Interesting article comparing F/A-18 variants and Flankers

[Katmandu]

Just thought I'd share it as Wags now sports a F/A-18 avatar that's got to mean something ;)

 

I am already preparing for the battles ahead and this article was pretty good I thought:

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

[Exorcet]

They guy is biased. Just read his F-35 articles. Also, apparently any plane smaller than the F-15 is "low capability" including the EF-2000 and Rafale. Somehow.

[Eihort]

The other thing to remember is that it's written from an Australian POV, with their defense situation and force deployments in mind.

[Zomba]

Keep in mind that articles written by Dr Kopp are from a purely Australian defence perspective. Australia requires long range, high speed strike capability with minimal tanker support. We used to have a defence doctrine based around the fact that we were too far away from the Asian mainland to be worried about long range strike from potential enemies beyond the Indonesian archipelago while retaining that capability ourselves. But recently there has been a proliferation of Russian Flanker variants which changes the situation and also the decommissioning of our F-111s. So naturally there is a lot of focus comparing various aircraft to Flanker variants here.

 

Also his criticism on the F-35 is from an Australian defence requirement perspective. So bearing that in mind his definition of 1st tier is based on 4+ and 5th generation aircraft with emphasis on powerful radar, high cruising speed, very high agility, very long range and reduced radar signature to maintain a technological advantage over any other countries in our region. Of this there is only one operational 5th gen so far and a few 4+ gen. So aircraft like the F-16, the Rafale, the Super Hornet and also the F-35 are regarded as 2nd tier, because they are not designed to provide that capability. Whereas the F-15 is still regarded as high capability.

[Exorcet]

Also his criticism on the F-35 is from an Australian defence requirement perspective. So bearing that in mind his definition of 1st tier is based on 4+ and 5th generation aircraft with emphasis on powerful radar, high cruising speed, very high agility, very long range and reduced radar signature to maintain a technological advantage over any other countries in our region. Of this there is only one operational 5th gen so far and a few 4+ gen. So aircraft like the F-16, the Rafale, the Super Hornet and also the F-35 are regarded as 2nd tier, because they are not designed to provide that capability. Whereas the F-15 is still regarded as high capability.

 

That he writes from an Australian perspective is valid. However, I don't see how that lets him argue that the F-35's RCS would be a weakness vs the Su-35 (and he argues this somewhere). He also likes to claim that the F-35 will basically be a F-105 of stealth which is also ridiculous.

 

He mentions wing loading a bit too if I remember (ignoring that it's high only because the F-35 carries a lot of internal fuel) but ignores that the conformal fuel tanks and seventeen dozen missiles he pictures being on every Flanker in the sky isn't going to make their wing loading much better.

 

powerful radar, high cruising speed, very high agility, very long range and reduced radar signature to maintain a technological advantage over any other countries in our region.

Now besides "very long range" which could be debatable, the EF is going to flatten or at least match the F-15 in all those aspects.

 

 

Now, Australia doesn't have a modern F-111. That's true. But the Su-35 isn't going to run down F-35's and EF-2000's, or even the F/A-18E while blindfolded. Those three are a big threat to the Flanker, but Kopp just brushes them aside as being nearly trivial.

[Teknetinium]

:)

[marcos]

Keep in mind that articles written by Dr Kopp are from a purely Australian defence perspective.

So that explains the upside-down logic.

[Zomba]

Wing loading is a problem when the f-35 is the aggressor and the Flanker is the interceptor, which is what he was saying if you had cared to include that.

 

Long range isn't debatable unless Australia is about to sink some serious coin into tanker support now (Which there are no plans to afaik) or Australia is about to be magically teleported close to the Asian mainland. Which one is it?

 

If EF doesn't have the legs then all it can ever be is a defensive interceptor here. We can never assume that other nations in the regions will automatically give us use of their airfields during conflict.

 

This doesn't mean that the F-35 is a poor aircraft, it just means that it's not designed for what we require of it.

