent upgraded version of the F-15 (proven by the fact non have been shot down by another hostile aircraft). Sure, the newest SU-50 may be "better" (as is the SU-35), but since they won't be mass produced due to cost, theres no hurry to upgrade the entire fleet.

F-22's operate in a simmilar way to the B-2 bomber: They get all the press, but its the golden oldies (In the B-2's case, the Truman era B-52's) that do all the heavy lifting. If its not broke, why fix it?

Of course, you probably also think that the B-1 ever had a purpose, right? :D


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By gamerk2 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 12:03:39 PM , Rating: 3
"The Price/Performance isn't there for the F-22"

When your F-15s are getting shot down, or falling out of the sky due to airframe failure, there is no performance. In air combat, you either win or lose.

When our pilots start dying in droves because they're flying aircraft built 20 years before they were even born, I'd love to see you explain to their families about "price vs. performance".


RE: Oh, but wait...
By wiz220 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 12:55:04 PM , Rating: 5
"LOL, many of our pilots flying B-52's are in that very situation"

B-52s are not fighters. They're flown in only once we've achieved air superiority. Their airframes also don't experience anywhere near the stress that a fighter does.

"Read this and you might understand the problems the F-22 is having"

Did YOU read it? The primary objection raised is that the F-22 costs more to maintain than an F-15. Why? Because of its advanced radar-reflecting skin. A skin that makes it stealthy, and keeps it from getting shot down.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. By your logic, we should still be flying WW2 era mustangs, because they cost almost nothing to service.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By gamerk2 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 1:12:57 PM , Rating: 4
Misrepresenting the facts doesn't help your case. You act like the F-22 can't be flown in inclement weather, which is about as far from the truth as possible.

Here's a hint for you: EVERYTHING metallic degrades faster in wet conditions. Why do you think we build garages for our cars, and put roofs on our houses?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Iaiken on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 2:18:39 PM , Rating: 4
" Rain and other inclement weather does much more serious damage to the skin which is very expensive to fix/replace."

Why not learn a little before spitballing?
quote:
The leaking water resulted in corrosion on the aluminum panels that cover 21 access points on top of the jet. The essential problem was that the original seals and panels were not watertight. The presence of moisture set off galvanic corrosion where different metals touched.

Because corrosion is a common problem for aircraft, coming up with a solution was not difficult. “Once we understood it, it was easy to clean up, ” Moore said.

The four largest aluminum access panels will be replaced with titanium panels much less susceptible to corrosion, Moore said. Each set of new panels cost about $50,000.

All of the leaky hatches will get a new coat of paint primer and a seal between the fuselage and covering, Moore said

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce...

"I've seen the F-22 in action and while indisputably cool, I have serious doubts as to it's relevance"

And your military and technological background is? Everyone from the Pentagon to the GAO to independent defense analysts have said the F-22 is a necessary component of our future air force.

Your argument seems to be that, since the program wasn't run as well as it could have been (what involving the government ever is?) that we should just forget about our need entirely, and hope an Outbreak of World Peace (tm) makes it all unecessary, from now to the end of time.

I don't think that's very wise.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Iaiken on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By Totally on 2/3/2010 7:18:03 AM , Rating: 3
So you are saying just because the enemy has stealth tech having your own stealth tech is pointless?

Scenario:Two snipers one dressed a gilly suit w/full camo, the other head to toe in reflective bright atomic orange. Pretty easy to figure out who'd go home at the end of the day

Invalidate, no the playing only has been leveled. I would only be invalidated if the enemy radar detection rendered stealth capabilities useless. i.e.

to continue the scenario Fed-Ex arrives with Sniper B's gilly suit but by now it's already reached nightfall and also on the truck Sniper A's Thermal/Night Vision goggles have arrived.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By rlandess on 1/30/2010 11:33:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't have your cake and eat it too. By your logic, we should still be flying WW2 era mustangs, because they cost almost nothing to service.


Iron Eagle III


RE: Oh, but wait...
By SPOOFE on 1/29/2010 12:10:12 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Price/Performance isn't there for the F-22.

It depends on what you're trying to do. You can't say a ten year old Civic is more cost effective than a big ass SUV if one needs it to haul 3000 pounds on muddy roads in the rain. You can't be cost effective unless you're first effective.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 12:23:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
As for Unions, they do what conservatives fail to do: Increase the salaries and livelyhood of everyday american workers. Its not their fault the rest of America is grossly underpaid for the work they preform...


lol right. Some guy who didn't even go to college making 30 dollars an hour for putting lugnuts on a car at the GM plant. Nothing is off about that...

The rest of your post I can't bother with. You just don't get it. And I'm glad to see other posters wasting their time trying to get you a clue too, not just me.

quote:
The B-1 was envisoned as a high speed bomber, but cruise missles rendered it obsolete before the initail design was even finished.


Another example of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about. The B-1 was specifically designed to DELIVER cruise missiles, among other things. Your statement is as stupid as saying the Sparrow missile rendered the F-16 obsolete.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By gamerk2 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 1:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
"how have the last 8 years on declining wages worked out for ordinary americans? "

Do you have a brain filter that forces you to be dishonest? Average wages have gone UP continuously the last 8 years:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html


RE: Oh, but wait...
By ArcliteHawaii on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By namechamps on 1/29/2010 3:56:20 PM , Rating: 1
When did taxes go up in the last decade?

I mean I hate more taxes the same as the next guy but corp taxes have been flat for a decade and that is after them decling in the previous decade.

Not only the tax rate has gone down but the effective tax rate has gone WAY down due to increased number of write offs.

His point was valid. The only measure of wages & wealth that matters is in "real terms" = adjusted for inflation.

Adjusted for inflation Americans have seen wages go down in the last 8 years something which hasn't happened in generations.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
"But if you don't mind being paid the same for doing twice the work..."

Lol. You're right...American workers now put in twice the amount of hours they did in 1970. It's not like automation, computerization, or any other technology improvement is the reason we're getting more done.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong again:

quote:
Over the past 10 years, for example, inflation-adjusted wages grew only about 13 percent ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100115/ap_on_bi_go_ec...

There have been individual years that saw declines. But the worst drop in inflation-adjusted wages came just last year, in 2009.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By cjc1103 on 1/29/2010 10:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously don't understand the problem. The F-15s and F-16s are wearing out at an accelerated rate due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The threat keeps changing - Russis and China are developing 5th gen fighters which will be much superior to F-15s and F-16s. You need a stealthy fighter to counter this threat, and stealth is expensive. Producing more F-15s and F-16s is not the answer. We had a proven 5th generation stealth fighter (F-22) in production, and multiple studies concluded we needed more than 300 of them to cover the shortfall caused by retiring F-15s and F-16s. Then the Democrats axe the program, claim the F-35 is coming, which will be more cost effective, and instead spend billions on the TARP (economic stimulus) program. The problem is the F-35 is still being developed, it is just now reaching the testing stage, will not reach the levels of production we need to replace existing fighters for years, and it is not as capable as an F-22. Not only that, but the Air Force is forced to spend more money on trying to keep aging F-15s and F-16s in the air for longer than originally planned. Great job, Obama. Look back at President Carter, who killed the B-1 bomber. It was resurrected under Reagan's military buildup, and has been extremely useful in Irag and Afghanistan. When you need these weapon systems, it's too late to try and build them, they have to ready to go.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2010 11:25:00 AM , Rating: 2
Airframes have only so many flight hours before they must be replaced. We are rapidly wearing out said airframes with no replacements. Originally, we were going to build around 750 F22s to replace over 1500 aircraft. The F35 was going to replace the rest.

Now we have hardly any F22s, still have rapidly aging airframes on other aircraft, and in all likelyhood, our politicians will cut F35 procurement. Where will that leave us? With air power spread extremely thin.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By gamerk2 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
"we wouldn't have this whole problem of having to fund two sepertate programs... "

Oh noes, the military doesn't want to use one single plane for each and every possible mission and role. What are they thinking?

We should use your strategy in the private sector also. Think of all the money we could save by forcing everyone in the country to buy just one model of car...preferably a beige mini-van.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2010 11:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
In what world do you live in where the F35 is production ready? They've completed only a handful of test flights. The plane hasn't even flown with all the systems on board. Nor are some even finished being developed.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By knutjb on 1/29/2010 1:33:39 PM , Rating: 3
You sound clueless. The F22 is to replace the F15 and its missions. The F35 is to replace the F16 and its missions. They have two completely different missions.

As for having two types of JSF. One is a VTOL and one is not. The AF did want all VTOL aircraft because of what you loose with the added equipment. I have never been for a multi service aircraft because when you put all capacities into one aircraft it's mediocre for all missions. Look at all the troubles when they tried that with the F111, how many Navy variants did you see?

B1s are the most cost effective bomb delivery and loitering aircraft, F22 are better than F15s and out maneuver them with ease. Every aircraft has to fill a specific role. No single jet can cover ALL roles and the F16 and F15 are hitting the cost to operate point where a newer, faster, more capable replacement then becomes more cost effective. There are no new heavy bombers on the boards right now, hence the current three still remain. Of those three they each have uniquely DIFFERENT roles. The B1 is the best for the current conflict. It has to do with the weapons selections and flight characteristics of that airframe. The next conflict it might not. Show me a war won by a country with a very limited selection of weapons against one with a large selection. (I mentioned B1s because of prior comments)

The one that is missing from any recent argument is the KC135. It is a very effective refueler but needs to be replaced because it has past the its cost effectiveness point. For those who don't understand. It costs more to operate than a comparable new aircraft. We have recovered our investment since current jets date to the late 1950s. Yes, they are even older than the remaining B52s and I think they are the oldest daily use military aircraft fleet by build date.

