It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Has the U.S. virtually wiped out all competition in the military fighter/bomber field?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 06:57 PM

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.

Being as though we helped design it, are building part of it and proven stealth capability to get in on it, it's not 100% US technology, so no gap.

Financially we couldn't have done it.

Also as paraphi said, we helped design and went for the B model for naval operations to replace the Harrier.

As to your thread title, it's a game of cat and mouse, yes the US has the best fighter in the F-22 but the world moves on. Not much use having supposed air superiority if stealthy drone bombers slip by and destroy their targets anyway, specially if those targets are your airfields.
edit on 1 7 2017 by Forensick because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:14 PM
a reply to: paraphi

Well I DO owe you an apology. Be it old age or not, I either completely forgot the Queen Elizabeth Class were STOL restricted or was never aware of it.
Not sure which..

The thought never crossed as she's quite big and it never occurred that it wouldn't take a regular carrier aircraft.

In any event, my apologies and embarrassment. Blows that one aspect of my theory right out of the water..

The general premise remains, however.

edit on 1-7-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:30 PM
a reply to: Forensick

I watched a video a few years back that featured a lecture from the lead designer(?) of the F-35. It was, apparently, intended as a STOL due to the power increases reached with PW F-119 100 engine. That resulted in the PW F-135 for STOL purposes. The other two variants were bright idea afterthoughts.

It would make perfect sense for LM to consult with the Brits for 'watch out fors', improvements and other general airframe guidance.

Stealth technology, however, I don't see why LockMart, admittedly the world's foremost expert on stealth, would liaise with the Brits on stealth, or sensor fusion for that matter. Possible on EW via BAE as they subcontracted for both fifth Gens(?). Even EW, I would suspect would be limited to some degree.

As you say-and a major point in the OP- money is an issue. I also don't see any forth gen being on a par, system-wise, with a fifth Gen.. No matter the upgrades.

A clarification would be appreciated, if it's possible to do so without stepping on toes..

edit on 1-7-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:38 PM

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:47 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

Am I missing something from that schematic? It looks like the majority are airframe issues, as one might expect from the originators of the Harrier.

Stealth and sensor fusion, I don't see. If that's classified,
sobeit. Contributors? Understood. All the systems? Unconvinced.

edit on 1-7-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:58 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

Ok. Looked at the schematic first, then posted, THEN read the article. EW as well. So perhaps much closer to all the systems than I supposed.

Can I assume that the EF has or is due to have as much of the F-35 systems as it can...without actually calling it a 'fifth Gen.'?

In any event, I believe I have a wee bit better understanding of the 'relationship' between the two nations regarding technologies. Sans specifics, of course.

Then the original OP needs a qualifier, in that the Brits have sufficient talent/expertise to partner with the U.S. in air dominance with the benefit of purchasing current and future aircraft without the burdensome expense enjoyed by we U.S. taxpayers in their development and manufacturing.


posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 10:17 PM

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.

Turning and running for home begs for your airfield to be attacked. Accompanying f15 eagles would be spotted on radar and also engaged. So the bombers could 'slip by' and attack that airfield.

But more likely, it would be a cruise missile or two. The nookler kind. The approaching air armada was a ruse to draw out the fighters so they can't protect the airfield from the missiles.

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 10:19 PM

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrptr

So the F-22s only kills half the Su-30s before they head home to rearm.

They get chased home and too late, base already destroyed by nookler weapons.

The Russian attack wing was bait to draw out the airbase defenses so the cruise missiles could get thru.

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 10:35 PM
a reply to: crazyewok

Yup the USA is falling into the same trap as Germany did.

With the same 'enemy' and the same geography.

More an excuse than a trap, wonder weapons are political in nature, supposed to save the day, turn things around, guarantee superiority.

Tell that to afghans, Iraqis and Syrians. Anything can be flipped end over end by a big enough buried charge of fertilizer.

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 10:52 PM
a reply to: Forensick

Good thing the usa leads by a far margin on radar too.

We have a radar system thats nearly impossible to not get spotted by. It will find you no matter how stealthy you are.

Once detected we got something else to target you and the way the physics works its nearly impossible to break the lock on.

And if a hunch if mine (cause its a logical conclusion) with enough power production (oh snap weve now got that too) said thing that locks on to you also can dispatch you.

