"Opposition defends Joint Strike Fighter over simulated dogfights"

[Esac_mirmidon]

The capabilities of the F-35 against modern " simulated " russian fighters are quite on topic, IMHO. Discussing the Su-35 or other russian models vs F-35 in combat a think is on topic enough.

 

If we could read more accurated docs about this simulated dogfights of the F-35 maybe the topic do not diverge so.

[Pilotasso]

I am not sure that Russia is "steps behind" Europe in technology? Not in aerodynamics, for one thing, not in Thrust vectoring, for another. Not in SAM technology, not in small arms technology, ...

 

Mig-31 PESA is older than Rafale PESA. Russian anti-shipping missile technology is a serious threat.

 

Everyone is 10 years+ behind on US on stealth, in particular the RAM coating. US and Europe have a lead in lean manufacturing, Europe is world known for CAD systems in aeronautics. Some European companies are top-end avionics producers, and feed some core display technologies to e.g. F-35 program.

 

Ignoring or dismissing Russian military technology is childish and is definitely NOT something NATO and USAF are into, quite on the contrary. This does not mean that there are no realities:

 

Currently, to everyone's surprise in the European theatre it are European nations that field the most advanced fighters, because USAF consolidates its newest gear in PACAF and USAFE gear is ageing. 400+ Typhoons are on their way. Russia has indeed only started to modernize its fleet, so it will take a while before it is really a match to what Europe is lining up at its borders.

 

But the real competition is in Asia nowadays, so ...

 

slight misconceptions.

 

First F-35 is also an european project.

 

Secondly, theres the myth russia is more advanced in thrust vectoring, the US posesses the technology and demonstrated it and Europe is flat out not interested in thrust vectoring for their native fighters, though it certainly listed that technology as a possible upgrade.

 

Thirdly, thrust vectoring is expensive and maintenace intensive and reduces airframe lives alot (take in consideration what a mean airfreme life is in russia and europe :D)

 

"forthly" :D the rest of the world has yet to show a missile comparable to the meteor in any form or another.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Groove
Deleted OT

[tflash]

He, did we find this funny article already? http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030907-1.html

 

From the same kind of "Aussie" underground sources. Reliable? Well, I guess if you keep it upside down, Australia is at the other end of the globe, no?

[GGTharos]

It's fun comparing JSF to some fictional flanker, isn't it?

It's also fun to ignore those rather frightening AESA capabilities ... ;)

It's fun to ignore radar physics also (rear detection at 240km or whatever it was - heh ... )

It's fun to ignore even more radar physics (optimistic detection ranges, especially for missiles)

Edited September 24, 2008 by GGTharos

[mikoyan]

"Everyone is 10 years+ behind on US on stealth, in particular the RAM coating.

Physics and application, actually ... RAM coating is used at a minimum on F-22's and F-35's as it is very maintenance intensive.

Quote:

But the real competition is in Asia nowadays, so ...

In India, and only because of the 30MKI. Nowhere else."

 

It is not only the su-30 mki, they have several research programs behind it, much of that avionics and systems, are being implemented on their fighters, not only the su-30mki. What about the mig upgrades, their missile programs, the lca jet ?, You also forgot the Indonesian flankers. The chinese flankers and j-fighter series, why do you think that japan wants the f-22?

[Weta43]

Ah Pilotasso ...

Why do I get the feeling that if someone said the Russians make good vodka, you'd say the Americans invented it & make it better (& ask why anyone would want to drink Vodka anyway :-)

[Pilotasso]

Russia makes best vodka...even their planes like it. :D I try see things the way they are politics aside. If you could read some of the threads over at F-16.net you wouldnt think the way you do about me in here.

 

I see as much nonsense on the US side there as Russias here. Theres 2 guys over there that think the AMRAAM motor burn time would enable it to kill the F-22 from the rear at 40+km while supercruising. That F-35 is the best plane, because its more "advanced" (not the same thing as capability just as the F-16 was to the F-15 30 years ago) on top of the fact no one knows its specs yet, and the Eurofighter is obsolete and inferior to the superhornet in every way...yada yada yada...

 

Then they read articles spewing crap for economic lobies and take that as granted...

 

I am not a sheep and will follow comon sense, and my comon sense says money talks and bul$h33t walks in the aviation world as well as in real life. Comparing progress in russia to that in the US is like comparing night and day.

 

US R&D has money to for different companies develop 2 or more planes and choose 1. Russia develops 1 plane (better yet: recycles the same 30 year old planes) in a tin can shed and hammers it down untill it stays. Then they bring it out with a new paint job and say "oK heres the most advanced plane on earth", so they want us to believe and many do.