To remain on top is expensive but to do so does keep most of the investment in the US. Jobs that DO translate into other sectors of the economy. Productive workers are better than any social welfare program.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By FishTankX on 2/5/2010 2:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show me a war won by a country with a very limited selection of weapons against one with a large selection. (I mentioned B1s because of prior comments)


Vietnam


RE: Oh, but wait...
By JediJeb on 1/29/2010 12:09:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Now we have hardly any F22s, still have rapidly aging airframes on other aircraft, and in all likelyhood, our politicians will cut F35 procurement. Where will that leave us? With air power spread extremely thin.


Very true, if you look there have been many reports of the F-15 having trouble with their frames cracking from fatigue, which will only get worse the longer we rely on them. I love the F-15 and many of the other planes that are still the backbone of our airforce today along with the A-10, but eventually these will wear out, and once something comes along that will outperform it, it is too late to design the next new replacement.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By markitect on 1/29/2010 1:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
The reason the F117 (old stealth fighter) is no longer in service is because the airframe was old enough that the wings were literally falling off.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
"Please. The F-22's have significant problems still left unresolved "

The Sidewinder missile (the most succesful A2A missile ever produced, copied by virtually every country in the world) failed on its first 19 test flights.

I bet you'd have been advocating cancelling that program too, eh?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By wiz220 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 12:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
"The sidewinder didn't cost 135 million a pop and didn't have continuous issues 15 years after developement began"

The Sidewinder took ten years to develop, and even once introduced, had problems for a few years after that. A missile developed in the 1950s is also obviously much less complex than a 21st century fighter jet.

Also, the F-22 isn't having "continuous issues". Like any new technology, its never perfect when first introduced. And even its largest detractors admit their primary objection is cost, plain and simple. So stop trying to argue under false pretenses.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By HotFoot on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By MrBlastman on 1/29/2010 2:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
I fail to see the problem. I know one of the senior engineers on the F-22 program and I've also seen the F-22 fly in person at an Airshow plus I've seen it in person, operational, many times in the past few years.

It rocked my socks off when I saw what it could do with my own eyes. I have never witnessed first hand a plane as heavy as it is, as big as it is, that was able to perform the maneuvers that it could.

I've been an avid aviation buff my whole life and have thousands of hours seat time in simlators as well. I have a pretty good idea of what a plane can and can not do.

I fail to see the problem. The F-22 flies, the F-22 can easily take on a 4-ship group of F-15's or F-16's and blow them all out of the sky BVR or, if they really want to, within VR before the 15's or 16's can even detect it with their antiquated AN/APG-63, AN/APG-70 or An/APG-68 radar. This has been proven in flight exercises with real aircraft in the air, though not with live weapons.

The question with the F-22 is not if you can see it, it is can you see it before it sees you, and, before its Maddog or Fox Two can blow you out of the sky and manage to fire off a return shot.

The fact is, none of these planes can. The other fact is, none of the current Russian tech can (though, this new plane may have significantly better A2A radar).

What position would you rather be in? Second best is good enough because we haven't had any major real world losses, or first place no contest? Given the fact that it costs MILLIONS to train a pilot (a non-expendable resource), I would say it is worth the additional money to provide them with the best technology they can strap between their legs that we can buy.

Hippies that protest don't win wars and definitely do not keep the peace. Missiles, bombs, bullets and technology that scares the enemy do. It might cost us now dollars, but, it can help prevent us costing lives later on.

Did that sink in?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By knutjb on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By Jeffk464 on 1/29/2010 5:11:01 PM , Rating: 3
They were flying in the early stages of the wars.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By knutjb on 1/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By Chillin1248 on 2/4/2010 3:22:20 PM , Rating: 1
For your information:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bad-medicine.htm

-------
Chillin


RE: Oh, but wait...
By F4iHorn on 2/1/2010 6:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not completely certain about this but doesn't the F-22 use the same RAM paint that the B-2, F-18E/F, F-117, and the new F-35 use? My brother was an AM in the Navy and he did say that they had to re-paint the leading edges (on an F-18F) more often than the regular paint but it wasn't excessive. If this is the same material, why is this an issue on the F-22 and not the other planes? If it's not the same material then why don't they just use the other paint? And why would they come up with a special formula just for the F-22? I just get the feeling that the Washington Post article is more of a hit piece on a program that they don't like, rather than actual reporting.

Also, the price for a single F-22 would be more reasonable if the Air Force had bought as many as they needed to replace the F-15 fleet. But the politicians kept reducing the production run and then complained that the unit cost was too high. So they reduced the numbers again and what do you know, the unit price went up some more. They cannot be this stupid. Therefore, I think this was their objective in the first place.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By amanojaku on 1/29/2010 10:30:06 AM , Rating: 4
I think people here forgot why funding for the F-22 was terminated. It was determined that the F-35 was a better investment. It's performance characteristics are lower than the F-22, but not appreciably so when compared to foreign or aging American competition. It's smaller (a benefit for storage) and can carry more armaments. And at 60% of the cost of the F-22 you can get more.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By SPOOFE on 1/29/2010 12:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, that's not why the funding was terminated. The plan was always a pile of F-22's and a pile of F-35's. I'd like to think that those who made the decision were thinking in terms of military tactics and such, instead of mere political opportunism, but the fact remains that "the plan" called for the replacing of a lot of materiel, and the change means it's not going to be replaced in the foreseeable future.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By amanojaku on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 1:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Back in 2006 the Comptroller General questioned the need for more F-22s. "

Your OWN LINK agrees that the F-22 is "clearly" (their own words) a fighter we do need.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By amanojaku on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
So you post a link saying the F-22 is needed, then dispute it? Odd debating tactic there.

There is no country on the planet _today_ that can beat our Air Force. But the funny thing is, today does not equal tomorrow. If we stop progressing, the rest of the world will not. Our aging fleet of F-15s is not only falling apart, its also technology that many nations have caught up with, and a few have already surpassed.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By amanojaku on 1/29/2010 7:19:41 PM , Rating: 1
Sigh... You must not have read either link. Neither debate the need to continue air superiority; they question the usage of the F-22 as the solution.

The PDF is pretty cut and dried:
quote:
The Air Force also states the basic capabilities developed for the F-22 are not sufficient to be effective in the current and future national security environment. The conditions facing the F-22A program are significantly different than those addressed by the original business case, yet despite these significant changes the Air Force has not developed a new business case to justify currently planned and proposed additional investments in the F-22A.
Translation: It's expensive and it doesn't do all we need it to do, so we don't understand why we should buy any more of it.
quote:
Because of the significant and continuing changes in the F-22A program that have created an environment of investment uncertainty as well as the significant mismatch between stated Air Force needs and wants and future resource levels, we recommend that Secretary of Defense delay further investments in F-22A procurement and modernization until it completes a comprehensive business case analysis that adequately considers alternatives, justifies the need for further investments, and reconciles the numbers of F-22As that are needed (i.e. based on credible current and future threats and considering other alternative approaches) as well as affordable and sustainable (i.e., based on current and expected DOD resource levels).
Translation: Spending money on this is too risky; we need to consider viable alternatives.

You're insisting our military be better than everyone else's by hanging on to the 20 years old F-22. The F-35, though not as good as the F-22 in terms of air superiority, is at least three times as effective as current fighters. And the T-50 is the only foreign plane since the F-22 that is in the same class. If the specs are to be believed the T-50 is better than the F-22, so we'd want a new plane. The whole point to cutting the F-22 project is to fund that new plane.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/30/2010 11:46:23 AM , Rating: 3
Please don't misrepresent your links. They clearly say, and I quote:

quote:
...the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need

What they DO question is how many addiitonal F-22's we actually need. I thik that's a fair question, and one that's certainly open to debate. However, that's nowhere near the same as claiming we don't need the F-22 at all.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By knutjb on 1/29/2010 1:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
One of the original intents for the F22 was to replace the heavy bombers hence the high numbers. The GAO did the math and found that to replace the bombers would require a massive new fleet of refuelers that would have cost more to operate than the pricey heavy bombers.

Also they condensed some of the avionics between the F22 & F35 to reduce costs. Parts commonality is helpful. But why is Nancy trying to slow down the F35 development/procurement?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2010 5:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh really? Back in 2006 the Comptroller General questioned the need for more F-22s. Apparently, the government never said it was buying a certain amount. It was the Air Force that recommended a certain number and asked for money. The OSD said it was impossible and never committed the requested funds. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06455r.pdf More recently: quote: We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale – some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program. And we already have eight foreign development partners. It has had development problems to be sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded. But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if – and it is a big if – money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower priority or excess to our needs. Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speech...


Does anyone, I mean ANYONE AT ALL understand the AtG roll the F22 can fulfill as well? No? Seriously?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 11:14:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Overpriced ?? We give ACORN and other bullcrap organizations more per year than a whole squadron of F-22's. My state just spent more on a teapot museum and basketball arena than 10 F-22's would cost. We're talking, what, $120 'ish Million per F-22 ?? That's peanuts compared to what this administration and the federal government in general spends on things. Don't give me the financial argument.


