Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 2/16/2013 2:05:42 PM EDT
This is a fairly long article, on the Australian think-tank website Air Power Australia. I posted a few quotes from the article below for the tl;dr crowd. It starts off with a hypothetical scenario involving an encounter between our F/A 18s and F-35s, and an enemy's SU-35s, with a quite depressing outcome.

These threads always garner a few replies implying that a single American pilot in an F-86 could take out a squadron of SU-30s (OK, I'm exaggerating, but not by a whole lot in some cases). And, of course, the inevitable airshow jokes. I'm hoping that a few people with some military air power knowledge and the ability to objectively evaluate the issue can offer some insight.

Personally, I think we are rapidly losing our edge in air superiority and need to buy a whole bunch more F-22s, and from what I've read, better air-to-air missiles wouldn't hurt. And we need to continue to do the R&D that will be required to stay ahead of the Russians (and, maybe someday, even the Chinese). Never underestimate your enemy.


"Why are we observing such a single-minded rejection of the need for effective endgame defences on Western combat aircraft? It is a direct by-product of a steadfast belief in Western military bureaucracies that most if not all future air combat will occur in the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) domain. There is no real evidence to support this idea. . ."

"
The US Navy is putting its fragile eggs in the F-35 JSF and the Super Hornet basket. This is tactically very dangerous.
F/A-18E/F/G: This aircraft has excellent countermeasures, but if the adversaries have equally good or better countermeasures and can out-manoeuvre the Super Hornet’s missiles and airframe, then the inevitable result of any engagements will be the destruction of the Super Hornets; and,
F-35 JSF: Because of the paradox of a stealthy aircraft actively jamming missiles, it is vulnerable to attack, especially within the rear-quarter from radar and infra-red guided missiles; once the aircraft is detected, then escaping from a much faster, more agile enemy is unlikely; high loss rates are predicted."


http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300310-1.html
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 2:14:08 PM EDT
Gripen > F35 > SU-35 > Eurotrash > Rafale













There, that should get Dport's attention.
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 2:15:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2013 2:16:20 PM EDT by Frank_The_Tank]
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Iowa class >>Gripen > F35 > SU-35 > Eurotrash > Rafale













There, that should get Dport's attention.



FIFY.
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 2:17:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Gripen > F35 > SU-35 > Eurotrash > Rafale













There, that should get Dport's attention.


Bring back the battleships!





Now it will get his attention.
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 2:21:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Iowa class >>Gripen > F35 > SU-35 > Eurotrash > Rafale













There, that should get Dport's attention.



FIFY.




Originally Posted By 2A373:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Gripen > F35 > SU-35 > Eurotrash > Rafale













There, that should get Dport's attention.


Bring back the battleships!





Now it will get his attention.


Link Posted: 2/16/2013 2:25:01 PM EDT
im glad we are getting Gripens... with the retirement of F-5 we were left without any toyplane..
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 2:27:13 PM EDT
The scenario they describe is this:

4 F-35s fire a total of 16 AIM-120s at 4 Su-35s. 1 Su-35 is hit and destroyed.
The 3 remaining Su-35s fire a total of 12 missiles at 4 F-35. All 4 F-35s are destroyed.
The 3 Su-35s then destroy 4 F/A-18 Super Hornet strike craft with remaining missiles and guns, without taking any additional losses.

I guess we're doomed then, because the Chicoms have magic missiles and countermeasures and agility.
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 2:29:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Shung:
im glad we are getting Gripens... with the retirement of F-5 we were left without any toyplane..


Gripen is better than the Rafale.
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 2:30:17 PM EDT
our missles are so much better than china's and our combat control is light years beyond this is all political aspired hyperbole
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 2:34:50 PM EDT
Su-35 because it edges out the superbug and it's in doubt whether the F-35 will ever become combat capable.

Did that site say that a Su-35 can outmanuever a AIM-120D? I can believe simply running away and making a missile launched at maximum range run out of fuel, but evading it with extreme manuevers?
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 3:13:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By David45:
Su-35 because it edges out the superbug and it's in doubt whether the F-35 will ever become combat capable.

Did that site say that a Su-35 can outmanuever a AIM-120D? I can believe simply running away and making a missile launched at maximum range run out of fuel, but evading it with extreme manuevers?



Sounds good, except who launches at maximum range these days?

That was a tactic with the old AIM-12 so you could begin maneuvering to make an AIM-9 re-attack from behind the target. All of that would take place one you had gotten within the AIM-12's range of about 25 miles from the target.

Now you launch an AIM-120 at max Pk (Probability of Kill) to ensure the missile is within its optimum range and maneuverability portion of its performance envelope. That means you're still probably launching at well over 50 miles out versus the max range of over 100 miles reported for the AIM-120.