 

We had pilots from my country who went to russia to learn to fly Ka-32 from their manufactoring facilities located at an airstrip and the russians forbided them to take photos. Not because it was secret but because acording to descriptions I heard the place looked like a junk yard and technitians were reduced to rudimentary tools to work. Not a single computer in sight, and little more than a wodden hammer and half a wrench to work with.

 

I also will not take seriously that russian planes can compete with those of the west in terms of avionics and missiles for many reasons.

 

-That russia resumes projects that have been delayed 20 years.

-its missiles are SARH and stored for 20+ years.

-That it need to import electronics from international market because they cant provide their own that had to be replaced for resulting obsolescense in the meantime.

-Because the planes exported to india for example are better than any russian variants for the same reason pointed out above.

-Because its hard too keep those systems confidential when there are 10 supplier countries who know them inside out.

-Because when it comes down to actual combat they are reduced to rockets and iron bombs.

-Because Russians dosctrine of their employment is naieeve.

-because half of russias military aviation assets have already been compromised by inteligence years ago.

-Because the west has ELINT for the above and has these assets continously spread out in the globe.

 

 

People still wowed by arishow stunts and then politicians are hard pressed to make their stand internaly and externaly and buy western hardware that in all likelyhood be overkill for their possible opposition.

 

Japan might get F-22 but the J-10, J-11, JF-17 and north Koreas Mig-21's and 23's and the handfull of 29's are probabaly hugely lacking compared to the raptor and I still think that the F-15 only needs to be replaced for old age rather than the capability that it still holds over those types.

 

Another reason why japan wants a new type might not have to do with the fighter itself alone but rather the weapons they want. The AIM-7 Sparrow they are limited to is not usable in the F-22, nor the F-35 for that matter. If they go Eurofighter they can go meteor wich is even better. ;)

Edited September 25, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Bimbac]

Pilotasso,

 

believe me when I say that I almost never reply to something similar to what you have posted here, but this time I really couldn't help myself.

 

With all due respect, let me ask you a question: Are you serving in the Air Force? Do you have any internal and reliable intel about recent Russian Air Force and its capabilities?

 

As people said here before, it's very shortsighted to underestimate Russian hardware. It may be of older technology, but it works. Indeed, you are right when you talk about age of their equipment but you make a huge mistake thinking that when something is of older technology, it automatically means it's bad or inefficient compared to current hardware. Actually, Alamo missile family is still considered a very serious threat to any contemporary fighter aircraft. Speaking of which, how many of your praised Meteor "state-of-the-art" missiles are in active service in Europe? And stealth, basically, makes an aircraft harder to detect and track, but doesn't make it invisible!

 

As I stated many times before on this forum, it's a pilot what makes a difference in combat. A well trained MiG-21 pilot using good tactics would make a bad day for an average guy in Typhoon, Rafale or whatever airplane you like.

 

Also, technology is about money and nothing else. PESA radar certainly lacks some capabilities of the AESA array, but it's much cheaper and easier to produce and maintain. Let yourself answer this questions: How many F-22s or Typhoons are currently fully combat capable? And how many Russian Flankers?

 

If you like to discuss this further, be my guest.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Bimbac

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It's fun comparing JSF to some fictional flanker, isn't it?

What fictional Flanker?

 

Reminder: SAM = Stelath STOP ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Ignoring or denying the great capabilities of the F-35 or F-22 is a great mistake, but in the same caliber of ignoring or denying the great grow of russian aerospace technology.

This is one of the best statements on this thread!!

 

Best regards,

[RedTiger]

Pilotasso,

 

believe me when I say that I almost never reply to something similar to what you have posted here, but this time I really couldn't help myself.

 

With all due respect, let me ask you a question: Are you serving in the Air Force? Do you have any internal and reliable intel about recent Russian Air Force and its capabilities?

 

As people said here before, it's very shortsighted to underestimate Russian hardware. It may be of older technology, but it works. Indeed, you are right when you talk about age of their equipment but you make a huge mistake thinking that when something is of older technology, it automatically means it's bad or inefficient compared to current hardware. Actually, Alamo missile family is still considered a very serious threat to any contemporary fighter aircraft. Speaking of which, how many of your praised Meteor "state-of-the-art" missiles are in active service in Europe? And stealth, basically, makes an aircraft harder to detect and track, but doesn't make it invisible!

 

As I stated many times before on this forum, it's a pilot what makes a difference in combat. A well trained MiG-21 pilot using good tactics would make a bad day for an average guy in Typhoon, Rafale or whatever airplane you like.