ACORN has a 25 million dollar budget, 10% of which comes from the federal gov't.

Each F-22 is about 143 million dollars. Your state spent 1.43 billion dollars on a teapot musuem and basketball arena? What state is this? I'd like to go through their budget and see these line items.

If we assume that Sukhoi can deliver an aircraft similar to the F-22 at a similar cost, then I am not concerned as our military budget dwarfs that of Russia, China, and India. If it is much cheaper, then it would indicate that the aircraft is not as capable or that we are overpaying for the F-22. If it is as capable as the F-22 at a cheaper price, then we should not dump more money into the F-22, we should ask Russia to purchase T-50s with our enormous defense budget.

To put things is perspective, the F-22 program has cost about 65 billion, or about twice Russia's FY2009 total military budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_the_R...

Or twice as much of the entirety of India's defense budget...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Armed_Forces

Or about the same as China...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation...

Although China underestimates, so let's assume it's closer to 100 billion. If these three countries with a combined total military expenditure of 160 billion (using high estimates) can put together a fighter program that can compete with the 65 billion F-22, then I believe it says more about the inefficiency of our own military spending than it does about their rising power. It tells me that we aren't getting a good deal with the F-22 and should look elsewhere. Dump more money into it? Nonsense. Total military spending for FY10 in the US is about 660 billion. If we can't annihilate the air forces of China, Russia, and India with that budget, you shouldn't be killing other programs to build more F-22s, you should be asking why our own military spending has been so wasteful.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 1:03:41 PM , Rating: 1
I'm saying we spend enough that if they are as advanced and present a threat, then our spending has been very inefficient. No where did I say we shouldn't upgrade, red herring.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 1:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
" if they are as advanced and present a threat, then our spending has been very inefficient."

We pay our engineers and assembly plant workers more than 10 times what the Russians do. Do you advocate cutting salaries across the board, so we can produce military hardware as cheap as they do?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 1:39:12 PM , Rating: 1
If we pay 10 times as much yet they receive a comparable product, did we overpay? Are you in favor of the gov't preferentially selecting contractors based not on our ability both fiscally and militarily to defend our nation but on the need of Americans to have high paying jobs?

The argument you've made is the same argument made by protectionists. Do you feel the same disgust when American companies export vehicle production, steel production, etc, etc?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 1:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Are you in favor of the gov't preferentially selecting contractors based not on our ability both fiscally and militarily to defend our nation but on the need of Americans to have high paying jobs?"

I'm not in favor of the US farming out top secret defense jobs to low paid Russian and Chinese workers, no. If we use American workers, we're going to have to pay American salaries obviously.

As for buying steel from other countries, I'd prefer it if we produced our own, but the current environmental laws make that nearly impossible. In any case, the making of steel is technology hundreds of years old...I'm a little less worried about that than I am about us having to buy our Air Force from overseas.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 1
Those low paid Russian workers just produced a plane that is 5th generation that has many on this board up in arms. So how is our method of non-proliferation working? Has keeping those jobs within the US given us the best results?

See.... here you are stuck. You can say that keeping this information has given us the advantage, which means the T-50 is not the threat people make it out to be. Or you can say that the T-50 is in the same class as the F-22 and our overpaying for exclusive information hasn't stopped the rest of the world from catching up anyway. Which is it?

Environmental laws aren't what makes steel production in the United States impossible (and it's not even impossible really, the US still produces a lot of steel). It's the fact that Americans couldn't (and can't) compete in price. The Chinese are by far the largest producer because they have such cheap labor. Should the US nationalize steel production and offer American wages to steel workers? You said yourself, you'd prefer we produced our own.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 3:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those low paid Russian workers just produced a plane that is 5th generation that has many on this board up in arms. So how is our method of non-proliferation working? Has keeping those jobs within the US given us the best results?


We've seen this before from Russia. Let's actually see it in action before we crown it the King, shall we ? The F-29 was very impressive as well, on paper. It didn't to so hot in the Gulf War when it came up against a real fighting force though.

quote:
The MiG-29 saw real combat for the first time during the Gulf War. During the pre-dawn hours of the first day of Operation Desert Storm, at least four Iraqi MiG-29s scrambled from alert bases around Baghdad were destroyed in air-to-air combat. With much of their ground intercept radar assistance disabled by allied aircraft, the MiG-29s were seen to wander aimlessly. They proved highly vulnerable in this condition and were quickly dispatched by allied fighters. In some instances, the aircraft departed the skies over Iraq and headed for safe haven in Iran. An unknown quantity of MiG-29s landed there and now are thought to have been absorbed by the Iranian air force. According to available records, Gulf War MiG-29 losses totaled twenty-nine aircraft. No Western aircraft are acknowledged to have fallen victim to the MiG-29s.


From : http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1993/artic...


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 3:20:41 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't crown it king. In fact, I don't think it will perform like the F-22 and certainly won't have the situational awareness American pilots will have. Thus, I'm trying to temper both the alarmism here and people complaining about public projects when more F-22s could be purchased.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Spuke on 1/29/2010 1:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok I give up with you guys. You win.
It's tough to argue here and I personally LOVE to argue. Some people just don't understand until they're hit over the head with a hammer. I don't bother much anymore. At the end of the day, I do what I want and the other man does what he wants.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2010 11:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah we spend more. Guess what? Our currency is also worth more and things cost more here. In India, Russia, and China they pay practically nothing due to lower cost of living and labor.

So the money spent is not directly comparable.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 2:01:50 PM , Rating: 4
Haha, I'm sorry but this is childishly naive. Let me point out a few things for you.

a) Anything we produce with American labor will be more costly than something built in China or Russia. Does that mean we should just stop building anything at all?

b) The Russians are NOT going to sell us their most advanced fighter. They won't even sell it to their closest allies without dumbing it down substantially (the same thing we do when we export fighters abroad).

c) A fighter that is 80% as effective as the F-22 means you lose 20% more pilots in A2A combat. Personally, if some young kid is willing to put his ass on the line for me, I'm willing to spend the bucks to make sure he has the best chance of coming back alive.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 2:28:28 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not being naive, I'm questioning people who would otherwise explicitly denounce and criticize the government for wasteful spending yet have no issue overpaying for a piece of equipment in the singular area of defense.

a) A classical liberal free-market economist would tell you that you should produce what you can sell. Does the American product have some other value? And if you're willing to protect American labor in the defense industry despite free market economics, would you have the government do this in other areas as well?

b) Really? I was under the impression that Sukhoi had no issue selling extremely advanced products to whomever had the money to purchase them.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/russi...

http://www.mn.ru/business/20080327/55319264.html

A little nugget from that one...

Russia had already teamed up with India to co-develop and co-produce a version of Moscow's fifth generation fighter, but Fisher said that given the Indian preference of diversifying its weapons sources, it was possible New Delhi could purchase a U.S. fifth generation fighter at some point.

Also, from here...

India, which has a long history of defense relations with Moscow, remains Russia's sole partner in the project.

India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) was reported to be seeking a 25% share in design and development in the project. It has also sought to modify Sukhoi's single-seat prototype into the twin-seat fighter India's Air Force wants.

Sounds to me like Russia/Sukhoi is willing to work with people and, of course, sell.

c) That's not exactly how the math works, but the bottom line is that more people would be lost. The problem is that this argument is an appeal to emotion. Why stop at the F-22? Why not spend hundreds of billions more than we already are to make sure even more people come back alive? What if we can spend 500 billion more and get a platform twice as effective? What if it's 150% more effective? What about 120% more effective? Bottom line is that there is always a trade-off made between resources and survivability. I would personally rather not get into a shooting war with another world power.

And if we did get into a shooting war with the likes of Russia or China, then you've already acknowledged it won't really matter.

quote:
Only problem is, once that happens and you finally decide we need an updated fighter, we then have to wait 20 years to design, build, produce, and deploy it. Meanwhile, your entire air force has gotten decimated by advanced fighters from other nations, leaving you with no alternative but to use the nuclear option. That doesn't sound like promoting stability to me.


If we build lots of F-22s and decimate the air forces and China or Russia then we leave them only with the nuclear option. I don't see much value there.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 2:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but you've gone off the deep end here. Refusing to farm out top secret defense jobs to anyone but US citizens is not "protecting American labor". It's protecting American interests. Our secrets, our technology itself.

"Really? I was under the impression that Sukhoi had no issue selling extremely advanced products to whomever had the money to purchase them."

Ah the dangers of getting all your information from 5 minutes on Google. The Russians are no different than the US. We sell crippleware version of our best hardware, same as they do.

"Why stop at the F-22? Why not spend hundreds of billions more than we already are to make sure even more people come back alive?"

Why not? I'd much rather do that than spend TRILLIONS on failed social programs that do nothing but discourage innovation and hard work.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 2:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
So then the T-50 isn't a threat. If we're protecting our technology, then I would assume those low paid workers elsewhere in the world haven't proved capable of matching us. If they have, then our strategy of protecting our interests has proven incapable and unworkable. Why do you want to promote failed policy?


Ah the dangers of getting all your information from 5 minutes on Google. The Russians are no different than the US. We sell crippleware version of our best hardware, same as they do.


So did you want to address those specific articles or not?

