Airline Pilot Central Forums - Russian Stealth Fighter

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Military (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/)

- - Russian Stealth Fighter (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/military/47725-russian-stealth-fighter.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasserine06 (Post 754225)

Here is another hypothetical situation, we buy 380 F-22s and train like WWIII is around the corner.

I am not advocating buying more Raptors. They are expensive no doubt. But I do not agree that 180 are sufficient as is often argued. And since the -35 is still years off, we may go through a few years where we are less than capable of responding. Meanwhile the Chinese are bulking up. And as you noted the Chinese have the ability (technology and money) to build a lot of new machines. They also do not have to worry about basing.

Quote:

As you hinted at in your post, the weakest part in our fleet is the tankers. Those are things we really need.

Very much so and like many things, the process has become very convoluted so the need is overshadowed by politics. As a former tanker puke, it always amazed me that the NVAF never came after us as we sat off the coast refueling the F-4s and -105s.

Quote:

We do disagree, but this is not a new debate. Whenever new military equipment is introduced there are always those that think it is a waste and some that think it is vital. B-1A and M1A1 come to mind each with completely different results.

The BONE and the tank are interesting examples. The BONE for example seems to have finally come into its own as a stand-off platform but that certainly is NOT the mission it was designed for or intended for. But then the F-4 was originally designed as a fleet interceptor, not intended as a dog-fighter. This just goes to show the guys at the pointy end find ways of making things work in spite of politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDGERJMN (Post 754335)

Are you really asking this question?

Rhetorical but the remark was the ORIGINAL Hornet was very capable. It may have been but there were shortcomings. And if the original capabilities were sufficient, why redesign it to almost a completely new airplane?

Quote:

The F/A-18E/F aircraft are 4.2 feet longer than earlier Hornets, have a 25% larger wing area, and carry 33% more internal fuel which will effectively increase mission range by 41% and endurance by 50%. The Super Hornet also incorporates two additional weapon stations

Apparently someone thought there were design points that fell short or at least needed to be revised.

Yes the original comment was 'Very Capable'. But in the grand scheme of things there is nothing the SuperHornet does that the Legacy Hornet doesn't do except give gas and a bit in the EW realm. I fly both of them routinely...The SH isn't so much about expanded capability as it was a step up in increased capacity, there's a stark difference. The other issue you're not even touching on is the gap in Strike Fighters that the SH virtually eliminates provided the buy of aircraft is sufficient. We have out and overflown our Legacy Hornets which drove the requirements for the cheaper SH that bridges the gap to JSF.

Ask the Marines what they are doing and have done to bridge that gap.

http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h...ot/1357100.jpg

If their stealth attempts are anything like their Uski 2Ski attempts, it will be too heavy and under perform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivingInMEM (Post 754466)

Kass - those were direct questions, not confrontations. You have to plan using an ORM model - risk to reward. Of course, aircraft like the F-22 cost exponentially more than MQ-9's, but the risk (cost) of not being prepared for the war that the F-22 is designed for is exponentially more than the risk of not being prepared for the war the MQ-9 is designed for. The nation that only prepares for today's war will be woefully unprepared for tomorrow's war, and our nation has been guilty of that on numerous occasions.

For the record, I am not a proponent of the F-22 per se, I am a proponent of a robust air superiority capability (and 189 F-22's are not it). If yo had read any of the F-22 specific threads, you would have seen that I was more a proponent of upgraded F-15's and a smaller contingent of F-22's. Air superiority is not a "nice thing to have", it allows your offensive strike aircraft to operate at will, your ISR aircraft (so important now) to operate at will, and your ground forces to operate at will with no threat of attack by enemy aircraft. Air superiority is an incredible multiplier, so to say that the money could have gone towards better uses - I disagree.

The day before Katrina, it would have seemed a wise use of resources (for someone who could not evacuate) to buy water, food, and generators. Two days after Katrina, it wouldn't have seemed like such a good use when people with guns came and took all of the food, water, and generators. The day before, someone would have said "do you know how much more food and water you can buy instead of a $600 gun and $150 of ammunition?" Afterwards, they would "I wish we still had that smaller stockpile (minus the $750) instead of nothing at all." Same goes here - NO, I do not agree that the resources would be better used for a more imminent threat because I think 5-10 yrs down the road as well as towards tomorrow - even though I am currently actively fighting the war of today. We need to maintain a credible threat to keep potential enemies from piling on or using our distraction to pursue their national goals. And we need to make sure we don't roll from winning today's war into losing tomorrow's. These capabilities can't be built overnight.

Well, sometimes tone gets lost in text so I understand. I like the idea of having stealth fighters we can use to dominate a major battlefield, but I think we would have to sacrifice a lot in the form of funds for other equally important aircraft and weapons to get a all the F-22s we wanted. What is the point of having a sharp spear if the shaft it is on is weak and the person holding it isn’t able to lift it? Defense funding is a balancing act and we can’t afford to have unlimited amounts of the best equipment. Look at body armor for example. Our soldiers go into battle having good armor, but not the best. It is a compromise because the military would rather have a lot of troops with good armor than a few with the best.

It is similar to the B-1A program or even the XB-70. Large supersonic bombers that would be able to attack Russia well before any of their bombers could come within range of our allies. We were able to build them and demonstrate their capability, but in the end, the cost of the aircraft could not justify their use. We determined the ICBM and submarine programs were more cost effective.

The F-15 has a fantastic service record and is still a match for any plane out there. I think we would be better off if we created a new version (not an upgrade). It would probably be much cheaper and therefore we can build more. In the past, we have seen that when it comes down to it, it is the operator/s at the controls of the weapon platform that really make the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDGERJMN (Post 754482)

Word has it that the SH also has a suprisingly low RS.... altogether very capable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 754158)

What do you mean by the bolded part of your statement above?

USMCFLYR

High/Low fighter mix consisting of a smaller number of very expensive air superiority/supremacy fighters complemented by a larger number of less expensive fighters (usually attack optimized). It gives you that sharp performance edge if you go up against a high-end opponent, but still allows you larger numbers of switch-hitters for various circumstances such a low-tech foe with a crap-load of airframes.

It's a common strategy, this is what we did with the F15/16 and F14/18, and more or less what the russians have with the mig29 & flanker.

Other folks do it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasserine06 (Post 754617)

The F-15 has a fantastic service record and is still a match for any plane out there.

What kind of experience do you have in this area? I don't happen to agree with that sentiment. It's a very capable airplane still, to be certain, but there are many limitations simply being a 30-year-old airframe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hacker15e (Post 755216)

I have not flown the aircraft, but I did not know you needed to fly an aircraft before you are allowed to talk about it or know anything about it. My stepfather had over 1000 hours in it at did some weapons testing on it, so I think I know enough to say that it is a great fighter.

Also, in my post, I was saying that we need a new F-15. I know it is 30 years old, and that is why we need a new version. The fact that even 30 years after it left the plant it can still maintain the title of air superiority fighter is impressive.

Of course sometimes it is better to start fresh than limit yourself to a 30 year old design, my intention was to point out that we don’t always need to build the most high tech and expensive aircraft we can. I am sure that for $30 million (cost of an F-15) we can build a new fighter that is better than the current F-15s but still cheaper than the $83 million F-35.

He didn't ask about your 'flight' experience, he asked about your experience. The fact that your step dad had a 1000 hours in it doesn't really equate to any expertise on your part.

I'm curious, you have some strong opinions, how did you arrive at them? I guess I'd ask, what is your experience in this area?