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.

 

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

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz

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.






# did it?

That makes the situation worse!

The USA is going to find it has 10 brand new super carriers and only old 2nd rate escorts to protect it...........

Guess they will be asking us and the French to act as escorts more than usual


Still joking aside thats a worrying gap...........

At this point would it be better for the USA to contract the UK to build a few Type 45 for them to fill the hole?
edit on 2-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Arleigh Burke Flight III will still be phenomenal ships, Flight IIA are phenomenal ships. If Zumwalt didn't ever exist, I don't think the situation would have been the same though regarding Ticondergo replacement.
edit on 2/7/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


I am also going to guess seeing as we have RAF pilot's in the B2 Squadron that the UK knows the ins and outs, flying procedures and any weakness on it that can used to detect it, information no other country is ever going to have.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz


Great information!

Yes, I was thinking along the lines of fighter competition rather than geopolitical.

Thanks for the information on BAE. Others have point out that aspect, as well....I'm learning...


Good point on Europe and the EF, from a regional connection. I'd guess that Europe has their own, and well developed, MIC and view them as competitors to the U.S..

It IS interesting that when one looks at the number of nations attempting to build 5th Gens and the collective economic power of the EU and they aren't matching aircraft development as telling. I would think making tech demonstrators/prototypes of 5th gens is a long way from the prohibitive costs of development and production of those 5th gens. Add in the much higher unit cost due the lower numbers produced as they now lack an international market to sell high numbers to and I'd bet few, IF ANY, will actually arrive at a self-developed and manufactured 5th Gen.

Just too expensive, most would succumb to internal political pressure and by the less expensive U.S. platforms. Perhaps the ban on exporting the F-22s have added to others, like Japan, being forced to develop their own versions.

Russia's problems in developing their 5th gen isn't lost on the rest of the world. China seems to have both the monies and political will to do so but lack the technological edge to match, so far. I can't see Russia giving it to them as that would put Russia even further behind China....unless the Russians ended up buying Chinese versions, somewhere down the road? Naw, too far outside the box thinking and outside Russian DNA....



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Hiya NWT! Nice to hear from you. The one thing no one seems to discuss? Its all the high tech un-imaginable top secret stuff everyone has.
1. We develop it for this reason.
2. We will use it for worst case scenario

I think we get fuddled when we think about the newest plane, ship, sub, missile etc. Im worried about the secret stuff...because to use it is why we develop it.

Both/all sides can annihilate each other without losing a single man and without a single plane or missile etc airborne....
edit on 2-7-2017 by mysterioustranger because: spl



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: nwtrucker

Hiya NWT! Nice to hear from you. The one thing no one seems to discuss? Its all the high tech un-imaginable top secret stuff everyone has.
1. We develop it for this reason.
2. We will use it for worst case scenario

I think we get fuddled when we think about the newest plane, ship, sub, missile etc. Im worried about the secret stuff...because to use it is why we develop it.

Both/all sides can annihilate each other without losing a single man and without a single plane or missile etc airborne....


Hello, back!


'Worrying' isn't going to change anything one whit. So don't bother...


Whole series of missiles, nukes and general systems have come and gone without being used. One can only hope that trend continues. Enjoy your fourth!



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

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.



Lord love a duck. You sure paint depressing scenarios. I'm changing your script. The U.S. was aware of the Cruise missiles and the sucker move. They had 30 Raptors, 20 '35s and six tactical nukes waiting for 'em.....

P.S. Heck, lets do this right....and a picket line of THAAD batteries......

edit on 2-7-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


I'm changing your script. The U.S. was aware of the Cruise missiles and the sucker move. They had 30 Raptors, 20 '35s and six tactical nukes waiting for 'em.....

If I thought of it so did the other side. The US (and the patriot batteries) did nothing to stop Russian cruise missiles as they flew over Iran and into Syria, hitting multiple Insurgent weapons storage and command centers.

Because they couldn't. Restudy cruise missile evasive tactics... then diversion.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
... 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.