Why not? I'd much rather do that than spend TRILLIONS on failed social programs that do nothing but discourage innovation and hard work.

Instead you'd rather spend trillions on an American defense complex who's sole purpose appears to be to defend American workers from competition on the international market? How exactly does that encourage innovation and hard work?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By knutjb on 1/30/2010 3:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead you'd rather spend trillions on an American defense complex who's sole purpose appears to be to defend American workers from competition on the international market? How exactly does that encourage innovation and hard work?


Uh yeah. I would rather spend on tangible assets from skilled workers than have a bunch of people sitting in front of their tvs watching census commercials telling them if they don't fill it out they won't get any money from the government. You obviously have never looked at how far aviation has come since the Wright Bros.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/30/2010 10:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
So you don't mind gov't subsidies to overpaid labor (even skilled)? How do you feel about the GM bailout? That saved the jobs of many workers and skilled engineers. Cars have come a long way since the Model T.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 3:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not being naive, I'm questioning people who would otherwise explicitly denounce and criticize the government for wasteful spending yet have no issue overpaying for a piece of equipment in the singular area of defense.


First off, yes you are being. Second off, define "overpaying" ?? As apposed to what ?? We're talking about peoples lives here. We're talking about the difference between life and death. How can you really put a price on how much "more" a superior piece of machinery should be over a lesser one, when there is so much hanging in the balance ?

I'm just in awe at the amazing foresight you guys have when it comes to the F-22. I had no idea so many industrial, military, and fighter pilot experts we have reading Daily Tech and posting comments here. Over half of you appear to be working in the Pentagon itself !


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 3:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, insults are fine I guess.

As opposed to operational capability that could be achieved with other platforms (that is if the T-50 lives up to the fear that has been created here).

Prices are put on people's lives everyday. This is simply an appeal to emotion. How much should the government spend on healthcare? How much is a person's life work? How much is a soldier's life worth? It's a calculation that is made everyday and rightfully so. We do not live in a post-scarcity world.

I don't work at the Pentagon. Do you?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 4:33:33 PM , Rating: 1
Excuse me ? What insults ? I have not insulted you.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2010 12:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
We don't dumb down the planes flight characteristics. We just don't sell very many people the avionics systems we use. The same will be true for the F35.

It'll still fly just as fast, just as far, and be just as manueverable. Its in the guts where there's the difference.

But yes that can make a world of difference.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By knutjb on 1/30/2010 3:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And while we're busy contemplating full-scale air battles with the likes of China and Russia, we might question if this is even a rational exercise. Under what conditions would be engage in this kind of battle? Given the scale, is it reasonable to assume that land forces and territory are also involved? If so, can we imagine this conflict in such a way that the loser doesn't inevitably resort to the use of nuclear weapons?


You are suffering from revisionist history lessons. That failed reasoning argument was made with Detente. It fails by recognizing human behavior as purely rational and that some fear IS productive in negotiations. Reagan made nuke negotiations work with the Soviets through fear of weapons systems like the GLCM in the UK.

If we all could just get along all be swell... It takes more than just us to get along.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:49:58 AM , Rating: 1
"ACORN has a 25 million dollar budget, 10% of which comes from the federal gov't."

Actually, the facts are:
quote:
At least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/...


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 1:08:05 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer said per year.... not since 1994.

Take all of ACORN's funding since 1994, and it still couldn't purchase half an F-22.

And I'm not sure how an opinion piece claiming that ACORN could get 8.5 billion dollars has any relevance to the fact that ACORN's ACTUAL budget is 25 million, with 10% coming from the feds. I'm sure you'll be sure to let me know when the feds hand ACORN 8.5 billion dollars. Until then, quit being reactionary.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 1:23:31 PM , Rating: 1
"Reclaimer said per year.... not since 1994."

He also said "ACORN and other groups. " Our total funding for all nonsense organizations like this is indeed a few billion annually.

ACORN's past funding dates also dates from an era before an ACORN affiliate was elected to the presidency. It's not surprising that they're expecting a massive boost in federal aid dollars now.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 1:49:41 PM , Rating: 1
I can't respond to the other groups claim because it's too ambiguous. What other groups? I responded to the only testable claim that was made.

Calling this group or that group nonsense is rather arbitrary. Are you to decide what is nonsense and what is not? Why would your claim be any more valid?

I don't understand your last paragraph. Since 1994 they have received 50-something million dollars. Are the facts in question here? Has ACORN suddenly received that 8.5 billion of which you speak? What is their budget this year again (federal FY runs Oct to Sep). Do they have that huge boost now? It's amazing how worked up people can get over a single organization that has, since 1994, received less funding than one-half of one F-22.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 2:07:29 PM , Rating: 1
"Calling this group or that group nonsense is rather arbitrary."

How many US lives has our military saved? How many of our interests abroad has it protected and saved?

What has ACORN done, other than break campaign laws and try to rig elections?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 2:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
So it is about ACORN?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 3:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reclaimer said per year


I did ?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/2010 3:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes...

quote:
Overpriced ?? We give ACORN and other bullcrap organizations more per year than a whole squadron of F-22's. My state just spent more on a teapot museum and basketball arena than 10 F-22's would cost. We're talking, what, $120 'ish Million per F-22 ?? That's peanuts compared to what this administration and the federal government in general spends on things. Don't give me the financial argument.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By TechIsGr8 on 1/29/2010 12:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be so afraid, it will be ok. The big bad Russians and Chinese aren't going to drop a bomb on your house, you're ok. It will be ok. And those terrible criminals of ACORN aren't coming for you either, it will be all right.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By namechamps on 1/29/2010 10:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
What do you mean impossible to mass produce if a war did come?

This isn't 1940s. There will be no assembly lines running 24/7 in a major war, no building ships faster than the Germans can sink them.

The ability to destroys things has increased a thousand fold and the ability to protect virtually unchanged.

In a major war all war industry is wiped out in the opening salvos within hours.

The length of time to mass produce the F-22 vs any plane is not important.

The simple version: In modern warfare you play with the toys you bring there is no just in time production.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By kiwik on 1/29/2010 10:50:31 AM , Rating: 2
That's what they hoped with the Blitzkrieg and in 1914, they said war would be over by Xmas.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By namechamps on 1/29/2010 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well if they had ICBMs, sat imagery covering every square inch of the planet, bunker busters, and long range cruise missiles then that would be a valid comparison.

The point is that today it is 100% impossible to protect vital infrastructure given the power, lethality, and precision of stand off weapons.

One example is a ballistic missile subs (converted Ohio class nuclear ICBM subs) carrying 154 tomahawk missiles. How exactly do you protect something as fragile as an aircraft assembly plant from a swarm of ground hugging cruise missiles launched from 30+ miles off shore.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 12:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
"How exactly do you protect something as fragile as an aircraft assembly plant from a swarm of ground hugging cruise missiles "

With a PAC-4 Patriot anti-missile battery.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By namechamps on 1/29/2010 2:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you mean PAC-3.

Well Patriot battery consists of 4 to 6 launchers so that will take care of 16-24 cruise missile before it is saturated.

Of course that also assumes every single logistical target is protected by a Patriot battery and they all have 100% shoot down rate.

Weapon fantasies aside any engagement between two moderns powers will result in nearly complete weapons manufacturing capabilities within hours.

In modern war you get to play with what you already built. A nation thinking they can "build up" after hostilities start will be rudely surprised.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 2:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
"I assume you mean PAC-3"

No I meant PAC-4. The as-of-yet undeveloped variant that will be deployed before we have to worry about swarms of cruise missiles attacking US soil.

"Patriot battery consists of 4 to 6 launchers so that will take care of 16-24 cruise missile before it is saturated."

Get a clue. Just as an enemy can launch multiple missiles at us, we can use multiple launchers to protect a site.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By namechamps on 1/29/2010 2:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
Except we have limited number of PAC-3 batteries and 0 as of yet PAC-4.

The reality is today we have and our adversaries have far more capability to destroy infrastructure then we do to protect it.

THAT IS WHY it is part of our strategy and tactics to cripple and destroy any infrastructure in opening salvo.

You don't think are enemies will be smart enough to figure it out.

The idea of assembly lines cranking out tens of thousands of tank aircraft and ships while the war is going on is antiquated.

The United states is big and key industrial sites are spread out. It is simply not possible to defend all of it. Even sites you could defend would be saturated rather quickly as it is doctrine to have 3 to 5 Patriot launchers engage the same high threat target. The further you spread them out the less capable they are.

Also for it to be meaningful to defend industrial sites you would need to defend them not against one or two or three salvos but continually for months or years.

If you spend couple billion defending a site and it produces a single aircraft before the war is over it really wasn't worth it was it.

The US military would simply allow vulnerable industrial sites to be destroyed in order to protect exists military assets and destroy enemy assets & infrastructure.

[b]You bring the toys you have already built.[/b]


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 2:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Except we have limited number of PAC-3 batteries and 0 as of yet PAC-4."

What sort of ass-backwards argument are you trying to make? The only reason we have "limited" numbers of ABM hardware is because Congress keeps refusing to fund the technology appropriately, because they say no one would dare attack us. And you're trying to use that lack of desire as indication of some fundamental theoretical limitation?