And the whole time youll never know you were detected targeted locked onto and death comes swiftly.

The usa is being very quiet abput its new developnents because they are that much of a revolution in combat.

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 11:51 PM
Apple computer is worth more than the entire Russian stock market.

Russia's GDP (gross domestic product) is the same or just shy of Italy's.

Given how little they actually have to throw into R&D, I'd be willing to guess they can only afford to properly fund research into a FEW projects.

They're a crumbling, rusting former super power with a huge stockpile of old nukes. Their sphere of influence really is dependent on the fact they have an incredible surplus of cheap, effective, old hardware to sell/loan/give under developed countries.

It looks to me like they're milking a lot of older Cold War concept-prototype technologies, as they can't really afford groundbreaking new science advancements.

Yeah, their missiles are of a concern ... but they're a one-trick pony with a very limited budget.

posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 11:52 PM
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I thought fusion wasn't allowed. We certainly aren't properly funding research into it...

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 12:42 AM
a reply to: Kettu

Fusion? Ok now im lost.


posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:22 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

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.

What do you mean by "competition"? Do you mean any other country building aircraft comparable to the US? Or do you mean geopolitical competition?

I doubt any other country can build an aircraft comparable to a U.S 6th generation aircraft in the projected timeframe or even close (like the F-22A being the first fifth generation fighter by greater than 10 years). However, I strongly think that other 5th generation fighters that will challenge the F-22A and F-35A and will start to rapidly proliferate within the next 15 years from several different countries. Russia, China, Korea, Turkey, India, and Japan are all developing 5th generation fighters, often in conjunction with existing major players. I think these though will be mainly domestic affairs and it's possible that several will fail or lead to low-end fighters. IMHO, follow-on modernization of the F-35 and F-22 are urgently required.

Also let's not forget that the needs and requirements of the US differs from that of other nations. Other nations even without as advanced aircraft as the United States may still pose a major problem in a conflict. For example, trying to prevent China from taking Taiwan is like China trying to prevent the US from invading Cuba if the legitimacy of the US government depended on doing so. Other countries may not need or want fighters as advanced as the US either.

As far as Europe goes I honestly think they have been careless about defending themselves, with very little effort put into actually countering Russian aggression, but at least they put some effort into sustaining their industry. I would describe the national security situation for the west as having been a disaster for the previous 5 or even 15 years. To make it even more challenging, now Gen Y came of age during the fake war in Iraq. Germany in particular seems obsessed with attempting to atone for WW2 as opposed to defending themselves and the idiot in the whitehouse is also a disaster in terms of national security for obvious reasons. Hopefully this is a wakeup call to Europe, but with the number of countries announcing defence budgets increases it looks like it is. Let's not forget that Europe has a very large advanced economy with access to the US MIC as well. So I wouldn't call Europe "out" yet. I don't see them building their own 5th generation fighter, because many countries that would be interested are part of JSF anyway or have access and it's probably too late to start their own program. Rather, I think Europe will work on what the US doesn't offer. UCAV's.

F-35 absolutely has very little western competition.

The U.K. is likely 'all in' on the EF which was waxed by much improved pilots in SUs by India.

There are several points to be made here:

First, the Typhoon is made by a consortium called Eurofighter. Eurofighter is 46% Airbus, 33% BAE Systems and 21% Leonardo. The program was not initially created for a "fighter/bomber" instead the Typhoon was designed to be an A2A fighter, while A2G capability was added later and indeed is still being added. Eurofighter is not a purely "U.K" project, instead in many cases it is designed to further industrial and defence cooperation between European nations, since each nation generally does not have the funding to develop its own fighter yet wants to sustain its defence industry. And it is also beneficial to have a common, interoperable aircraft for European air defence. That's why the consortium is called Eurofighter. In many regards the program has similarities to JSF in terms of being an international aircraft.

Second, the UK has been part of JSF before it was called JSF - they signed an MoU in 1996. I don't know the offical reasons the why the U.K signed up to the JSF but it seems obvious. The U.K is one of the biggest allies of the United States, do you remember the war in Iraq? They even had essentially their own version of 9/11, the 7/7 bombings. As an ally of the United States, interoperability and industrial cooperation is extremely important. The U.K also wants to support its local defence industry and will eventually need to replace its existing strike aircraft - the Panavia Tornado. Furthermore, the U.K until recently operated the Harrier from small aircraft carriers equiped with ski-jumps and no arresting gear. The Queen Elizabath-class aircraft carrier will continue this trend.

