[OFN?] Pentagon Approves production of F-35

[Satan-]

India, China, and Russia at the moment.

Nor would any country with enough money to field Su-30s.

The figures I cited came from an international test using actual pilots provided by each country and fought under realistic conditions.

With the Russians selling high end gear to anyone that will buy it and various other countries pirating technology (China's J-10, which incorporates a boat load of F-16 tech thanks to the Israelis, for example) and developing things internally, you had better believe there is a threat. Don't forget Europe. The French sold the Mirage to anybody that would buy it and they have been shopping the Rafale around. The Swedes also have a very solid and modern contender in the Gripen, which is making a lot of headway in poorer nations (including Africa.)

Americans have this bizzare misconception that American equipment dominates everything. It's like they completely forget WW2 (where American technology trailed far behind the Germans and even British,) and the early cold war (where the Soviets were kicking NATO's ass and doing it cheaply. MiG-15s over Korea? T-64s?) People only seem to remember the last 30 years or so where the US pulled ahead of everyone else in military tech because it had the deepest coffers.

They also fail to realize that most of the first world has all but caught up within the past decade. Leo 2A6 vs M1A2? Eurofighter vs F-22? Hell, the Swedes have submarines that have penetrated American carrier group defenses.

You also immortalize russian equipment (dont get me wrong I think they punch out some great technology/airframes). He said who had "trained pilots". The chinese and indian nations dont have an airforce with proven quality/training/tactics. Russia wont fight us plain and simple and who is to say their entire air community is trained to the level of the crews they send to the NATO air games.

Until those nations actually prove something they can be considered like Iraq which had mig-29's and 1 generation old euro equipement which mostly flew to Iran or got shot down. All of these planes were considered to be compatable with the F-15/F-14's that roamed CAP over IRAQ in Op. Des. Shield.

Now Russian aero-space is awsome and has been for a while but the U.S. has dominated every air space we've been in conflict over. The F-15 has an unbeaten air-to-air record through US & Isralie air wars because of great training upon an awsome airframe. It has never once been shot down in air-to-air combat (from everything i've read/seen) and all modern tests of the F-22 show that they're beating F-15s 5-12 at a time. Thats a solid track record with a good national AF record with combat experienced pilots backing it up.

 

[Doaln]

Awesome not awsome.

 

[Evil Light Bulb]

i went to see the F-22 raptors yesterday (Thurs) @ their first landing at a civilian field but all i saw were F-15s (that some people thought were Raptors) and my car was nearly destroyed

and the Raptors came in Friday le sigh. I might try and make it out there but I don't think I'll be ablke to make it :\ Friend might be grabbin' some nice pics though. She god a little mad at me for leaving the flightline to check and see if my car was a casualty Would have been if the wind wasn't as strong or in any other direction.

 

[dooster]

And... uh...
<$100,000 is nowhere near $2,200,000,000

That's what i'm tryin to say. we could have over a thousand flying fortresses for every b2.

either way, it's a stupid thing to debate about. it was just a funny idea i had.

 

[MC Hamster]

And Australia has destroyed the Kitty Hawk twice during war games

I felt this needed to be restated.

From a few years back now, but...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082993693.html?oneclick=true

Three of Australia's Collins class submarines "destroyed" two US Navy nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier in separate exercises off the Australian coast.

The commander of the navy's submarine group, Commodore Mike Deeks, said the submarines performed spectacularly well. In each exercise, the Collins subs, once dismissed as duds, matched state-of-the-art adversaries.

On a training course for submarine commanders from the Australian and US navies, HMAS Waller was competing with a US Los Angeles class, fast-attack submarine in three weeks of intensive simulated combat off the WA coast.

"At the end of the course, the Americans were wide-eyed," Commodore Deeks said. "They realised that another navy knows how to operate submarines and that the way the US Navy does it is a good way but not the only way. They went away very impressed."

Commodore Deeks said the most difficult task a submarine faced was to destroy an enemy sub and the exercises demonstrated that the Collins was a match for a modern nuclear submarine.

Note that the Collins class is a conventional (ie diesel-electric, not nuclear) sub - designed "in conjunction with" (ie: mostly by) Kockums (Swedish) and built mainly in Australia, and as the article doesn't quote say, it's killed LA class subs (still the main attack sub in the US fleet), penetrated a carrier group and sunk a modern carrier.


As Kura suggested - American military dominance is more due to money and numbers than any inherant superiority in equipment, personnel or training - assuming otherwise could (well.. if the right people were doing the assuming) could be rather dangerous for you guys.

 

[bartkusa]

What are air combat tactics like? My video-game experience is limited to the Ace Combat series on PS2. Fun, but I know it's nowhere realistic.

 

[Doaln]

I used to play Nighthawk F-117A Stealth Fighter 2.0 by Micro Prose. That game was the shit. It came with one of those monster manuals too.

 

[Kurayami]

He said who had "trained pilots". The chinese and indian nations dont have an airforce with proven quality/training/tactics.

India's pilots are supposed to be well trained. India is becoming a major military power, and most of the world doesn't even know it. They are one of the few nations operating carriers at this point.