Face facts. ABM technology has already progressed to the point where we could -- if we so desired-- shield the entire US from attack. Could the Russians possibly slip in some cruise missiles regardless? Quite likely...does that mean we should just give up entirely?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By namechamps on 1/29/2010 3:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Face facts. ABM technology has already progressed to the point where we could -- if we so desired-- shield the entire US from attack.


LOL. OK we are done here. That is such a friggin joke.

You are clueless pork. Of course any engagement with a nuclear power will almost certainly end up in nuclear weapons. I guess you now will claim we could shield the US from any nuclear attack too.

Man I was having a hard day at work but you really brought a smile to my face. Thanks man.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By namechamps on 1/29/2010 3:49:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Face facts. ABM technology has already progressed to the point where we could -- if we so desired-- shield the entire US from attack.


LOL. OK we are done here. That is such a friggin joke.

You are clueless pork. Of course any engagement with a nuclear power will almost certainly end up in nuclear weapons. I guess you now will claim we could shield the US from any nuclear attack too.

Man I was having a hard day at work but you really brought a smile to my face. Thanks man.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
" I guess you now will claim we could shield the US from any nuclear attack too."

We can already shield portions of the Western US from a limited nuclear missile attack, yes..and have been for several years:

http://www.dailytech.com/US+Missile+Defense+Shield...

If Congress will ever allow us to complete construction, we could indeed cover the entire country from a full-scale assault.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:44:18 AM , Rating: 3
"Call me when an F-15 gets shot down in air-to-air combat"

Only problem is, once that happens and you finally decide we need an updated fighter, we then have to wait 20 years to design, build, produce, and deploy it.

Meanwhile, your entire air force has gotten decimated by advanced fighters from other nations, leaving you with no alternative but to use the nuclear option. That doesn't sound like promoting stability to me.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By BigDH01 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/30/2010 11:42:46 AM , Rating: 3
It's very simple. The US is a well-regulated democracy. It doesn't need to be restrained by the nuclear weapons of other nations. It's controlled by its own citizens...who have shown themselves to generally do the job very well.

China on the other hand is not a democracy...and Russia is rapidly losing what vestiges of democracy it once had. Will the US claim the entire North Pole, and fight off Canada and other claimants with military might? Russia is already threatening to. Will the US claim the entire South China Sea, as well as the independent nation of Taiwan? China is already threatening too.

If the US goes to war with Russia or China, it won't be just because "we can beat their air force". It will be only because the alternative would be worse. Possibly much worse. The sad thing is, if and when that ever happens, people like you will be screaming the loudest for us to do something about it, and asking why we were caught militarily unprepared.

In the post-WW2 era, the world has seen its most peaceful, stable period yet. Why? Because a single well-restrained nation dominates militarily, and EVERY other country in the world knows that if they engage in rampant imperialistic ventures, they'll face serious repercussions.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By markitect on 1/29/2010 11:51:48 AM , Rating: 3
How about I call you when the F-15s fall out of the sky because their wings broke off?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2010 12:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
I c wut u did thar.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Chosonman on 1/29/2010 10:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
The fact is we don't need to spend a billion dollars on manned aircraft and that's why the F-22 program was scrapped. The future is in unmanned fighters that can go faster, maneuver better, that is cheaper to produce, and that don't put human pilots at risk. If Russia is really going to pour billions of dollars into a 5th generation fighter program they are wasting their money. We know that, and they probably know that too. If anything this is all for show.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Jalek on 1/31/2010 10:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they'll just pour a few million into a remote signal jamming technology and make the unmanned craft ineffective.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By puckalicious on 1/29/2010 10:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
"It's sad when @$$-clowns sit back and "strategize" on what the military should be spending it's money to buy."

Hahahaha like you are doing right now?! Hypocrisy much?

"Too bad we shut down production of the F-22, and can't build any more."

In case you haven't hear production is still going on right now until the last budgeted units are built. I'm pretty sure they won't blow up the plant that makes them as soon as the last plane rolls off the 'line'. Boeing is still making F-15's for various countries for cryin out loud.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By HercDriver on 1/29/2010 2:05:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hahahaha like you are doing right now?! Hypocrisy much?

The difference is strategizing by people who are:
A) In the military
B) Specifically in the Air Force
C) PILOTS in the Air Force
Like ME and MattSpeer01 (not sure about anyone else). While you are no doubt a snot-nosed teenager who thinks he knows everything because he reads wikipedia all the time. Go back to your WoW and dreaming about touching a girl's boobs for once.

quote:
In case you haven't hear production is still going on right now until the last budgeted units are built. I'm pretty sure they won't blow up the plant that makes them as soon as the last plane rolls off the 'line'.

The problem is that all contracts for long-lead items have been cancelled. That means that as soon as the current production run is over, there will be nothing left to build with. At this point, all the special machinery (jigs, tooling, etc) will probably be destroyed unless the gov't pays to have them placed in storage. Even if everything is placed in storage, and the sub-contractors who machine the parts are still in business, and the skilled workforce still remembers how to put them together...Well I hope you get the idea, that we can't just start building more any time soon.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By HotFoot on 2/1/2010 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's a frightening thought that a country the size of the U.S. is facing the kind of production gaps you're talking about. From my point of view, the problem is 2-fold.

One, as many people are pointing out, what you have today may be good enough now, but will it be good enough in 20 years? You can't wait for your equipment to be obsolete before you start to design replacements. Lives are at stake.

And two, knowledge and capacity. Build no new submarines for ten years and then decide you want more... that means starting from scratch, and everyone that used to design submarines have either retired or moved on to other careers and the expertise is all but gone. Look what happened to the Canadian aerospace defence industry when the Arrow was cancelled (generations ago, but I think it's relevant). The U.S. is now down to about one fighter design per decade, if that. If the pace gets any slower, you're going to lose your technical capacity to design the next generation.

It always seems to me that next-gen programs are cancelled or massively scaled back just when they are about to go into production. Most of the time, I think it's because by the time something is designed, a decade or more has passed and the role it was to fill has changed so dramatically the over-expensive tool is no longer the right one for the job and Congress sees all kinds of reasons to cancel it. This is a serious problem, because just going back to the drawing board every time before actually making many production units is hardly going to get the job done at the end of the day.

What next-gen projects are actually reaching completion with a significant production run?

DDX/CGX?
Comanche?
B-2?
F-22?
F-35?
Seawolf or even Virginia?
Crusader?

Every one of these programs is in an area where there will be a capability gap with the armed forces down the road, and perhaps just as bad I'm beginning to think there will be an industrial capacity gap by the time the government decides to actually do something about it.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Jeffk464 on 1/29/2010 5:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
No, no, no, the military is spending OUR money, not theirs.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By philmax on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2010 11:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
By the time this thing is ready for a war, the game will have moved on.

Directed Energy Weapons will be on the scene, and there will have been a paradigm shift in air combat.

Not that pilots in the USAF are ever going to admit to that...


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2010 12:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
In addition to the above. What the USAF needs now is a follow-on design to the venerable A-10.

A ultra survivable, ultra persistent, slow, maneuverable bomb truck that happens to pack a kick ass cannon for close air support.

Basically, they need a 2-seat A-10 with an updated laser designator, FLIR system, capacity to drop JDAMS and SDBs and a communication system that allows direct talking to the grunts on the ground. I think a 2 seater will work better as the pilot could be overworked with communicating with friendlies, spotting the hostiles they are talking about, targeting said hostiles and engaging... all the while avoiding flying into something solid.

The A-10 costs about $11 million dollars. That is, about 15 times less than an F-22. It is also over 15 times more effect than an F-22 in the current environment.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2010 1:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
Erm... Since when did an A-10 become a fighter?

Seeing as you overlooked that very basic distinction, a distinction that anyone in the miltary aerospace community would be acutely aware of, you have little credibility (in my eyes) in claiming you are a fighter pilot.

An F-18 is crap. An F-18 (regardless of variant) is crap for a multitude of reasons. Avonics cannot turn a turd into a good fighter, no matter how much the USN brass wish it so.

An F-15E is very good at what it was designed to do. Bomb the crap out of targets inside hostile airspace where there is a possibility of enemy air - and thus, some defensive capability in a furball is required. It is not trying to be a -15C, so don't compare it with one.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 2:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see you tell my pals who are A-10 pilots that they are not fighter pilots. So what if it has an "A" in front of it? It carried both A-A and A-G munitions and is maneuverable...so I would say it is still a fighter. I guess the fact that I have been flying F-16s for 7 years doesn't make me a fighter pilot either, though...

I wasn't comparing the F-15E to the F-15C, just single seat fighters in general. The F-15E is more of a bomber than a fighter. Fighting those things is like clubbing baby seals...they can't maneuver worth a damn and the WSO in the back seat is a situational awareness-dumping, useless sack of extra weight.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2010 2:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd like to see you tell my pals who are A-10 pilots that they are not fighter pilots. So what if it has an "A" in front of it?


By trying to bullsh!t your way out, you are only making yourself look even stupider. The A-10 can carry a couple of -9Ms for self defence. It is NOT a fighter, if an A-10 tried to mix with anything like, say, a fulcrum it would be DEAD. You continue to present yourself as a fighter pilot, although that premise is becoming almost transparently thin by now, ever heard of John Boyd?

You are definitely not coming across as a man that has driven vipers for 7 years. In fact, your coming across as utterly clueless in considering the F-15E to be less of a fighter than the A-10. The added idea of the CSO adding nothing to situational awareness shows yet more idiocy. The wizzo... not sure what they are gonna do with that acroymn now :-D... allows the pilot to concentrate on the air threat, and leave the ground to someone else (that workload can of course be divvied up as the situation demands it).