The workshare BAE Systems in the UK has on the F-35 includes:
- Aft Fuselage
- Horizontal/Vertical Tails
- C-model Wing-Folding mechanism
- Fuel System
- Crew Escape
- Life Support
- STOVL Flight Test

BAE Systems Inc, the American subsidiary of BAE Systems (there are appropriate "firewalls" to prevent certain information from moving outside of the U.S) also designed and built the:

- AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda Electronic Warfare System for the F-35. They also build the Electronic Warfare equipment for essentially all U.S fighters including the F-22's AN/ALR-94.
- Active Inceptor System
- Vehicle Management Computer

So it should be obvious that the UK is 'all in' on the F-35 as well as the Typhoon. The F-35 for interoperability with the U.S, as a strike fighter, and to operate off carriers. The Typhoon for European air defence. I also want to point out that Leonardo operates the F-35 FACO in Italy. So it should also be obvious that every F-35 sold helps the european defence industry, in particular BAE Systems, although perhaps not to the extent each Typhoon sold does.

Don't forget the F-35 will make the Typhoon more lethal which will make the F-35 more lethal.
edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:33 AM
... continued

Third, rarely is the goal of any international air exercise to see whose aircraft are "better". Instead they are learning exercises. Also, why is the Indian Air Force going to practise in the way it would fight the RAF? IAF main threats are China and Pakistan. I'm just going to snip bits from another forum that does not compete with ATS. It was also posted by a professional specifically due to claims about exercises with the Indians.

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.


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.


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.


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.

As far as the Typhoon goes, it's quiet the monster, at 50% fuel let's compare it to the Raptor and the Su-30 MKI.

Thrust to weight Ratio:
Typhoon: 1.37
F-22A: 1.34
Su-30MKI: 1.09

Wing Loading:
Typhoon: 54 lb/sqft
F-22A: 63 lb/sqft
Su-30MKI: 76 lb/sqft

Note: I am aware this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Of course, the F-22 has obvious strengths which I don't need to mention and the Typhoon will likely need external tanks. Did I mention the Typhoon is supercruising? And that they're equiped with a throttleable ducted rocket (ramjet) with a claimed No-Escape-Zone (NEZ) 3 times greater than the AIM-120B AMRAAM? And that Tranche 3 is reaching Super Hornet levels of flexibility and avionics? It just seems like European defence forces themselves don't have the funding to actually buy these upgrades. Yet. My point is, Typhoon is one hell is a 4th generation fighter. And also that looking at some exercise and thinking the Typhoon will get "waxed" while flying against a Su-30MKI in DACT is a bad joke. Most often claims about exercises are used by those that have an agenda or are way too nationalistic for their own good.

Typhoon is expensive for what it is and I doubt Eurofighter offers much in the way of industrial offsets. And as an A2A fighter, it doesn't compare to the F-35A as a strike fighter.

Russian falls further behind in fighter development and seems relegated to tech demonstrator platforms that go nowhere further.

This isn't the 90's anymore. VVS has fielded the Su-34, Su-35BM, and is presently working on the PAKFA.

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?

For shooting down other aircraft the US mainly relies on its aircraft. I think the US needs a missile to replace AMRAAM and improve missile capacity of the F-35 and F-22. US missile technology has recently mainly been focusing on missile defense.

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:06 AM

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
We have a radar system thats nearly impossible to not get spotted by.

The thing with radar, it's all a bit secret so we will never really know. However, in GW1 the US were reportedly annoyed when it was revealed the UK's Royal Navy were tracking stealth bombers - F117s I think. Besides, radar is only one sensor in use on fighters.

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:15 AM
a reply to: paraphi

Stealth, and all aircraft have systems that aren't used during normal operations. An F-117 and other aircraft going into combat are harder to track in those conditions.

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:39 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

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.

There revenue is hinged on how much the Russian government is willing to spend on it.

Frankly, I am extremely impressed by how much Russia manages to do despite its situation. Russia seems to be run by a security apparatus to an extent much more than most western countries. They are very very very good at it. They are more competent at playing geopolitics and managing its defense industry than any western country including the United States.