China's pilots (as far as their more modern aircraft go, at any rate) are also supposed to be decent.

Russia had excellent pilots at the height of the cold war. Today it really depends on the unit. Some are lucky to get any flight time at all per month.

Russia wont fight us plain and simple

"The Germans would never go through Belgium twice. Quick, spend millions on the Maginot Line!"

There are no absolutes.

China is rapidly industrializing. There's a reason why the West is so interested in the middle east. You can bet that the Russians have a stake in that... and you can also bet that they will march through the Caucasses when it gets too hot to handle in the south.

Guess who those states will turn to? And guess who will have a reason to support them while China is bleeding the middle east dry?

There is still plenty of potential for conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation, especially when you consider how hot tensions run in some of the Baltic states jockying for positions in NATO and the EU.

Until those nations actually prove something they can be considered like Iraq which had mig-29's and 1 generation old euro equipement which mostly flew to Iran or got shot down.

Or not since the Iraqis did not have any logistics support and were using poorly maintained (and often domestically modified) equipment with poorly trained crews.

This applies to the ground war, too.
"OMFG TEH ABRAMS SI SO AEWSOEM IRAK PROVES IT"
80% of the Iraqi front line armored units were supplied with Iraqi-manufactured clones of the T-72M1 with sub-standard armor, sub-standard FCS, and sub-standard armament. I've heard that they actually had concrete in some sabot rounds. And ATGMs that would have allowed them to out-distance an Abrams while affording a good chance to at least immobilize it? Forget it.

And that doesn't even touch on the huge numbers of T-55s and Chinese T-55 clones, some of which had concrete hanging off them as armor.

It was no different in the air. Had the Iraqis fielded well trained pilots in properly maintained aircraft with properly maintained weapon systems and full EW support, it would have been a bit different.

All of these planes were considered to be compatable with the F-15/F-14's that roamed CAP over IRAQ in Op. Des. Shield.

And they were when properly used. Russian L/MRMs outrange the AIM-120. Russian SRMs are considerably more advanced than anything the US currently fields (AIM-9X and Python 4 (which the US doesn't actually use) aside.)

Furthermore, the Iraqi air force did get at least one confirmed air kill.

Now Russian aero-space is awsome and has been for a while but the U.S. has dominated every air space we've been in conflict over.

Err...
Korea was not a place you wanted to be as an American pilot. MiG alley? There's a reason it was famous.

Vietnam was an absolute mess in the air when it first started. The embarassing loss rate of American pilots is why the Navy started Top Gun.

And let's not even start with WW2. The US ultimately attained air superiority only because of numbers, not because of an advantage.

So basically what you're saying is that the US has done really well against third world nations with absolutely zero logistics support and, assuming they even had an air force, aircraft decades out of date.

People don't seem to understand that there has been only a single truly modern conflict since WW2, and that was the Falklands War. Argentina was not even very well equipped (but most of their equipment was reasonably modern,) and they gave the British some major bloody noses.

It has never once been shot down in air-to-air combat (from everything i've read/seen)

Which can be said about quite a few aircraft.

Once again, 95% of the F-15's combat sorties were against third world nations. That is not exactly a test of an aircraft's full ability.

 

[Kurayami]

What are air combat tactics like?

You stare at your radar output.
You find a blip, which is generally helpfully identified by a computer.
You lock up the target.
You shoot a missile.

90% of modern air combat is BVR and has been for quite some time, which is why NATO never really cared much that the Soviets had an advantage in knife fights.

This is why a lot of people protest the F-14's retirement. It had incredibly powerful radar that outranged most threats and carried the AIM-54, which could hit from absurd distances. Generally, the Soviets wouldn't have even known they were being locked up until it was too late. It was perfect for fleet defense.

Of course, there are some questions about how effective the AIM-54 would have actually been in combat. A lot of data suggests that it might have been a very expensive firework.

 

[HeLLrAiSr]

So the JSF is disadvantaged when it comes to radar range? Seems like it would have newer technology in all aspects.

 

[Kurayami]

So the JSF is disadvantaged when it comes to radar range? Seems like it would have newer technology in all aspects.

I haven't seen information published about that specifically, but it sounds like it.

On the other hand, the F-35 can basically directly inferface with other aircraft, AWACS, and ground assets. Anything one can see, all can see. It also more or less flies itself. The pilot is more there for filtering and interpreting information than actually flying. Most F-15 and F-16 pilots found that they could not fly the F-35 sim in manual mode and still have the ability to parse all of the information it throws in your face. It also has a lot of voice activated featues. So does the Eurofighter.

 

[Satan-]

Again kura i'm not trying to downplay their equipment but you always seem to want to consitantly piss on US/western airpower though by pointing out all we've fought is 3rd world nations. Well point out what the all mighty SU-35 has accomplished other than being a paper tiger? The F-15 has an impeccable track record proven in combat (vs shit opponents or not) and the test pilots in the F22vsF15 are just flabbergasted at the F22's ability to take on 4-6 F15s with combat experienced pilots at the same time and come out victorious every time.

