It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by StellarX
Considering the prices involved ( even with lying thieving LM that will somehow find a way to double the cost) woudln't you rather want somewhere between 3-10 Su-35's instead of a F-22?
I know i would but what do i know any ways.
Originally posted by Darkpr0
The debate here between "Stealth good" versus "Stealth Bad" does not actually make a lot of sense.
Why is there a problem with the development and integration of stealth characteristics into the F-22,
or with its effectiveness?
Does logic not dictate that interfering with and confounding another aircraft's primary detection method is desirable if you want to act in such a way that the bogey stops existing?
Does previous experience with stealth aircraft (F-117 Nighthawk) not suggest that it seems to work?
Do the tests of RAM and shape not produce practice combat results that point to their effectiveness?
Does the acknowledgement, agreement with, and attempt to replicate stealth characteristics in aircraft manufactured elsewhere not imply that other countries & companies, as well, have faith in stealth?
That's a lot of questions. Straighten 'em out and tell me what you think the answers are .
Originally posted by Daedalus3
Well, prices aside and capability-wise, wouldn't you really want both types in your pack of cards?
I surely would. And hence the requirement for F-15s et al in addition to the F-22 and similary the requirement of the PAK-FA in addition to Su30s, 35 s and what nots..
It just gives the theatre planner sooo many options and keeps the opponent totally confused.
irect your force wholely towards a particular direction, may it be stealth , or stand-off missilier or WVR and close combat.
Because if it does, the the opponent gets a chance to create a very specific and highly appropriate counter.
Originally posted by StellarX
Prices aside? Maybe that's a argument the USAF can make ( 450 BILLION DOLLARS, and it will very likely escalate by a hundred odd or more, for the JSF production/development run) but such insanity comes at the expense of a thousand state hospitals nation wide probably including operational costs for a few decades. I'm sorry but prices are NEVER aside and i don't see the point of bankrupting the very country the mostly brave and patriotic youth signs up to defend. If one looks at how the US treats it's veterans , or to be fair how most countries treat theirs, this overspecialization is probably not in the interest of saving lives out of benevolence and care.
That being said tiger tanks had highly favorable exchange ratios and were certainly not economically inefficient as such. The expense is certainly not the thing that invalidates a good design but i just don't see that the F-22 is worth THAT price.
iI am confident that the Pak-fa will in comparison be quite cheap and will not comparatively cost much more than a modern line Su-27 family fighter.Neither the Russians nor anyone else are going to invest so much effort for so few low observability features.
Presuming that the opponent does not have well developed ground tracking infrastructure that may be the case but if they do F-22's can be tracked and fighters routed around them.
In fact the real reason why the USAF has so much success is not because of it's superior fighter/strike aircraft but because they are so well supported with EW assets that enemy air forces never have enough information to properly plan it's defense.
I would much rather have a limited range of aircraft that flies round the clock, can be built in large numbers, be cheap to operate than have so few highly specialized aircraft that any deviation from pre war presumptions about roles and efficiency negates the over specialization.
Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Daedalus3
i can`t seem to find the link anymore - buts its on ats *somewhere* - but since rules of engagement are so tight then anything much beyond 15 miles is a no no - the Israelis have always closed to wvr to actually see what they are shooting at
Originally posted by BASSPLYR
also we have access to all the migs we could ever want including their new ones, but they will never ...
But all that being said, the new mig is very nice. Very pretty. but I'll take a warthog (figuratively not the a10 which kicks ass too) ment to kill from the ground up over a gazelle that runs all pretty any day.
Watched a show on the discovery channel a while ago where some US pilots got to fly the russian migs in russia and a few soviet pilots got to fly the f-18
man when they both got back on the ground the soviets were very excited about their flights in the f-18. the americans werent t so ethusiastic about the migs, although they did tell the russians that their mig flew very nice.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes, prices aside. And if you want to compare US health care and war veteran amenities with other countries (yes I mean Russia, India, China et al) then you do so at your own peril. In any case these matters seem irrelevant, except for the fact that the F-22/F-35 are very expensive a/c and the need to live up to that price tag.
Moreover if one were to investigate how the money 'saved' in the above mentioned countries is used then it would be quite revealing. I cannot speak for other countries, but I know one in which most of the money is siphened into personal accounts of fat slob politicians who's educational and intellectual quotient match that of a 5th grader. But like I said, that besides the point.
We've all got a different crate of apples and will have to deal with the nuances of the rotten ones.
Ah. Now thats relevant to the discussion. But I believe that is a subjective declaration. Lets get objective. Which areas could have been done cheaper/better? Some one said here that the design was not as relevant to the envisioned role as the F-23. Maybe. Anything else?
LPI Radar? Flight Datalink? weapons store? Could these have been done cheaper?