(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...


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.


Yes, I'm aware of DACT and red vs blue. It struck me that the sheer number of EF fans who almost continually pointed out the few German EF victories over the F-22 in that Red Flag North in the initial meeting as some proof of EF superiority deserved some 'payback'....
.

Safe to say we don't know what really happened and why.

Next point the T/W stats. I'm 100% convinced the 35K+ official thrust of the PW F-119 100 is understated. I followed the early days of the F-22 almost religiously-that big a fan- there were multiple sites which included the early LM and especially the PW sites that stated 40K per engine. Sometimes in kNs which converted to 40K. Early F-22 flight demonstrator announcers also stated 40K. In one instance in a LM site had the 'specs' on the right side of the field which then said 35K and the left side which was the written article by whomever stated 40K. Same damn page! Assume messing with an individual's written piece crossed a line whereas the spec sheet could and would be modified as and when they wished.

Later it was again modified to 35+ class. A side note perhaps connected is, apparently, the thrust can be changed/adjusted by ground crews! Likely that Lap-Top on steroids...


Having watched an F-22 demonstration at the Abbotsford Air show a couple years back on the last day of the show, the pilot performed an almost unheard of unrestricted climb at a civilian airport and show. Straight, and I mean straight up, until the burners faded out. It was never announced, just performed and no one recorded it. No levelling out like an F-15, just straight go.

Then the anecdotal report by an Ex-F-15 pilot who took off, full load, had a tanker waiting and decided to see what the 22
would do. Achieved max thrust at about 450 knots 2/3s down the runway and went ballistic. He looked at the speed about where he'd level off in a '15 and saw he was still accelerating ran it up to M.99 and slowly started to lose speed. He had been given a 30K ceiling and came up to it so fast that it took a 5G maneuver to level out and he still broke his ceiling by over 1,000 ft. Later the techs told him he'd have made 60K based the specs of that flight....and he hadn't even reached the end of the runway...

Long and short of it is 40K gives T/W clearly to the Raptor...over anything out there. I, for one, believe it.

Last question, and it IS a question is the wing load factor. Wouldn't the two compared aircraft have less need of wing load due to the TV? In other words, isn't the TV doing a lot, if not most of the work in changing direction? That would make wing load far less relevant. (?)


edit on 2-7-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker


I'm changing your script. The U.S. was aware of the Cruise missiles and the sucker move. They had 30 Raptors, 20 '35s and six tactical nukes waiting for 'em.....

If I thought of it so did the other side. The US (and the patriot batteries) did nothing to stop Russian cruise missiles as they flew over Iran and into Syria, hitting multiple Insurgent weapons storage and command centers.

Because they couldn't. Restudy cruise missile evasive tactics... then diversion.



Silly boy. The Russian didn't attempt to intercept the U.S. cruise missiles either when they hit that air base. Rather than a 'because they couldn't' which you have ZERO knowledge of and neither do I, more likely is a quid pro quo between the two. Do you ever get tired of trash talk??



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


The Russian didn't attempt to intercept the U.S. cruise missiles either when they hit that air base

Cruise missiles are set to fly pre programmed routes at lo altitude, avoiding enemy radar by staying below the mountain ranges and valley rims they hide behind on way to their targets. Other considerations like weather and time of attack (us prefers nighttime) all play a factor. They are designed to overcome defensive measures. Thanks be to the Nazis...

In the Russians case theirs are also hypersonic, unlike US tomahawks.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No, no they're not. The Kalibr class missiles that Russia has used in Syria are the equivalent of the Tomahawk cruise missile. They fly at Mach 0.8 from launch until the terminal phase (the final 40 miles), where they accelerate to between Mach 2.5 and 2.9. Neither of those speeds are hypersonic. The Tsircon/Brahmos II being developed jointly with India is hypersonic, but not all Russian missiles are.


