It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: nwtrucker
Myth? Then rather than saying so, please elaborate. Misunderstanding? Really? Are you suggesting your 4th Gen EF has the systems and capabilities of the F-35? If there was 'no technology gap', you wouldn't have bought the F-35s as the EF would obviously be able to fill the F-35's roll on it's own.
1. You said the Typhoon had been bettered by Indian SUs. That's a myth.
2. You said the UK purchased F35 because the Typhoon was lower tech. That's simply not the case. The UK has a mix of types and the purchase was purchased to complete that mix. Typhoons (for example) are not naval. The gap is not technology, it's use.
Re myth? No elaboration.
Technology gap? None is your response.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker
ukdefencejournal.org.uk...
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr
You do realize that when the f22 shoots its weapons the Su-xx's are taking evasive action for several minutes or they will be dying.
The f22 is already headed home and is way out of range to be attacked.
The Air Force is not sending 5 lone f22's against 30 soviet jets. They might send 5 but would have several f15's or whatever type to cover the returning birds.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrptr
So the F-22s only kills half the Su-30s before they head home to rearm.
Yup the USA is falling into the same trap as Germany did.
In either scenario, or perhaps both, depending on the political decisions, no nation in the current 'competition' is able to match or even stay close.
The U.K. is likely 'all in' on the EF which was waxed by much improved pilots in SUs by India.
There are some serious misconceptions out there about how air combat training is conducted so I've decided to write a post about how it really happens. Everybody seems to want to cite a particular exercise as proof of their point, when in reality, they have no contextual reference for these results they are referencing.
(snip)
By now it should becoming clear why one side or the other in these exercises often has a larger kill:loss ratio than the other. Red air is supposed to die even if there are more capable aircraft on the red side. This is how many of the 'surprising' results occur in large exercises the threat level is tailored to the training needs of the blue air so they can learn from their mistakes in the debrief.
(snip)
Detailed assessments that would normally take place to validate shots can't/won't happen in an exercise like this, therefore the overall results are not really accurate. However, as you say, they most certainly will debrief to get some results regardless of the potential inaccuracies. How valid the results are depends on how the exercise was planned.
(snip)
I'm only saying that without details, all of this, "my airplane kicked your airplane's butt" is entertaining, but silly. One valuable part of the exercise is simply watching how the other side operates, what kind of tactics they use (they may have been "modified" along with the weapons), how they talk on the radio, etc. Obviously, the technology represented by the Su-30s is of great interest to the USAF also.
www.defencetalk.com...
Russian falls further behind in fighter development and seems relegated to tech demonstrator platforms that go nowhere further.
Apparently, the U.K. has followed suit with Russia and concentrated on missiles systems. Far cheaper than aircraft, at a guess. On the surface of it, the U.S. has 'lagged' in missile development?? OR is the U.S. concentrating on directed energy development which could make the missile technology a thing of the past?
originally posted by: BASSPLYR
We have a radar system thats nearly impossible to not get spotted by.
Perhaps Russia does. All I see is Russian hype. Their revenues seem hinged on the SUs and the PAK-FA draining it as fast as it comes in.
Actual development takes money, boat loads of it. As does further development and advance technologies. I have to think that the lack of the income gives the U.S. a dominant position, again and still.
Seems everyone is a full generation behind in both engines and avionics, as well as directed energy weapons.
As far as WVR, eye ball to eye ball, I agree. Nothing does that better than the Raptor.
They do not have big corporations with their high salaried top big wiggs drawing off so much money.
One f22 and gun against remaining ten SU-XX, guess who's breaking and running first?
the EF seems a last gasp effort to stay in the cutting edge market as is the Raffy and sales are
Just look at the Royal Navy and our Type 45 destroyers. Our Destroyers far surpass the USA at the moment while the USA has been dicking around and wasting billions on Zumwalt-class destroyer thats been a complete failure.