Any more gems from the mattspeer1 bible of air combat doctrine and tactics?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 2:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously the A-10 would get its ass kicked by any fighter that is designed for A-A combat. I never said otherwise. I have done it myself in fact. In a dogfight, they get a pretty good initial turn, but after that I just go vertical in my Viper and there is nothing they can do. Its also equivalent to clubbing baby seals...just like the Strike Pig.

I never said the F-15E was less of a fighter than the A-10. In fact, I never compared the two at all. The Strike Pig is good at what it does...like you said, but it's still pretty lame. We in the Viper community always mock Eagle guys of both varieties...F-15C guys for being a useless combat asset in today's environment (also for being homos), and F-15E guys for driving a two-seat bomber around. It's all fun and games. We don't mock the A-10 however (except for its exceptionally slow speed) because, that is a badass and useful aircraft.

You can mock my credibility all you like, but I know what I am and what my job is: defending armchair warriors such as yourself from the evil Russian hordes in their "stealth" T-50s.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2010 4:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
F-15C guys for being a useless combat asset in today's environment


Is that a serious opinion, or more pissing around?

<If serious, I'd be interested in your reasons why>


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 5:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
There really hasn't been an air threat at all, so those guys just sat in a cap and burned fuel while circling in the sky. There's a reason they are no longer deployed to the wars going on. They would be useful against an adversary with an actual air force...but not what we are fighting these days.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/30/2010 4:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
Which brings us full circle back to my original point.

For what they are fighting at the moment, the USAF need a follow on to the A-10 that has better PGM capabilities, and better direct communication with the grunts.

:-)


RE: Oh, but wait...
By corduroygt on 2/1/2010 12:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
In that case, isn't the Strike Eagle better suited for today's missions compared to the Viper? They can carry more bombs, shoot down any low-tech A2A fighters with missiles from BVR, and don't require a fleet of tankers to reach their destination? And if there's an actual A2A threat, who's going to protect the strike eagles when you're lining up for your third inflight refueling? :)


RE: Oh, but wait...
By HercDriver on 1/29/2010 2:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seeing as you overlooked that very basic distinction, a distinction that anyone in the miltary aerospace community would be acutely aware of, you have little credibility (in my eyes) in claiming you are a fighter pilot.

I'm pretty sure he is...I looked him up on the Air Force Global email list. If he's the Matt Speer at Luke, then he's a Viper driver. End of story.
BTW, Matt...I know a lot of F-15E WSOs who'd like to smack you for calling them a "clown act".:P
quote:
An F-18 is crap

You'd better hope there aren't any Naval Aviators reading this post. Too bad you've never gotten to go to a Red Flag at Nellis. I'll admit that our AF boys regularly kick the crap out of the Hornets, but I doubt any Russian, Indian, Chineese, Iranian, North Korean, etc, etc could do the same.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Spuke on 1/29/2010 2:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
Real pilots up in here? This ought to be interesting.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2010 2:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You'd better hope there aren't any Naval Aviators reading this post.


Too bad, so sad, they can get mad.

Their airframe is crap. Avonics are good... no, in fact, their avionics are great. Which is pretty much what I pointed out.

Whats the bleed rates on an -18 (pick your variant) compared to any other 4th or 5th gen fighter... awful. (Very) Transient performance is good, but transients are only limited in their usefulness. [For reference, see the fallacy of Indian Su-30s relying on TVC for too much maneuvering in Red Flag '08]


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 3:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
The Hornet is badass in a slow speed fight, but not as great at higher airspeeds. Their ability to go vertical also sucks...even on the new Super Hornets. I fought an F-18E back in October down at Tyndall AFB and owned him in my steam-driven Block 25 F-16.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2010 5:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Hornet is badass in a slow speed fight, but not as great at higher airspeeds.


Which is all good... If your isolated 1 v 1.

However, as you should know (assuming you are what you say you are), no energy = sitting duck.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 6:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Very true...which is why the Viper fights the energy fight.

Last year I met a Navy Weapons School instructor from who has flown the F-18C, F-18E, and F-16 Block 15 (Navy Aggressors). And he was jealous of me being a Viper guy...he said he would trade the Hornet for a Viper in a heartbeat. He also told me the Super Hornet is pretty much a big joke and it's not that fun to fly...compared it to a Strike Eagle in terms of performance. He even went so far as to say that when fully loaded, even the Prowler guys would be passing the Super Hornets by on an ingress or egress.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2010 2:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If he's the Matt Speer at Luke, then he's a Viper driver.


Might be him. Might not be him.

Regardless, the poster is going far out of his way to make basic mistakes I would not expect of any trained professional.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 2:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
One thing you probably don't understand (not being a fighter pilot) is that fighter pilots are the some of the most sarcastic people on the face of the planet. We give other people crap on a non-stop basis...most of which is just fun and games.

But obviously, most of my sarcasm in my posts goes right over your cranium.

What exactly do you do for a living that makes you the world's foremost expert on military aircraft?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By HercDriver on 1/29/2010 3:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What exactly do you do for a living that makes you the world's foremost expert on military aircraft?

When he's not posting on DailyTech, he's either conducting extensive research on Wikipedia or playing World of Warcraft in his parents' basement and dreaming about someday being able to touch a girl's boobs.
quote:
fighter pilots are the some of the most sarcastic people on the face of the planet

Sadly...this is true. Unfortunately we need these "Type A" ultra-competitive a-holes out there, who want nothing more than to kick every other nations' fighter jocks asses on a continual basis. Wimpy losers flying our fighters, we DON'T need. Keep on givin' it to Amiga500 "so to speak".


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/29/2010 4:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What exactly do you do for a living that makes you the world's foremost expert on military aircraft?


Design them.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2010 5:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Design them.


Making aircraft mods for MS Flight Sim does not count.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 6:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
What company do you design for?


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Amiga500 on 1/30/2010 4:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
None of the OEMs... at least not directly.

I do, or have done, consultant work for a few of them as a subcontractor. Luckily, I've been in quite a few areas, aero, composites manufacturing, systems, engines...

For reasons of personal confidentiality I'm quite reluctant to digress further. *I've made a few borderline posts on here in the past (admittedly more from a commercial confidential POV than security - not that that would matter in them giving me the sack!)*


RE: Oh, but wait...
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2010 5:47:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
One thing you probably don't understand (not being a fighter pilot) is that fighter pilots are the some of the most sarcastic people on the face of the planet. We give other people crap on a non-stop basis...most of which is just fun and games.


As do the boys stuck out babysitting some mountain waiting for some unknown combatant who is supposed to be in the area. Delta, Seals, Rangers, Recon Marines...they're all like that too. They'll find one quirk you have, even your hair sticking up in the morning, and they'll give you shit forever about it.

But yeah, generally most military personal except for a few stuck up officers, are quite sarcastic shit talkers. It's just a way to kick back in off hours. However, bet your ass that when the time comes it's all business.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 3:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW, Matt...I know a lot of F-15E WSOs who'd like to smack you for calling them a "clown act".:P


Tell 'em to bring it on ;)

I know a few Viper pilots who were former WSOs and they still mock the Strike Pig. I also know quite a few F-15E pilots...

I know for a fact that they mock the Viper. Like I have mentioned before, it's all fun and games, and each MWS has its own uses (except the F-15C).


RE: Oh, but wait...
By HercDriver on 1/29/2010 3:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
except the F-15C

Come on now...even you should know how studly those Air Superiority Eagle boys are. I even heard that one of them was up for "bachelor of the year" at Cosmo magazine. You are just jealous of "Dollar"...wait, I mean "Ruble", aren't you?

Besides...EVERYONE knows that the studliest guys of all fly Herks. What is the most HEAVILY armed aircraft in the world? The AC-130. What aircraft drops the world's largest conventional bomb? The C-130. What aircraft has been fitted with the world's first tactical LASER? The C-130. I know you call us "herbivores", but that's just out of pure jealousy. Besides, I can get up, stretch, and go to the back to take a piss. Does the term "piddle pack" mean anything to you? :D


RE: Oh, but wait...
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 3:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nice...one of my buddies (also a Viper driver) has a younger brother that flies Herks. We love to make fun of him, but he brings up similar arguments. I had an old roomie that went on to fly the AC-130 and now flies the V-22. Spec Ops stuff is pretty cool.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By TechIsGr8 on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 1:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
"if you do the least bit of research, you would find that the PENTAGON requested defunding the F22."

Gads, did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? The Pentagon, faced with massive budget cuts, yet still, being called upon to fight costly insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, did the ONLY THING IT COULD. When you're being squeezed dry, you can't plan ahead for future problems, you just have to survive today.

Now stop being criminally dishonest and trying to insinuate the Pentagon actually doesn't think it needs an advanced fighter replacement:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5744IN200908...