All your points about korea, nam, WWII are fine but the fact still remains that the US owned the skys. I mean shit in nam we didnt even use the full potential of our airpower 99% of the time and in the 2 Linebacker operations they came to the table because they felt it in the north.

Also you dont consider the Isralie wars a true modern conflict? They proved that western tactics and equipment works just fine IMO.

 

[Kurayami]

Again kura i'm not trying to downplay their equipment but you always seem to want to consitantly piss on US/western airpower though by pointing out all we've fought is 3rd world nations.

Or I'm simply objective and am not blindly patriotic.

Well point out what the all mighty SU-35 has accomplished other than being a paper tiger?

Where did I say anything about the Su-35?

Also you dont consider the Isralie wars a true modern conflict? They proved that western tactics and equipment works just fine IMO.

Not really. The Israelis went up largely against poorly equipped nations (and did it with western backing.)

There has not been a true conflict between first world nations since WW2.

 

[sekdar]

Again kura i'm not trying to downplay their equipment but you always seem to want to consitantly piss on US/western airpower though by pointing out all we've fought is 3rd world nations.

it's not so much "pissing on" so much as it is trying to point out dangerous complacency.

 

[Zengei]

You stare at your radar output.
You find a blip, which is generally helpfully identified by a computer.
You lock up the target.
You shoot a missile.

90% of modern air combat is BVR and has been for quite some time, which is why NATO never really cared much that the Soviets had an advantage in knife fights.

This is why a lot of people protest the F-14's retirement. It had incredibly powerful radar that outranged most threats and carried the AIM-54, which could hit from absurd distances. Generally, the Soviets wouldn't have even known they were being locked up until it was too late. It was perfect for fleet defense.

Of course, there are some questions about how effective the AIM-54 would have actually been in combat. A lot of data suggests that it might have been a very expensive firework.

I've always been curious to what exactly is happening with the weapons system and radar when it is "locked on." And how do other aircraft detect when they are being "locked on" to?

 

[Kurayami]

I've always been curious to what exactly is happening with the weapons system and radar when it is "locked on."

Generally, the pilot slews the radar to a target. When the pilot finds a target, he uses a little hat switch to bracket it in on the radar display and locks it up. Most longer range western missiles are fire and forget (the missile tracks the target on the way in.) The Russian designs have greater range, but require the plane to maintain radar lock until the missile is on target.

And how do other aircraft detect when they are being "locked on" to?

Various pieces of equipment interpret the radar waves hitting the aircraft. When something has been locked, there's generally a constant pulse of them and they're pretty strong. Most American aircraft have the RWR which tells the pilot about radar threats (what it thinks they are, whether they're a threat, etc.) When they're locked up, it makes very annoying noises. It can also detect launches based upon changes in the radar emissions.

IR missiles are undetectable since they passively track their targets. That's why you always see planes spamming flares as they egress. Generally, you won't notice one until it's too late unless you happen to see the launch.

 

[Error|550]

C-span had it on a ticker thing on the bottom of the screen.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

That's going to have to be one tough motherf*cking airplane to replace *both* the A10 and the F16 ...

 

[Error|550]

the A10 was brought into service before the first F117 prototype was flown. it was designed for a close air support role and is covered in armor plating (not RAM). it also features two exposed turbofan (read: not stealthy) engines.

i think it's safe to say the A10 is not a stealth aircraft.

I've had them fly within a half mile of me back when I was still in uniform and unless you're deaf and blind you'll never miss them ...

 

[Kurayami]

I've had them fly within a half mile of me back when I was still in uniform and unless you're deaf and blind you'll never miss them ...

Yeah, A-10s are not hard to hear. They used to fly overhead all of the time. I still hear them out here sometimes at night.

 

[CombatWombat]

It was no different in the air. Had the Iraqis fielded well trained pilots in properly maintained aircraft with properly maintained weapon systems and full EW support, it would have been a bit different.

Do you really think China, India, et-all can get all of this together and use it in a coordinated manner? Our ridiculous military budget allows constant practice for these sorts of things while other nations have issues with that whole FOOD thing.

Vietnam was an absolute mess in the air when it first started. The embarassing loss rate of American pilots is why the Navy started Top Gun.

Pure politics. Yeah, lets take away the F4's BVR advantage and also NOT give it a gun. Brilliant. Not that the Aim-7 was even a remotely accurate, but if allowed to stay BVR the F4's could spam them all day long.

Once again, 95% of the F-15's combat sorties were against third world nations. That is not exactly a test of an aircraft's full ability.

Have any modern Russian jets actually been tested to their 'full ability'?

Generally, the pilot slews the radar to a target. When the pilot finds a target, he uses a little hat switch to bracket it in on the radar display and locks it up. Most longer range western missiles are fire and forget (the missile tracks the target on the way in.) The Russian designs have greater range, but require the plane to maintain radar lock until the missile is on target.

To be fair the western 'longer range' missiles are not completely fire and forget. The radar in the nose of the Aim-120 is much smaller than that of the launching F16 (or whatever) so the aircraft still needs to guide it until the missile can finally lock onto the target itself and go terminal. Doesnt really prevent having multiple missiles in the air at once though.