 

Also, technology is about money and nothing else. PESA radar certainly lacks some capabilities of the AESA array, but it's much cheaper and easier to produce and maintain. Let yourself answer this questions: How many F-22s or Typhoons are currently fully combat capable? And how many Russian Flankers?

 

If you like to discuss this further, be my guest.

 

If I may butt in here, the thing is what you say makes sense if we're talking about 4th (or 4.5, whatever does it for you) aircraft.

 

It is getting to the point now where this arguement doesn't hold any water. How much more advanced does technology need to be before people stop fooling themselves that it doesn't matter? Like I said before, are we going to have X-wings and TIE Fighters and STILL be pretending that all that is really needed is a MiG-21, an ace pilot, and some good ol' fightin spirit?

 

It has gotten to the point where its like arguing that enough soldiers armed with spears can beat a line of musket infantry all the while completely ignoring the fact that the musket infantry has moved on and now is using machine guns and artillery.

 

I don't think its about underestimation of Russian hardware, no, I think its about over-estimation of some very intangible things that God help us, we never have to put to the test. Yeah, its the man, not the crate. We get it. We can't quantify and qualify each and every man, so we're left with the crate. And, to be perfectly honest, history has shown that if an airforce can afford superior "crates" it also tends to have well trained men. Funny thing is, all this can be totally dashed by politics and rules of engagement.

 

As for how many F-22s are in service? Enough to be a threat, thats for sure.

 

I have no doubt that Russia has some very advanced things in development, its just the line production capability that I wonder about.

Edited September 25, 2008 by RedTiger

[Pilotasso]

Pilotasso,

 

believe me when I say that I almost never reply to something similar to what you have posted here, but this time I really couldn't help myself.

 

With all due respect, let me ask you a question: Are you serving in the Air Force? Do you have any internal and reliable intel about recent Russian Air Force and its capabilities?

 

As people said here before, it's very shortsighted to underestimate Russian hardware. It may be of older technology, but it works. Indeed, you are right when you talk about age of their equipment but you make a huge mistake thinking that when something is of older technology, it automatically means it's bad or inefficient compared to current hardware. Actually, Alamo missile family is still considered a very serious threat to any contemporary fighter aircraft. Speaking of which, how many of your praised Meteor "state-of-the-art" missiles are in active service in Europe? And stealth, basically, makes an aircraft harder to detect and track, but doesn't make it invisible!

 

As I stated many times before on this forum, it's a pilot what makes a difference in combat. A well trained MiG-21 pilot using good tactics would make a bad day for an average guy in Typhoon, Rafale or whatever airplane you like.

 

Also, technology is about money and nothing else. PESA radar certainly lacks some capabilities of the AESA array, but it's much cheaper and easier to produce and maintain. Let yourself answer this questions: How many F-22s or Typhoons are currently fully combat capable? And how many Russian Flankers?

 

If you like to discuss this further, be my guest.

 

You make not 1 question but several of them. ;) FYI, because you might have missed it, I work at aircraft maintenance industry and have a brother as an f-16 pilot. Therefore I have lots of sources for info. The Ka-32 story for example. I had them here next to me.

 

About the Alamos even the ED staff confessed they had info that they are all stored from many years. From there you can acess a certain risk of having missiles come off the rail as dud's. They are OLD by all standards.

 

I do not understimate russian hardware, in another thread I talked about info I got from the R-73 that I think is a better WVR missile than the AIM-9L/M (though not because of the range as often is mentioned). Im going to save you the details of that as the discussion didnt go far.

 

About Eurofighter, they are proliferating on every country that belongs to the consortion in case you didnt notice and in greater numbers than the hand full of "MLU" russian Su-27SM.

So is the F-22 wich I believe has already passed the 100 number.

 

the basic Su-27S/P verions are by now very old planes comparable to the F-15A armed with sparrows back in 1980's.

 

As for the Su-MKI is a great plane, I wont kid myself there, but I recall you of its main missile, the alamo. I also have serious doubts about the durability of their arframe lives with the TVC engines (they would still be almost as good without them).

 

Stelth makes the aircraft difficult to detect, but it was never meant to be invisible anyway, further more what can you do after you realize your being fired upon without have previously known there was someone else in the sky? Thats its purpose, first shot first kill is a fundamental law in air combat. There will be no TVC or IRST thats going to compensate for that.