[BRooDJeRo]

People can say weird things when money and politics is involved. All this wargear being very awesome, however exists to be not run over by the other. Sometimes i wonder and how it will end or will we all live happily ever after and shoot sodacans with lasers floating in the outer atmosphere/geostationary orbit. Theres going large budgets into special secret stealth planes, but most experts around the world don't realy expect large airial battles for at least a long time. Not under the current worlds relations. At the moment theres an informationwar going on on the internets by nations as well as groups and single people. Financial markets and governments are continuesly under attack and even admit they're a bit overwhelmed. This costs nations all over the world more than the development of the best plane ever. Your 11 year old neighbour is potentialy your largest enemy now, not the F22 or the Tsar Bomba. The fun starts when this 11 year old opens up dams and darkens airports, purges financial databases.

 

Enjoy the next 15 years in which freedom of information will be under attack. That Mr. Flanker salesman would most likely be better off changing his interest and his billions in firewalldevelopment and a group of bearded oldschool hackers. But as usual they figure that out too late.

Edited February 17, 2013 by BRooDJeRo

[tflash]

Wing loading is a problem when the f-35 is the aggressor and the Flanker is the interceptor, which is what he was saying if you had cared to include that.

 

Long range isn't debatable unless Australia is about to sink some serious coin into tanker support now (Which there are no plans to afaik) or Australia is about to be magically teleported close to the Asian mainland. Which one is it?

 

If EF doesn't have the legs then all it can ever be is a defensive interceptor here. We can never assume that other nations in the regions will automatically give us use of their airfields during conflict.

 

This doesn't mean that the F-35 is a poor aircraft, it just means that it's not designed for what we require of it.

 

I understood the fifth KC-30A tanker has been delivered?

 

http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/277/Airbus-Military-delivers-final-A330-MRTT-to-Royal-Australian-Air-Force

[pepin1234]

The other thing to remember is that it's written from an Australian POV, with their defense situation and force deployments in mind.

 

Ho yeah, Australia is against US :megalol:

[FanBoy2006.01]

...Sometimes i wonder and how it will end or will we all live happily ever after and shoot sodacans with lasers floating in the outer atmosphere/geostationary orbit...

 

If we don't get solutions for our need for energy, rising dept and rapid population growth in some regions; I expect major conventional wars in the future.

 

If the UN is disbanded (Although that I don't expect to happen.) for whatever reason major "territory grabbing" wars are back on the table. And Australia is a prime candidate. It is large with a low population density, big mineral wealth and relatively isolated.

 

It seems that with the far reaching Flanker and Fullback specifically, Australia could face similar (But worse.) problems it had in the Second World War.

[Zomba]

Yep, only five tankers. Which Indonesia will unlikely allow within it's airspace during a conflict unless it suits their interests. All of which need barrier CAP.

[Exorcet]

Wing loading is a problem when the f-35 is the aggressor and the Flanker is the interceptor, which is what he was saying if you had cared to include that.

Not really since it's only vague relevant in determining maneuverability and like I said, if Kopp is right and Flankers will be carrying 6000+ lbs of CFT fuel and 12+ missiles all the time, their wing loading will be terrible and they'll have large drag penalties to boot.

 

It's not completely clear which plane will be more agile, but I think that Kopp fantasy of F-35's launching purely ineffective missiles at Su-35's that will return 99% Pk ultra long range missiles is, well a fantasy.

 

Long range isn't debatable unless Australia is about to sink some serious coin into tanker support now (Which there are no plans to afaik) or Australia is about to be magically teleported close to the Asian mainland. Which one is it?

The range of the EF vs the F-15 has nothing to do with Australia. I wasn't saying that the range requirement was debatable, but that the range performance between the EF and F-15 is debatable depending on which version and what they're carrying.

 

 

This doesn't mean that the F-35 is a poor aircraft, it just means that it's not designed for what we require of it.