That's what makes them so dangerous.

Seems everyone is a full generation behind in both engines and avionics, as well as directed energy weapons.

I would say the M88 and EJ200 are approximately equal to the GE F414. It's also well known the EJ200 has substantial growth potential. SNECMA builds a substantial proportion of the CFM56 (the most popular turbofan engine which powers the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320) and RR is one of the most popular manufacturers in the civilian world. RR was also a partner on the F136 and builds the lift-fan for the F135. In terms of industry capability, IMHO RR is definitely close to P&W and even better in the civilian sector.

The only difference is, nobody asked them to build the F119.

P&W is the world leader however on the Geared Turbofan, I think we need more time to see how that will turn out. The variable cycle technology the U.S is working on could also potentially put them ahead. (The F135 with liftfan is also variable cycle).

As far as avionics go, everyone else is equal to the Block II Super Hornet but several years behind the F-35, maybe a decade. In terms of stealth everyone else is more than a decade behind. Remember a "generation" in the fighter world is more like 25 years. Rafale actually apparently has sensor fusion, a system similar to DAS, and an advanced electronic warfare system. Very impressive but not F-35 level.

As far as WVR, eye ball to eye ball, I agree. Nothing does that better than the Raptor.

F-22 doesn't have JHMCS or equivalent which basically everything else does. I think the Typhoon would be more than a match for the F-22 WVR. And in the case of the F-35, it's not going to be eye ball to eye ball, it's going to be eye ball to DAS.

a reply to: rickymouse

They do not have big corporations with their high salaried top big wiggs drawing off so much money.

(regarding China)

This is naive. They do.

a reply to: intrptr

One f22 and gun against remaining ten SU-XX, guess who's breaking and running first?

It's considerably unlikely that one F-22 is worth ten Sukhoi. The closest american equivalent to a modern Sukhoi is an upgraded F-15 which are more like $100 million per. So it's more like 1 F-22 costs as much as 2 or 3 advanced 4th generation aircraft.

a reply to: nwtrucker

the EF seems a last gasp effort to stay in the cutting edge market as is the Raffy and sales are

Eurofighter is a European consortium aimed at providing Europe with an air defence fighter. The program started around the same time as the F-22's ATF program started. France didn't like Eurofighter so they did their own jet. So no, it's not a "last gasp effort".

a reply to: crazyewok

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.

I agree.

US hasn't mastered integrated electric propulsion (still).

Also the Ticonderoga replacement failed, now the US is going to be stretching the Arleigh Burke Class to its limits while China just launched Type 55.
edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 04:04 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

Regarding China.

The Cost of Defence - ASPI

ASPI was established by the Australian Government in 2001 and is partially funded by the Department of Defence with other sources of revenue include sponsorship, commissioned tasks, a membership scheme, sale of publications, advertising and event registration fees. Sponsors are Australian Defence Industry.

The 21st century is going to be beyond challenging in terms of security. The world is changing from a uni-polar world (United States) to a multi-polar world (Europe, United States, China, India, Russia). I don't think it's time for arrogance, proclaiming how advanced US technology is, how great the F-22A is, and how great the idiot in the whitehouse is (a few months ago you thought U.S industry was doomed - what changed?). In reality, you just got pwned by Russia. So did Europe. In a continuation of the national security disaster that has been the last 15 years. It's a time for everyone (or at least the sides I am on) to rise to the occasion.

With that said, the US is global hegemon because of historical reasons and geographic reasons. For example it has access to both the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Arctic Ocean. Look at the map. No other country can top that and I'm not sure if anyone will ever be able to challenge the United States on the open ocean. I don't think China intends to replace the United States either, only within its region. But the same is true for many countries. Again, multipolar.

I also had an interesting shower thought the other day and obviously I don't want it to happen. Because it's something that a psychopath would do. Now, I'm not a psychopath but I think I can think like one. If you apply game theory to the rise of China, the only way to guarantee victory in a potential future conflict is a preemptive strike in the short term.

a reply to: Zaphod58

To add:

Stealth isn't just a low RCS. It's tactics. Clearly the USAF isn't going to be hiding from the RN.
edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 04:36 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

So not use it to wipe out out ISIS. Oh I forget they are immune from that kind of thing

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in