 

the Rafale pilot would have to be utterly incompetent to let himelf be shot by Mig-21. usualy mig operators fly an average of 30 hours pe year, in the west thats 10 times more than that. Your more likely to find 1000 dollars on the floor than seeing a Mig-21 shoot down a Rafale. It could happen but only after the mig have tried (and failed?) many times.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Pilotasso

[tflash]

BTW did we have a liink to the Sprey/Wheeler article already in this thread? If not, here's a reprint:

 

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4370&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm

 

Rebuttal by Lockheed-Martin:

 

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=83502215-e0ee-4f90-a795-62ba6b34e212

 

In the mean time, a new requirement by the Dutch, that their F-16 successor should have the capability to act alone in the war zone from day one of the conflict, adds to the chances of F-35 over its non-stealthy competitors:

 

http://www.nrc.nl/economie/article1997545.ece/Nieuwe_eisen_opvolger_F-16_gunstig_voor_JSF

[Vekkinho]

OK let's look at the figures:

 

Annual military budget of USA is 700 billion US$!

 

Russian - 70 billion

 

So no point in discussing PESA, AESA, Stealth and quantities of these technologies!

[Esac_mirmidon]

In fact the base "Defense " budget are $481.4 billion dollars. And only a part of it are dedicated to the Air Force. ( Of course the same for Russia, UE, and the rest of the world)

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/defense.html

[Bimbac]

You make not 1 question but several of them. ;) FYI, because you might have missed it, I work at aircraft maintenance industry and have a brother as an f-16 pilot. Therefore I have lots of sources for info. The Ka-32 story for example. I had them here next to me.

 

About the Alamos even the ED staff confessed they had info that they are all stored from many years. From there you can acess a certain risk of having missiles come off the rail as dud's. They are OLD by all standards.

 

I do not understimate russian hardware, in another thread I talked about info I got from the R-73 that I think is a better WVR missile than the AIM-9L/M (though not because of the range as often is mentioned). Im going to save you the details of that as the discussion didnt go far.

 

About Eurofighter, they are proliferating on every country that belongs to the consortion in case you didnt notice and in greater numbers than the hand full of "MLU" russian Su-27SM.

So is the F-22 wich I believe has already passed the 100 number.

 

the basic Su-27S/P verions are by now very old planes comparable to the F-15A armed with sparrows back in 1980's.

 

As for the Su-MKI is a great plane, I wont kid myself there, but I recall you of its main missile, the alamo. I also have serious doubts about the durability of their arframe lives with the TVC engines (they would still be almost as good without them).

 

Stelth makes the aircraft difficult to detect, but it was never meant to be invisible anyway, further more what can you do after you realize your being fired upon without have previously known there was someone else in the sky? Thats its purpose, first shot first kill is a fundamental law in air combat. There will be no TVC or IRST thats going to compensate for that.

 

the Rafale pilot would have to be utterly incompetent to let himelf be shot by Mig-21. usualy mig operators fly an average of 30 hours pe year, in the west thats 10 times more than that. Your more likely to find 1000 dollars on the floor than seeing a Mig-21 shoot down a Rafale. It could happen but only after the mig have tried (and failed?) many times.

 

Hello,

 

thanks for the reply. First of all, let me apologize for my fuse going off a bit. :doh:

 

Since we are doing the same business, I assume you are a professional, so let's get the obvious stuff out of the way.

 

Concerning the age of the ammunition, I can tell you that some AIM-9M-9 Sidewinder missiles (refurbished from older versions) we are using are almost 20 (twenty!) years old, and they still perform perfectly (live fires - not one gone a dud). Alamo missiles are indeed old by technology and standards, but definitely not by capabilities. That exactly was my point.

 

When I was mentioning numbers of F-22s and Typhoons against Flankers, I had in mind the actual COMBAT READINESS :), meaning how many of them are currently capable of performing missions (including trained pilots, of course). Absolute numbers don't matter at all.

 

About TVC, I seriously doubt that any aircraft manufacturer would do his business with the TVC capable aircraft, if the TVC would significantly decay the airframe. There are indeed some limitations, but the FBW system could easily handle them and take over the controls if the aircraft was put to dangerous situation. I guess you will agree with me on this.

 

Since your brother is a fighter pilot, please ask him if he ever performed some dissimilar air combat against a fighter like Gripen or MiG. My point is that having superior airplane capabilities doesn't actually mean winning every fight you get yourself into. In WVR fight, for example, there is a rule of thumb: Lose sight, lost the fight. And Gripen, in particular, is very hard to spot by Mark I Eyeball, trust me. And your radar doesn't lock it instantly, so you have to rely on your senses. Ask Hungarians about their experience.

