For the Flanker fans

[Silverbolt 104]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

good reading

 

and i think this is not a agressor :)

 

i ever think Su-27 looks like F-14, now i know why

Edited November 24, 2007 by Silverbolt

[i90807065 0]

HA take that JSF although you are a great plane, FALKER OWNS YOU MUAHAHAHAHA MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!! (JK,JK)

Edited November 24, 2007 by i90807065

[Silverbolt 104]

yeah, but Flanker is Blind in front of JSF and that big radar dont seems make sense agains it xD

 

___________________________________________________

change a bit the trheat...

...somewone have some pics from the F-15 prototype with swing wing?

Edited November 24, 2007 by Silverbolt

[FastCargo 412]

Well, the F-35/F-18 are not Flanker sized aircraft nor are meant to be. Size of the aircraft has a LOT to do with range/payload/radar power.

 

The F-22 is a more direct comparison, but the RAAF are not buying any.

 

FastCargo

[MiGMasher 0]

Have the F-22's been cleared for export yet?

[FastCargo 412]

Have the F-22's been cleared for export yet?

 

Nope. Can't see that happening for a while.

 

FastCargo

[MiGMasher 0]

Nope. Can't see that happening for a while.

 

FastCargo

 

You figure, with the USAF clearly wanting more than the 183 aircraft planned, that foreign sales to the most trusted countries would atleast be entertained to help lower the cost.

 

Is production still capped at 183 F-22's?

[Silverbolt 104]

i think is there a federal law or something else about the F-22 technologie be exported, and it cannot be exported until 2008 or 2012, but i dont remember now.

for what i remember, the only 2 countrys in the confiability list of USA for the F-22 exopotation are Australia and England.

i read one article about it few months ago, if somewone find it, please post.

[Viggen 644]

i think is there a federal law or something else about the F-22 technologie be exported, and it cannot be exported until 2008 or 2012, but i dont remember now.

for what i remember, the only 2 countrys in the confiability list of USA for the F-22 exopotation are Australia and England.

i read one article about it few months ago, if somewone find it, please post.

 

 

People who want F-22s are Australia and Japan IIRC. Australia was most likely going to get F-35s (but with the Labour Party working that won't happen ) Japan is looking at the Eurofighter.

 

Of course even with the F-35 some countries most trusted by the USA may not get them.

[+Gunrunner 314]

At some point Japan was interested in the F-22, probably partly supported by the fact that some Air Force Generals wanted Japan to have F-22 in order to have more of these available in the region without having to battle with Congress to fund them.

AFAIK this idea never went further than suggesting and evaluating it.

 

Australia wants the F-22 because it is clear the F-35 for all it's worth won't ensure any kind of air superiority.

But AFAIK the US never offered anything.

 

England is not interested in the F-22 much, they seem to see the couple Typhoon/JSF as the future of the RAF.

 

The F-15 "crisis" is played very tightly, on the one hand some try to dramatize the situation in order to get the Congress to approve the funding for more F-22s (hoping to get back to 350 F-22, pretexting the supposed premature ageing of the F-15 airframes), on the other hand, the USAF doesn't want to export the F-22 to minor partners before a long time and doesn't want to have a watered down variant worked on just yet, so it hopes to export F-15, new and second-hand, instead, and it's hard to do so when at the same time you are claiming internally that the airframe ages prematurely.

(source : Aviation Week & Space Technology, November 12)

At the same time Boeing is trying to push the F-15E+ "Super Eagle" as both a replacement for the oldest F-15 and a complement to the F-22 and F-35.

(source : Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 15)

 

The situation is even worse with the F-35, since most major partners (except some military personnel) have been kept in the dark about the latest suspension of flight tests and redesign needed.

(Source : Johan Boeder)

Most partners signed on the JSF program under the impression they were financing and buying planes identical to those to be used by the USAF/USN/USMC, unfortunately for them it appears they will only have watered down versions, for the cost of the "common" version.

In the same manner, the civilian authorities are guaranteed that everything's alright, when the military is notified that the F-35, while on time, won't have most capacities enabled at first, with air-to-ground implemented first and air-to-air probably only available in 2015.

While this won't be a major blow for some partners, some of the smallest are counting on these features, and that would also mean that the F-35 would have very limited auto-defence or multi-role capabilities at first, making some partners downright anxious.