Russia’s Kalibr cruise missiles are believed to be the land-attack version the Klub family cruise missiles, yet, not much is currently known about these variations. The 3M-14T Kalibr-NK is a land-attack cruise missile carried by Russia’s surface vessels. Reports put its max range at 1,500 – 2,500 km. In October and November 2015, Russia launched a salvo of Kalibr missiles from the Caspian Sea at ISIS targets inside Syria. The Kalibr-NK cruise missiles were launched from a Russian Gepard-class frigate and Buyan-M-class corvettes and travelled 1,500 km to reach their targets. It has been reported it is capable of carrying a 450 kg conventional or (reported) nuclear warhead.

The missile is believed to fly 64 ft above the sea and 164 ft above the ground at speeds up to 965 km/hour.
It is believed to be guided, using GPS and terminal-phase active radar seekers to achieve a reported three m CEP. The 3M-14K Kalibr-PL is similar to the 3M-14T except that is launched from a submarine. This variant was reported to have been launched from an improved Kilo-class submarine in the Mediterranean to strike targets inside Syria in December 2015. Russia plans to equip most of its submarines and surface ships with the respective versions of the Klub anti-ship and Kalibr land-attack cruise missiles. This will include ships in Russia’s Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Northern, and Pacific Fleets. Novator Design Bureau, the designers of the Klub launch system, have developed a shipping container version of the launcher, capable of holding up to four missiles. This shipping container version allows the cruise missile to be forward deployed on ships, trucks, and trains without detection.

missiledefenseadvocacy.org...



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


...they accelerate to between Mach 2.5 and 2.9.

Thanks for agreeing with me anyway.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You don't even know the difference between supersonic and hypersonic. Again, they're not interchangeable. Hypersonic speeds don't start until they're past Mach 5, not Mach 2.

Thanks for playing though.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

You don't even know the difference between supersonic and hypersonic. Again, they're not interchangeable. Hypersonic speeds don't start until they're past Mach 5, not Mach 2.

Thanks for playing though.


Well thanks for that minor correction.

By the by, Russians have them...

Daily mail

edit on 2-7-2017 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Apparently, a number of the U.S.
cruise missiles went into a circling pattern above the base .Waiting for all the dust to settle to see what did and didn't get destroyed.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It's not a minor correction. A supersonic missile is easier to stop than a hypersonic missile. A supersonic missile traveling at Mach 2.5 travels 2813 feet per second or slightly more than a mile every two seconds. A missile traveling at Mach 5 travels at 5626 feet per second, or slightly more than a mile every second. That drastically reduces the time to intercept. And those "hypersonic Russian missiles" you're talking about over Syria, that "couldn't be intercepted" weren't even traveling at Mach 2 until the last 40 miles. They traveled almost the entire flight at subsonic speeds, which made them easy to intercept.

By the by, try reading EVERYTHING I say.

The Tsircon/Brahmos II being developed jointly with India is hypersonic, but not all Russian missiles are.
edit on 7/2/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Oh I read you loud and clear. Best blocker of US technology on this site.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yeah, ok, sure. Nothing else to try, so it's time to attack my posting history.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Zaphs spot on. There are major differences between supersonic and hypersonic.

Hypersonic is magnitudes harder to develop. Not just turbine issues and speed issues but also from the friction of the hypersonic air ablating the missile as if it were being hit by a sand blaster.

Id like to see them travel for more than 9 minutes at a cruise missiles low altitudes without burning up. Thats real hard to do.

Zaph has good cause to balk at you not understanding the difference between supersonic and hypersonic and then arguing with him about it. theyre not even close to being the same thing.

And lay off zaphs posting history. Hes still one of ats best members and contributors so show a little respect. And if he has to play coy with the USAs actual capabilities from time to time or flat out refuse things its because he has a duty to protect both his sources and the technology behind these aircrafts and programs. And believe me its no joke the amount of resposibility it is.

Its not fun when you piss off those that monitor this site for leaks. Trust me theyre Fing scary people to draw the attention of. And their reach and power is far beyond what the layman experiences or understands.....so lighten up on old zaph will ya.
edit on 2-7-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join