 

We could spend an entire week arguing about our opinions, but please, believe me when I say that having a cutting edge aircraft and weapons makes no difference at all if you don't have pilots that can really use them to their advantage. And for that matter, Russians know their own capabilities and are proficient at using them. That's what makes them dangerous adversaries.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Hi, Bimbac ¡¡¡

 

Nice to read you again, thanks for the quality and the intense of your replies. This gonna be very interesting.

[mvsgas]

Can we just agree that we would not know until we can compare actual performance from operational aircraft instead of prototype aircraft like the F-35 and SU-35 are? The f-35 ia still in slow production rate prototypes and we have no idea of knowing what the finall product might be. How many SU-35 are out there? One, Two? So many thing can change on this aircraft by the time they become operational, Hell the projects might get cancel because of cost overruns, etc. Beside SU-35, AFAIK, would be better compare to F-22, or is the SU-35 suppoose to be a multyporpouse/ multyservice jack of all traits aircraft (meaning is not the best at anithing, but could potentialy do any job required good enought as supposely the F-35 is goin to be) Also , AFIAK there are some Russian technology in the F-35, not sure all of them but I belive the exhaust design on the F-35B is license fromt the YAk-141 designed, if not they two aircraft exhaust are painfully similar, so in my opinion you could not say one designd ideas is better that the other since they get idea from each other. Anyway, jsut my 2 cents.

Edited September 25, 2008 by mvsgas

[Bimbac]

Hi, Bimbac ¡¡¡

 

Nice to read you again, thanks for the quality and the intense of your replies. This gonna be very interesting.

 

Thank you very much. Just trying to be precise and meaningful. If I did so, it did the purpose. :thumbup:

 

Can we just agree that we would not know until we can compare actual performance from operational aircraft instead of prototype aircraft like the F-35 and SU-35 are? The f-35 ia still in slow production rate prototypes and we have no idea of knowing what the finall product might be. How many SU-35 are out there? One, Two? So many thing can change on this aircraft by the time they become operational, Hell the projects might get cancel because of cost overruns, etc. Beside SU-35, AFAIK, would be better compare to F-22, or is the SU-35 suppoose to be a multyporpouse/ multyservice jack of all traits aircraft (meaning is not the best at anithing, but could potentialy do any job required good enought as supposely the F-35 is goin to be) Also , AFIAK there are some Russian technology in the F-35, not sure all of them but I belive the exhaust design on the F-35B is license fromt the YAk-141 designed, if not they two aircraft exhaust are painfully similar. Anyway, jsut my 2 cents.

 

Hi, you are comparing wrong planes. Su-35 is a 4++ generation aircraft, meant to fill the gap between current Russian Air Force workhorses like Su-27/30 and the PAK-FA (true 5th generation), which unfortunately didn't even make it into prototype stage yet.

 

You are right about Russian technology in F-35B, like the new lift-fan intake and the swiveling nozzle. I believe the pilot escape system including automatic ejection was developed with Russian know-how. There could be more, but I have no info about it.

 

Best regards! :thumbup:

[mvsgas]

Hi, you are comparing wrong planes. Su-35 is a 4++ generation aircraft, meant to fill the gap between current Russian Air Force workhorses like Su-27/30 and the PAK-FA (true 5th generation), which unfortunately didn't even make it into prototype stage yet.

:thumbup:

Sorry, I am trying not compare them at all, I have not info on ether aircraft and there is only one or two of them in existance that I know of. Just seems some people keep refering to the SU-35 or comparign it to F-35, I am probably wrong, sorry this thread grew very quickly, hard to follow.

[rogue_blade]

why do so many Western and European users of this board support the Russian air force as if their life depended on it. I cant help but view you as band wagon/fad jumpers

[Esac_mirmidon]

And why the other side of the board write about russian air force like a crap iron ton? (please i am not trying to offend anyone XD)

[Bimbac]

My thoughts exactly, sir!

 

It's not like I love Russians, not at all. I merely respect them, the same way as anybody else in the world.

[Groove]

The problem is that most people have their favourite plane / side. So they aren't objective even when facts speak against their favourite plane(s). This goes for both side: western / russian planes. Even they know their particular plane is inferior to the counterpart they don't want admit that.

 

If you look into official reports, both western and or russian side, most of them are biased towards your own side. The "real" reports are classified usually, ever wondered why ? :)

[mvsgas]

I just started to read this, seems interesting enough

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab1c3536a-8d96-481f-aef5-d6428ec6f9ca

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3adf52fa3d-9705-4e2b-ae47-9c9f0ab4011c

Edited September 26, 2008 by mvsgas