And I think that nearly anything Kopp says is about as relevant to determining if that's true as a fashion magazine.

 

He loves citing missiles that may not even exist in any large number, he plays the Flanker's 30mm cannon as a major advantage in air combat, he loves talking about the IRBIS-E as if it is the best radar short of the AN/APG-77, but I don't think he comments much on how it's more likely to give away its position than AESA radars.

 

APA just comes off as a biased site with an agenda and a professional look.

[GGTharos]

Keep in mind that articles written by Dr Kopp are from a purely Australian defence perspective.

 

They're written from his own perspective. To be blunt, the RAAF is probably entirely capable of evaluating various aircraft and choosing the one best suited to their needs. At least, they're far more capable of it than Kopp.

 

So bearing that in mind his definition of 1st tier is based on 4+ and 5th generation aircraft with emphasis on powerful radar, high cruising speed, very high agility, very long range and reduced radar signature to maintain a technological advantage over any other countries in our region.

 

No air force includes agility, speed or range in the gen 5 description that I've seen, but I could be wrong. The emphasis is on high-speed data-links, AESA radar, and stealth.

 

Of this there is only one operational 5th gen so far and a few 4+ gen. So aircraft like the F-16, the Rafale, the Super Hornet and also the F-35 are regarded as 2nd tier, because they are not designed to provide that capability. Whereas the F-15 is still regarded as high capability.

 

The F-15 has pretty poor capability when it comes to facing off with IADS, as compared to an F-35. The F-35 might not be able to dash like an F-15, and that is a weakness, but then again the RAAF chose hornets generally speaking over the eagle ... maybe they don't need that dash capability? (Incidentally, the F-35 will dash better than a bug).

 

Wing loading is a problem when the f-35 is the aggressor and the Flanker is the interceptor, which is what he was saying if you had cared to include that.

 

But it's also completely irrelevant. It just doesn't matter ... who's this going to change for? The F-111? The F-15E? I doubt it.

 

Long range isn't debatable unless Australia is about to sink some serious coin into tanker support now (Which there are no plans to afaik) or Australia is about to be magically teleported close to the Asian mainland. Which one is it?

 

Again, not a very relevant question - an F-111 can barely get there and back on internal fuel, it would need tanker support to penetrate deeper, and even then it's limited by high attrition and the need to fly a low altitude profile.

 

If EF doesn't have the legs then all it can ever be is a defensive interceptor here. We can never assume that other nations in the regions will automatically give us use of their airfields during conflict.

 

This doesn't mean that the F-35 is a poor aircraft, it just means that it's not designed for what we require of it.

 

There's no aircraft designed for what you require of it it seems, except for a B-2 :)

[Zomba]

I really can't be bothered, you seem to be misunderstanding what I was getting at.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

If the UN is disbanded (Although that I don't expect to happen.) for whatever reason major "territory grabbing" wars are back on the table. And Australia is a prime candidate. It is large with a low population density, big mineral wealth and relatively isolated.

In 1999, NATO countries used its military force against Yugoslavia, a UN member country. UN security councel did not authorize it. None of NATO members delclared war. None of the NATO countries parlaments authorized their military forces. And the military was used to take the part of the teritory of a sovereign, UN member country. Which, BTW is against Helsinki agreement too! And the largest coal reerves in Europe are also there ...

 

Thus, UN really means nothing to powerfull countries. For all practical purposes, UN does not exist when it comes to use of military.

[FanBoy2006.01]

 

...Thus, UN really means nothing to powerfull countries. For all practical purposes, UN does not exist when it comes to use of military.

 

Point taken.

 

But I am revering here to a war where territory is taken and then claimed to be that of the victorious country's own.

[Exorcet]

I really can't be bothered, you seem to be misunderstanding what I was getting at.

 

I think you made it clear in your first post. I don't completely disagree with what you're saying, I'm just saying that Kopp does not look at those issues without a major bias.