RE: Oh, but wait...
By maven81 on 1/29/2010 1:39:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Pentagon, faced with massive budget cuts


Stop right there. What planet are you on again? Because so far the Pentagon budget has only been increasing.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 2:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Read the link...or pick up a newspaper sometime:

quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. defense industry, already reeling from Defense Secretary Robert Gates' sweeping weapons cuts, got more bad news last week when the Pentagon said it needed to trim programs by $60 billion more to free up money to fight counter-insurgencies and regional foes

There's a difference between money allocated for new weapons system, and money you're being forced to spend on wages and ammunition in Afghanistan.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By xmichaelx on 1/29/2010 3:45:57 PM , Rating: 1
You've just proven yourself wrong. Those aren't budget cuts; they're reallocating increased funds into other places.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
"You've just proven yourself wrong. "

Only if you're an illiterate who lacks basic logic skills. The original poster was insinuating the Pentagon didn't want the F-22. That's false. The Pentagon was simply forced to cut their budget for new weapons systems , and the F-22 program was one of many that came under the axe.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By maven81 on 1/29/2010 6:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
" The original poster was insinuating the Pentagon didn't want the F-22. That's false."

You better tell that to Robert Gates!


RE: Oh, but wait...
By rcc on 2/2/2010 4:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
He already knows.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Shadowmaster625 on 1/29/2010 1:55:29 PM , Rating: 1
At $147 million a pop, you'd have to be out of your mind to support something like the F-22. When will the dumb yuppies ever understand that these aircraft will never play any role whatsoever in national defense? I'd tell what what the real purpose is behind all this wasteful spending, but you'd just deny it and go on pretending like you have a clue.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By Jeffk464 on 1/29/2010 4:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well what I said is that we only needed them to gain air superiority, not to be used as bomb trucks. Looks like we are going to have to keep an eye on how many of these are owned by which countries and adjust our f22 numbers accordingly. I'm a little skeptical on Russia's claims that it will match the performance of the f22, but this will have to be studied as well. The real question is whether russia will allow china to build these things in high numbers. That could really bring up the question of our air superiority.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By justjc on 1/31/2010 6:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
China isn't likely to buy the Sukhoi T-50, as they have their own J-XX Stealth fighter on the way. Some say it too should be a match for the Raptor.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By saidone on 2/3/2010 6:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
> Then they'll start being sold to our "friends" like Iran

Iran is likely to replace their F-14s with some other "Made in USA", if they feel to be pleased with the previous buying.


RE: Oh, but wait...
By what4 on 2/25/2010 12:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
Here is my F-22 spin. The up-most important thing our "USA" government officials should provide its citizens & armed services personal with. Is the best fighting machines possible, even if its very costly. Because our very lives & country survival is at stake. We should also restart a new production line of approx. 200 Super F-22s that will include upgrades & up-scaling the current F-22A buy + or - 15% in size, requiring retooling. Thus segniefently incress its combat flight range, internal belly bombay capaicty & 2X or 3X the number of air-2-air missells within its side internal bays. Very similarly 2 what was done with the F-15C Eagle compared to the F-15E Strike Eagle. Let call this new aircraft the F/A-22 Super Raptor, if i may?


Copycats
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 9:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
What a big surprise...the Russians trying to copy an American design that came before it. Typical. I love how they always say that they are confident that their aircraft will exceed the capabilities of the Western counterparts as well...what a joke.




RE: Copycats
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/29/2010 9:09:14 AM , Rating: 2
Those were my initial thoughts as well; I can't help think of their Buran as another example...


RE: Copycats
By amanojaku on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Copycats
By Sahrin on 1/29/2010 9:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
^^^Born in the last 20 years.

The joke is not "OMG Russia copies like MS copies Apple!" the joke is, the Russians have been trying to duplicate American military tech for 80 years, and have been failing at it miserably; particularly in aviation where with one or two notable exceptions Russia has never had an aircraft superior to its American counterparts (the exception that I can think of being the Tu-22m, but America didn't really *have* an aircraft in that role, and the avionics in craft like the Lancer were superior).

And there is documentation of Russia's own frustration with this fact. Said one senior communist in the 80's: "The United States spends more money on entertainment than we do on our entire military."


RE: Copycats
By gamerk2 on 1/29/2010 10:43:15 AM , Rating: 2
You are kidding right? How about the Mig-15 vs P-80 and P-84? Or the F4 Phantom vs the Mig-21? The SU-27 is also about equal to the F-14 in terms of combat ability. Fact is, in the majority of US conflicts, Russia typically started out with the better fighter jet.


RE: Copycats
By gamerk2 on 1/29/2010 10:47:11 AM , Rating: 1
And I didn't even mention the SU-27 and Mig-29, which are effective (and cheap) counters to the F-15/F-16 combo.


RE: Copycats
By Sahrin on 1/29/2010 2:02:22 PM , Rating: 3
I love the MiG-29, but that's BS. The MiG-29 is not competitive with US 4th Gen fighters. The Su-27 is more competitive than the MiG.


RE: Copycats
By TheEinstein on 1/29/2010 4:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
Our airforce AMRAMM was made in the 80's, it still outranges ANY air to air missiles of Russia.

Other weapons advancements still continue this line.

Note how the Russians still do not have a flying wing? Therefore they are still severely behind the times.


RE: Copycats
By porkpie on 1/30/2010 1:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
"Our airforce AMRAMM was made in the 80's, it still outranges ANY air to air missiles of Russia."

Huh? The original AMRAMM tapped out at 50 clicks or so. The newest D variant has a range of about 200 clicks...but that model is only a few years old. That's about HALF of what the Russian R-37 (what we call the 'Arrow') can do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-37


RE: Copycats
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 10:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
On paper ? Sure, maybe. Too bad their support sucks, training sucks, ground maintenance doesn't know a gunport from a ground chock. And their pilot program would admit an alcoholic paraplegic.


RE: Copycats
By Sahrin on 1/29/2010 10:53:12 AM , Rating: 3
F-14: Introduced 1974
F-18: Introduced 1983
Su-27: Introduced 1984

Point 1: Su-27 was introduced (not first flight, actually used) a full 10 years after the F-14. How did Russia "start out" with a better fighter than the F-14 if their competitor didn't arrive until 10 years later?

Point 2: F-14 was a carrier interceptor ONLY. Marines flew Harriers and F-18s only. So how exactly does the Su-27 compete with an F-14 flying for a Navy that doesn't have any aircraft carriers?

Point 3: The F-18 - the successor to the F-14, was introduced a YEAR before the Su-27. I don't think there's any doubt that the F-18 is superior to the Su-27.

Conclusion: The Su-27, while it may be an impressive example of a 3rd-generation fighter, was a full generation out of date when it entered production. Which is exactly how the Sovs/Russians have been going for 80 years.

I don't know enough about the post-WWII aviation to counter your point, and the data I can find in a perfunctory search doesn't support a clear conclusion either way. I do know that save for the restraint of Eisenhower, the United States was destroying China in Korea in spite of any success of the MiG-15.


RE: Copycats
By zkln on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Copycats
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 1:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad those Su-27s were nearly empty on fuel and had avionics removed from the nose in order to pull off a cobra maneuver. That's a really useful maneuver if you hae no combat capability and no fuel...at the the F-22 can do it at any time in full combat configuration.

And no, the Su-27's avionics are not superior to 4th gen US fighters. Are you kidding me? Not to mention the ergonomic design of cockpits in Russian fighters is idiotic. I would say avionics is the area where Russian fighters are the most inferior to US fighter and European fighters.


RE: Copycats
By Sahrin on 1/29/2010 1:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what it says about you when you refer to "Facts" as "gibberish and fanboyism."

The Su-27 was 10 years late. Comparing it to the F-14 doesn't make any sense.

The idea that the avionics are even remotely comparable to those in US planes is laughable - the Soviet Union had no electronics industry to speak of. They were *nowhere* near the same level of technology as the US.

I never said that Russia doesn't have a proud aviation history; but when it comes to aviation there is the United States and everyone else. Russia is far and ahead of "everyone else," but still nowhere close to the US.

Just ask the commercial business - Aeroflot in particular. Where do they buy their planes now? From the US, or Airbus (a European company run by Americans).

I've met this small, hardcore group of people that think Sukhoi is the greatest thing that ever happened to aviation. It's a fantasy. I love Russian designs as well (as I noted in my admiration of the Tu-22m), I am more of a Mikoyan fan myself, but I have no 'problem' with the Russian aerospace industry - they just could not keep up with the US technologically. It's a fact. Don't try to rewrite history because you're in love with the Su-27.


RE: Copycats
By maven81 on 1/29/2010 2:18:37 PM , Rating: 1
The idea that the avionics are even remotely comparable to those in US planes is laughable - the Soviet Union had no electronics industry to speak of. They were *nowhere* near the same level of technology as the US."

So... if an aircraft has better electronics that automatically makes it better in every way?
Wouldn't that mean that an F4 with better avionics would be superior to an F16? Are you serious?
It's not nearly that black and white. When it comes to avionics the US is far ahead no question. But the russians have done some very interesting things with thrust vectoring. Are mechanics somehow unimportant now?


RE: Copycats
By Sahrin on 1/29/2010 4:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
So... if an aircraft has better electronics that automatically makes it better in every way?
Wouldn't that mean that an F4 with better avionics would be superior to an F16? Are you serious?


I was going to ask you the same question. Are you serious? The avionics comment was made directly to refute a point by the poster above me, not as 'the final word' on the debate.

No, mechanics aren't unimportant - but it's funny you mention thrust vectoring, because it is a Russian application (I would say Russians, on the whole, are the finest powerplant designers in the world; or innovators, at any rate) which ultimately was duplicated and improved upon by Americans - yielding the world's foremost ASF, the F-22.