I don't know if the Su-35 can detect, much less lock on and guide missiles on an F-35 or even an F-18 at over 50 miles.
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 8:15:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SD307:
our missles are so much better than china's and our combat control is light years beyond this is all political aspired hyperbole

If all we can say about our missiles is that they're better than China's, I'm not encouraged . The thread was about a Russian fighter; how do you compare our missiles to theirs? And how, specifically, does our combat control give us such a large advantage that we can dismiss a discussion of the relative merits of the aircraft as "political aspired hyperbole"?
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 8:20:46 PM EDT
F-35 loses because it gets stuck on the ground with multiple system failures and/or is missing systems altogether.


If we're gonna spend a fuck-ton on Gen 5 shit, I'd rather have more F-22s. They can actually dogfight and they're not just glorified "stealth" bomb trucks, that lose a shit-ton of that "stealth" when they have hardpoints attached. Plus they have two engines. Two is one and one is none.
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 8:26:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Gripen > F35 > SU-35 > Eurotrash > Rafale











There, that should get Dport's attention.


Gripen and Rafale are Euro trash.
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 9:08:36 PM EDT
Sorry guys did tldr, but did itsay anything out running an AWACS? Something that can pick up targets at long distances and relay the coordinates to fighters with long range missiles? I'm not in the AF but aren't they sop for all fighter missions? Or was this a strictly naval encounter and doesn't the navy have something of similar radar range?
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 9:20:59 PM EDT
Who has the best pilots? What air to air doctrine at our enemy training from? What air to air knowledge do the Chinese or Russians have to train from?
Is this not something to count?
Link Posted: 2/16/2013 9:23:30 PM EDT
Repeat after me: we will never buy or build more F-22s.

The production line is gone and all the machinery is dismantled. It's dead, Jim.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 3:32:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Gripen > F35 > SU-35 > Eurotrash > Rafale











There, that should get Dport's attention.


Gripen and Rafale are Euro trash.


No. I was talking about the Eurotrash Typhoon.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 4:00:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr-T:
The scenario they describe is this:

4 F-35s fire a total of 16 AIM-120s at 4 Su-35s. 1 Su-35 is hit and destroyed.
The 3 remaining Su-35s fire a total of 12 missiles at 4 F-35. All 4 F-35s are destroyed.
The 3 Su-35s then destroy 4 F/A-18 Super Hornet strike craft with remaining missiles and guns, without taking any additional losses.

I guess we're doomed then, because the Chicoms have magic missiles and countermeasures and agility.



Maybe, maybe not. But what the Chinese do have that the US doesn't is numbers; more planes and pilots. Attrition...
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 4:04:28 AM EDT
APA knows less about air power than my good fiend the swede does. That's saying something!
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 4:22:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
APA knows less about air power than my good fiend the swede does. That's saying something!


Don't be hatin'.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 4:25:48 AM EDT
]
Originally Posted By dport:
APA knows less about air power than my good fiend the swede does. That's saying something!


Freudian slip?
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 4:32:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LightningII:
]
Originally Posted By dport:
APA knows less about air power than my good fiend the swede does. That's saying something!


Freudian slip?


No. My iPad strikes again.

But funny.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 4:39:21 AM EDT
What good is a SU-30 with a human pilot that can only hold a certain flight path due to our anatomy! The next gen stuff will be drone base. And we lead in that department.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:05:08 AM EDT
We used to shoot at max range with the aim 64 Phoenix. When it comes down to air battles, it's not the plane as much as the pilot. Look at the wildcat vs the zero. Tactics were developed to defeat it and the pilots did well until better planes came along.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:07:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Clarinath:
We used to shoot at max range with the aim 64 Phoenix. When it comes down to air battles, it's not the plane as much as the pilot. Look at the wildcat vs the zero. Tactics were developed to defeat it and the pilots did well until better planes came along.


We did? Please, do enlighten the room on when we did that.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:07:53 AM EDT
I will go nuke if anykinda super powers go to war.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:10:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Clarinath:
We used to shoot at max range with the aim 64 Phoenix. When it comes down to air battles, it's not the plane as much as the pilot. Look at the wildcat vs the zero. Tactics were developed to defeat it and the pilots did well until better planes came along.


We did? Please, do enlighten the room on when we did that.


Operation Southern Watch. They missed.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:12:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Clarinath:
We used to shoot at max range with the aim 64 Phoenix. When it comes down to air battles, it's not the plane as much as the pilot. Look at the wildcat vs the zero. Tactics were developed to defeat it and the pilots did well until better planes came along.