The impression that there is some momentum gained in the US in favour of the F-15E+ also signals there might be something wrong with the JSF program either related to deadlines or capabilities.

Add to this the reduced support of Israel to the JSF program, the lack of enthusiasm in some circles of the Pentagon and the JSF looks like an ill-fated project.

[Nesher 628]

the F-22 was offered to Israel as silence gift (for the Americans to sell guided bombs to Saudi Arabia)

don't know what happened.. time might tell us :)

 

nice info page of the flankers :D

[Silverbolt 104]

i think is there a federal law or something else about the F-22 technologie be exported, and it cannot be exported until 2008 or 2012, but i dont remember now.

for what i remember, the only 2 countrys in the confiability list of USA for the F-22 exopotation are Australia and England.

i read one article about it few months ago, if somewone find it, please post.

 

sorry, not england, Canada.

[Viggen 644]

the F-22 was offered to Israel as silence gift (for the Americans to sell guided bombs to Saudi Arabia)

don't know what happened.. time might tell us :)

 

nice info page of the flankers :D

 

 

Ra'am, Sufa, Raptor...total air superiority over all of the Middle East

[+Gepard 11,356]

Sorry, the F-22 or the F-35 are the wrong planes on the wrong time on the wrong place.

The time of the big airbattles are over.

What we really need are planes like the good old A-10, the Su-25 or Su-39.

The F-22 or the F-35 are really nice birds, but not worth the money, at the moment.

[FastCargo 412]

Sorry, the F-22 or the F-35 are the wrong planes on the wrong time on the wrong place.

The time of the big airbattles are over.

What we really need are planes like the good old A-10, the Su-25 or Su-39.

The F-22 or the F-35 are really nice birds, but not worth the money, at the moment.

 

At the moment emphasis added by me.

 

You cannot buy weapon systems based on current needs only...they MUST meet future needs as well.

 

CAS aircraft don't do you any good if you don't have air superiority...period.

 

Also, stealth aircraft are needed to help defeat integrated IADS systems. People seem to forget that when talking about stealth as if it only applies air to air.

 

FastCargo

[+Gunrunner 314]

My only grip with the 5th generation military jets is that it is a radical departure from what made military jets interesting.

 

They once were some glamorous, the fighter pilot was something of a modern day knight; With the 4th generation, we departed from the pilot flying the plane and started toward the plane partially flying itself (yes, I do know that even before, the F-106/SAGE couple meant the pilot might end up being only a radar and weapon operator, as was the case with the MiG-23P, etc...), with he 5th generation, it's not a plane anymore, it's a weapons system.

From an efficiency perspective, it might be a really good thing, but that makes them awfully boring and completely unsexy.

A Sabre, a Hun, a rhino, they all have a raw quality to them, they represent something, even the Eagle manages to be interesting, but a Raptor or a F-35, they're sexy as a washing machine, an efficient, stealthy, deadly washing machine, but an appliance nonetheless.

 

Besides it creates another problem, due to their complexity and cost, they are tailored to be built, serve for a time, be used for a few days for a low to medium intensity low to high-tech conflict and then remain mostly unchallenged for the rest of the engagement.

They are not suited to a long, high intensity conflict, should they encounter some serious opposition and attrition, especially with reduced dotations, it might fast become a problem as you just can't churn out new planes to replace them as you did up until the 4th generation.

While optimized for being easy to maintain and require little maintenance compared to previous generation, this is also at the cost of a maintenance infrastucture, which might be a handicap in a catastrophe scenario.

 

Also, seen from the perspective of Boyd, they probably just are gold-plated toys unworthy of calling themselves fighters (well, at least he would have hated the F-35). :p

 

At least Flankers are keeping the flame of the old-style jets alive.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Gunrunner

[Viggen 644]

My only grip with the 5th generation military jets is that it is a radical departure from what made military jets interesting.

 

They once were some glamorous, the fighter pilot was something of a modern day knight; With the 4th generation, we departed from the pilot flying the plane and started toward the plane partially flying itself (yes, I do know that even before, the F-106/SAGE couple meant the pilot might end up being only a radar and weapon operator, as was the case with the MiG-23P, etc...), with he 5th generation, it's not a plane anymore, it's a weapons system.

From an efficiency perspective, it might be a really good thing, but that makes them awfully boring and completely unsexy.