It's kind of an "anything you can do I can do better" situation.


RE: Copycats
By maven81 on 1/29/2010 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 1
This whole comparison is odd to say the least...

The equivalent of the F14 was the mig 23/27 and here the F14 is a clear winner thanks to better avionics.
However the naval fighter variant would be a mig 29M
(who told you they don't have aircraft carriers?! Blows your credibility right there!).

The Mig 29 would be superior to an F18 thanks to it's passive radar, and very interesting helmet mounted tracker (who was that ripped off from again?). The SU27 is more a counter to an F15 then anything.

In any case, anyone with even a basic interest in the cold war would know that what we had was a game of one upmanship, not some ludicrous copy copy copy that you suggest.

The US comes up with the XB-70 and the russians freak out because they have nothing to counter it. They roll out the mig 25. Now the US freaks out and rolls out the F15 (based on erroneous assumptions). That makes the russians jump start their mig 29/su-27 program. That makes the US develop the F22...

Now the Buran that was brought up earlier is a very interesting story in and of itself, because the russians quickly calculated that NASA's figures for the shuttle costs simply did not make sense. So the more paranoid among them concluded that the only explanation was it had a military use. They actually believed it would do shallow dives and drop hydrogen bombs on them, from space! (Now it's obvious that this was a stupid idea, but I guess if you're convinced the other side has a clear advantage you just have to counter it).
The only problem with your comparison though is that the Buran was actually superior technology, as the Energia rocket could be used to lift all sorts of stuff, not just the shuttles.

And to sum up if we can learn one thing here it's that fear leads to massive, expensive, and often useless overreactions.


RE: Copycats
By Sahrin on 1/29/2010 4:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carri...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carri...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy#Carriers_...

LOL, Yak-38's and Helicopters? OK. I was wrong. You win. The Soviet Navy didn't even CALL them Aircraft Carriers (they called them heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers); which is much more akin to our Cruisers and LCS's than anything else (and they are undercapabilitied compared to those, as well). Excuse me for comparing actual function and intent instead of incorrect western terminology.

You're right about your conception of the Cold War except for one thing: We came to find out in the early 90's that in every case DIA/CIA DRAMTICALLY overestimated the capabilities of the Russian hardware. The M1A1 is the perfect example - a tank that nothing in Russia's arsenal could even touch, because it was designed to a (fictional) superior Russian product.

The -29 is a much 'heavier' aircraft than the -18. I think it slots in better against the -15 or -14 than you're implying. Russia never produced a light multirole like the -16, and the -18 is closer to the -16 than it is to the -15 (in fact the -18 was built out of the Navy's interest in getting a new aircraft like the -16 with two engines).


RE: Copycats
By bernardl on 1/30/2010 12:29:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're right about your conception of the Cold War except for one thing: We came to find out in the early 90's that in every case DIA/CIA DRAMTICALLY overestimated the capabilities of the Russian hardware. The M1A1 is the perfect example - a tank that nothing in Russia's arsenal could even touch, because it was designed to a (fictional) superior Russian product.


Really?

I believe that they never did. It was just so much more appealing for Western weapon manufacturers (not just American ones by the way) to have a big vilain with amazing capabilities to justify huge public spendings.

Cheers,
Bernard


RE: Copycats
By Jeffk464 on 1/29/2010 4:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
The Su-27 has a power to wait over the F18. You cant just say that the f18 is completely superior to the su-27.


RE: Copycats
By stromgald30 on 1/29/2010 7:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
Your main point is valid, but Point 3 is not. The F/A-18 introduced in 1983 is not the successor to the F-14. The F/A-18 is significantly smaller than the F-14 and serves a different role.

The F/A-18 E/F is an over-sized version of the F/A-18 that the Navy is using to replace the F-14. The F/A-18 E/F was introduced in 1997.


RE: Copycats
By Sahrin on 1/30/2010 7:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I was kind of ... 'selectively referencing' that fact. The point of the point was more to 1) cast the difference in age between the -14 and the -27 in *stark* relief, and 2) to clearly show that the F-14 is a 3rd Gen fight, and the Su-27 is a third gen fighter - but the -27 was a full decade later than the Tomcat.


RE: Copycats
By cmdrdredd on 1/29/2010 4:55:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You are kidding right? How about the Mig-15 vs P-80 and P-84? Or the F4 Phantom vs the Mig-21? The SU-27 is also about equal to the F-14 in terms of combat ability. Fact is, in the majority of US conflicts, Russia typically started out with the better fighter jet.


F-86 killed the Mig-15 quickly, the F4 had NO PROBLEM against the Mig-21 because of it's superior speed and weapon systems. Su-27 vs F-14??? Ever hear of the F-15? Nothing the Russians have ever come up with matched it, nothing close to the effectiveness of the A-10 either, or the multirole capability of the F-16, or service record of the B-52, or the capabilities of the F-22 and coming F-35.

Face it, Rssia has nothing for the F-22 and won't until the next gen is flying around. Their new fighter just now catches up to the F-15.


RE: Copycats
By HEIJIHUHU on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Copycats
By dflynchimp on 1/29/2010 9:31:06 PM , Rating: 3
you need to be IP banned


RE: Copycats
By albus on 1/29/2010 9:24:48 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Those were my initial thoughts as well; I can't help think of their Buran as another example...


I don't quite agree with you there, Brandon. There are only so many ways to achieve an objective. If someone has done it before, it makes sense to learn from them.

When USSR launched Sputnik, USA followed suit with a long thin rocket similar to the Russians. They sent a man to space wearing a space suit, the American astronaut wore something strikingly similar.

The Su-27 family was the first to introduce TVC. Did the F-22 copy it?


RE: Copycats
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/29/2010 9:52:26 AM , Rating: 2
I understand completely what you're saying and there is always overlap, but honestly:

https://bcsengage.wikispaces.com/file/view/buran_l...

I don't know if this was ever proven, but I remember reading that the Buran orbiter was developed using stolen plans of the Space Shuttle.


RE: Copycats
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:56:49 AM , Rating: 2
" I remember reading that the Buran orbiter was developed using stolen plans of the Space Shuttle"

Unquestionably the Soviets used information and data gleaned from the US to advance ?????, but there was also much that was totally new and innovative. No program as large as a lift vehicle operates without drawing heavily from everything that was done before it.


RE: Copycats
By jarman on 1/29/2010 9:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Su-27 family was the first to introduce TVC. Did the F-22 copy it?


That's incorrect. NASA had been using TVC on experimental aircraft many years before it showed up as a "feature" on Soviet aircraft.


RE: Copycats
By Samus on 1/29/2010 10:23:14 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, Nasa pioneered TVC applications for aviation as part of a DoD grant.


RE: Copycats
By albus on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Copycats
By iFX on 1/29/2010 9:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
Heh.

The retired F-14 is perfectly capable of dispatching the Su-35. Simulations have shown the F-15 is capable of engaging multiple Su-35s. Even the F-16 is capable of dispatching the Su-35.

There are NO modern aircraft capable of challenging the US Air Force or Navy's inventory in the air superiority role.


RE: Copycats
By Jeffk464 on 1/29/2010 5:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
I would say the eurofighter and rafeal are both capable of besting the F15 and the F18. On a strictly munuevering basis the f15 could also best the f18 in many manuevers due to its power to weight advantage. A lot of air superiority is just having a better picture of the air battle(AWACS), superior air to air missles, and superior numbers. In the first gulf war Iraqi pilots had f15's positioning themselves in for a kill as soon as they started to taxi out. Its pretty hard to fight against that.


RE: Copycats
By osalcido on 1/29/2010 11:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
This is not true.. the F-15 has already been bested by the Eurofighter in war games.


RE: Copycats
By vazili on 1/29/2010 9:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
and you're getting this from? I'd really like to know where you're pulling this from.

Furthermore, of course the newer Russian designs are going to run circles against the f-15, because it was introduced in the 1970's! If foreign powers can't beat a design that's 30+ years old, they need to rethink their strategies here.


RE: Copycats
By namechamps on 1/29/2010 9:31:50 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
When Indian Su-30 MKI went head to head against the F-15s, the F-15s got pwned.


Oh please. Only in a rigged game.

The conditions of that exercise didn't match reality at all.

The F-15 were prohibited from firing over the horizon, using AWACS, and using their more sophisticated battlefield management software (sharing threat data, etc).

Had that happened it would have been a very boring engagement when the F-15 released missiles over the horizon and destroyed entire Indian fleet without the Indians even being able to see their killers.


RE: Copycats
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 9:32:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Su-35 runs circle around any of the teen fighters.


The Su-35 is a great aircraft, but American fighters still have better missiles (AIM-120 owns the AA-12 and the AIM-9X owns the AA-11). So it really doesn't matter how well the Su-35 can maneuver. The ridiculous radar cross section of Russian fighters doesn't help them out either.

quote:
When Indian Su-30 MKI went head to head against the F-15s, the F-15s got pwned.


Yes, but the F-15s were severely restricted in what they were allowed to do. When the Indian Su-30s went to Red Flag and fought against full-up F-15Cs and F-16s, they were annihilated most of the time. Search for it on Google...there are quite a few articles about it.


RE: Copycats
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 9:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
The F-15, including those flying for foreign nations, has never been shot down in combat. Not once.

Enough said.