It seems that the PAK-FA may turn out to be comparable in price to the Typhoon even; We'll just have to wait and see if that equates to a operational advantage in the end.
iI think it will be considerably more expensive than the Su-30 line; around twice as much. And thats precisely why the Russians are wooing the Indian and Brazilian cash cows.
The inclusion of partners at this stage where technical input beyond intellectual farting is not needed, means only that the inclusion is funds' oriented.
Yes, and you and I know that there are very few defenses in the world that would be able to have GCI direct air units to defend stealth penetration.
I completely agree there. And again, not many AFs in the world have comparable EW as well. Or if they do, then pardon my ignorance and educate me
But such policies and strategies bear relevance only in large scale all out wars, invasions, campaigns intended for territory seizure, aerial dominance etc etc.
Conflicts of such a nature do not seem very probable in today's world for various reasons.
(and pardon me if I'm wrong again) but honestly, aren't you a strong supporter of such campaigns and the likes ? Just a personal question.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Willard856
Actually, it's highly unlikely that a BVR shot would score a kill. You would be looking at a less than 10% kill ratio.
The problem is multifold. First, the standard mode for the AMRAAM to use is a datalinked Semi-active-homing mode. Track-While-Scan mode enables the F-22 to give no indication to the target's RWR that he's been illuminated by a tracking radar. However, the Russians aren't stupid. They can detect the datalink, and it's safe to assume their jammers will start singing and jam the datalink. The F-22s fire control system will try and compensate and the missile will likely automatically switch into a passive homing mode to home in on the jamming signal - however, by time the missile realizes it's being jammed, and switches, the Su-35 will have had ample time to slip outside of its acquisition envelope - or slip outside of any possible interception arcs.
So - the only thing to do is fire the missile in "beam riding" mode (another form of semi-active homing) - where the target is illuminated by the host aircraft's radar and the missile intercepts the illuminated target.
However, this causes several problems. First - the target knows you've shot at it. It has several options at this point. It can try and jam you (which is harder to do), or it can turn tail, pour on the dinosaurs, and escape the missile. Now, it can do either of those and fire a missile in passive homing mode (homes in on your radar).
The F-22 is now at a disadvantage, as it has absolutely zero indication that it's been fired on (and the target is too far away to detect the IR plume of the missile). Normally, the radar would pick up this missile-like return, and inform the pilot of this important development. So, now we have our raptor shining a bright-ass tracking light around for everyone to see and a missile closing at a combined speed of over mach 4. I can create a missile in my garage capable of nailing that.
BVR first-strike is of no use against a technologically equivalent (or nearly so) opponent. Or - I should say "extreme BVR" is of no real use. The only viable option is to close within terminal-guidance range of whatever missile you are using and taking the shot there - where the missile can be a genuine "fire and forget."
However, we run into another problem for the raptors. They can't use their radar. If the use it - RWR picks them up and can give a bearing fix for the Su-35s well before you are within "kill" range. I'm not sure if Russia has export models of the missile (or how many are in the inventory of other countries), but one of their missiles uses an inertial guidance system (most accurate self-contained, self-reliant navigational system ever developed) and closes in on a location determined by the fire-control system (can be estimated from RWR interceptions or more accurately from a couple scans with TWS mode). Upon reaching that location, it activates a wide-angle IR or radar terminal guidance phase, and starts searching for the target - it finds it, and knocks it out of the sky.
It's all far more tactical than Ace Combat. While I love that game series (they have some of the best musical scores... especially their briefing music.... if only we could get briefing music like that before missions...) - it's far from reality. The missiles don't even behave right.... they "chase after" the plane.... which is silly.... it's like throwing a rock - you throw the rock ahead of the target - you lead the target.... missiles do the same thing - sometimes taking off behind you to get the best angle on the target.
In short... the U.S. shot itself in the foot with missile technology, and failed to develop a missile that could take advantage of the Low-Observable characteristics of the ATF. Thus, they can expect a rather low kill ratio with their shiny golden bird. They'll be lucky if they don't lose a few young hot-shots to stupidity and failure to think about what they are doing. I can just see some 25 year old fighter jock thinking he's going to score a kill on this Su-35 by using SARH mode with constant illumination.... only to be vaporized by an R-77 / AA-12 Adder (AKA: "AMRAAMSKI") slamming through his canopy at a combined velocity of Mach 6+
The only reason the Raptor has so many kills in our wargames is because the entire concept is "once you are fired upon - you are dead" - there's a little bit of "wiggle room" in there - but not a whole lot. The reality is that the AMRAAM wouldn't perform nearly as well as we think it will. Furthermore, they will have to get pretty damned close to ensure a kill - which means a higher chance of being detected and the sooner you can have missiles on top of you and the less chance you have to be warned of it.