AIM54...and we fired that thing in anger, what, once?
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:12:57 AM EDT
where the fuck is sylvan???? I thought he was the airpower expert?
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:13:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr-T:
The scenario they describe is this:

4 F-35s fire a total of 16 AIM-120s at 4 Su-35s. 1 Su-35 is hit and destroyed.
The 3 remaining Su-35s fire a total of 12 missiles at 4 F-35. All 4 F-35s are destroyed.
The 3 Su-35s then destroy 4 F/A-18 Super Hornet strike craft with remaining missiles and guns, without taking any additional losses.

I guess we're doomed then, because the Chicoms have magic missiles and countermeasures and agility.


What REALLY matters is: Which one carries the most Pmags??!! 'Cause everyone knows that is what makes the difference!!!!
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:13:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2013 5:14:40 AM EDT by Clarinath]
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Clarinath:
We used to shoot at max range with the aim 64 Phoenix. When it comes down to air battles, it's not the plane as much as the pilot. Look at the wildcat vs the zero. Tactics were developed to defeat it and the pilots did well until better planes came along.


We did? Please, do enlighten the room on when we did that.


Well excuse me, I was incorrect. I knew I had read it somewhere and it was Iranian af that used it, not us. Granted the info is subject to debate since it wasn't the us that did it.

And I messed up on the number too, but everyone knew what I was talking about.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:20:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Clarinath:
We used to shoot at max range with the aim 64 Phoenix. When it comes down to air battles, it's not the plane as much as the pilot. Look at the wildcat vs the zero. Tactics were developed to defeat it and the pilots did well until better planes came along.


We did? Please, do enlighten the room on when we did that.


Operation Southern Watch. They missed.


Yeah, I know we shot two of them and they missed -- the comment made it appear that we routinely used that missile in that way, when we really almost never used that missile at all.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:21:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Clarinath:
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Clarinath:
We used to shoot at max range with the aim 64 Phoenix. When it comes down to air battles, it's not the plane as much as the pilot. Look at the wildcat vs the zero. Tactics were developed to defeat it and the pilots did well until better planes came along.


We did? Please, do enlighten the room on when we did that.


Well excuse me, I was incorrect. I knew I had read it somewhere and it was Iranian af that used it, not us. Granted the info is subject to debate since it wasn't the us that did it.

And I messed up on the number too, but everyone knew what I was talking about.


One can usually assume that anything the Iranians claim about their military uses of anything are at best exaggerations.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:40:16 AM EDT
CAS, Rangers vs Marines, battleships, F22, AH1 vs AH64, and women in infantry.


That should just about cover it.
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 5:53:19 AM EDT
The F14 would have kicked all of there asses...

and we destroyed them
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 6:02:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By spankybear:
The F14 would have kicked all of there asses...

and we destroyed them


Bwahahaha...hahaha....Oh, you were serious?
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 6:07:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By spankybear:
The F14 would have kicked all of there asses...

and we destroyed them


Link Posted: 2/17/2013 6:13:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Repeat after me: we will never buy or build more F-22s.

The production line is gone and all the machinery is dismantled. It's dead, Jim.

Actually it's all in storage and COULD be reactivated.


Problem is, this IS unlikely and would need to be done soon if at all because of the inevitable brain drain,
people leaving the company who have the knowledge and experience required to make it work.

Let's not forget the entire supply chain, too. Assuming you had all the airframe parts, you need engines,
hydraulics, avionics, and everything else in the aircraft and somebody to make them.


The F-22's cancellation will go down in history as a titanic mistake.


I believe that the right decision, as a stopgap measure, would be to acquire more latest version F-15s and F-16s to
upgrade our current fleets. The F-16 E, F, and I models are more capable than anything in the USAF inventory.
They were developed AFTER the AF took delivery of its last Block 52 model.

Additionally, I think that Lockmart should integrate F-35 sensor tech into the 15 and 16. Modernize it to today's
standards without trying to turn it into a different aircraft.


I also think that there's some real sense in going back to more specialized aircraft. We now try to make anything with
wings do everything that can be done. Making a fighter haul bombs is stupid. Send out a bomber to drop bombs.

Fighters should be tasked with the single purpose of knocking enemy aircraft out of the sky.


CJ
Link Posted: 2/17/2013 6:18:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SRT_312:
Originally Posted By spankybear:
The F14 would have kicked all of there asses...

and we destroyed them


Bwahahaha...hahaha....Oh, you were serious?


Link Posted: 2/17/2013 6:24:30 AM EDT
Extreme maneuverability is limited by human physiology. 4th Gen a/c were already pushing that envelope. This scenario assumes AIM-120Ds will only have pk of 25% against the Su-35 and AIM-120C5s will have a pk of 0%. Bullshit. Our a/c don't operate alone - where were the EF-18G jammers and the E-2D Hawkeye AEW force multipliers?
Top Top