A Sabre, a Hun, a rhino, they all have a raw quality to them, they represent something, even the Eagle manages to be interesting, but a Raptor or a F-35, they're sexy as a washing machine, an efficient, stealthy, deadly washing machine, but an appliance nonetheless.

 

Besides it creates another problem, due to their complexity and cost, they are tailored to be built, serve for a time, be used for a few days for a low to medium intensity low to high-tech conflict and then remain mostly unchallenged for the rest of the engagement.

They are not suited to a long, high intensity conflict, should they encounter some serious opposition and attrition, especially with reduced dotations, it might fast become a problem as you just can't churn out new planes to replace them as you did up until the 4th generation.

While optimized for being easy to maintain and require little maintenance compared to previous generation, this is also at the cost of a maintenance infrastucture, which might be a handicap in a catastrophe scenario.

 

Also, seen from the perspective of Boyd, they probably just are gold-plated toys unworthy of calling themselves fighters (well, at least he would have hated the F-35). :p

 

At least Flankers are keeping the flame of the old-style jets alive.

 

 

I have to agree with you completely on that. I talked to a Super Hornet pilot who used to be Tomcat Driver. He said that the plane just doesn't fell like what a plane is supposed to.

 

The other thing is can these new planes take the punishment of combat like an Eagle or Phantom II? How hard would it be to brake a Raptor? Could it survive anything as close to what the F-15 demonstrated when it lost a wing-and that F-15D continues to defend Israel today. Can the F-35 deliver as much of a punch as a Viper with out losing its stealth to pylons? Can it live up to its predecessor, the P-38,'s glory?

 

Despite the Su-35 and Su-30 having MFDs and FBW and all sorts of amazing modern things it does still have that style.

Edited November 25, 2007 by JA 37 Viggen

[FastCargo 412]

The other thing is can these new planes take the punishment of combat like an Eagle or Phantom II? How hard would it be to brake a Raptor? Could it survive anything as close to what the F-15 demonstrated when it lost a wing-and that F-15D continues to defend Israel today. Can the F-35 deliver as much of a punch as a Viper with out losing its stealth to pylons? Can it live up to its predecessor, the P-38,'s glory?

 

Despite the Su-35 and Su-30 having MFDs and FBW and all sorts of amazing modern things it does still have that style.

 

I don't give a rat ass about style. It's about killing the target, winning the air war, win the ground war to fulfill the political objectives. Period.

 

Also, if anything I'd say the F-22 and F-35 and their ilk are more resistent to battle damage than their predecessors (not including aircraft armored specifically for ground attack (A-10, Su-25, etc)). 5th generation aircraft with FBW and modern programming have something called adaptive flight controls. The idea is that if the aircraft loses air surfaces, the computers sense the loss, and automatically compensate. That, in combination with multiple redundant control pathways instead of old style cable surfaces, increases the likelyhood you can keep the aircraft in the envelope.

 

As a fast jet flyer myself, there is something to be said for 'old school' aircraft and their style.

 

Having said that, the air war isn't (and really never has been) a 'knights having a joust' affair.

 

MvR was the first to admit that...ask how many of his targets died having never known what hit them.

 

FastCargo

[JediMaster 451]

I would, but they're all dead. Communication at this point is very difficult.

[Russkie Raider 0]

Very good read. I knew the Russians had to have gottoen their hands on a Tomcat or two...

[Caesar 305]

I don't think the Russians ever did. The picture at top was over at the Sunset site, and right beneath it was the very same picture in color of the 'Cat in American markings ferrying over to Iran. It's believed that the pic at the top is a photoshop. Got classes today, so I can't rummage through the site to find it yet, but scan at tomcat-sunset.org/forums and try to find the topic.

[Caesar 305]

http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/forums/index.php?topic=2475.15

 

Page 2, Tom Cooper responds to pic with real pic.

 

...guess I did have time to rummage around...

[Buzzard 72 0]

Speaking only for the F-22 and possibly the F-35 there are quite a few interesting characteristics involved. Namely the datalink aspect. The ability for numerous aircraft to have detailed SA from just one aircraft or from multiple sources (AWACS, SAT, Ground Controller) in real time. I've been told that standard combat posture for a 2 plane element for AtA is 50+ miles. That's a helluva spread. Not to mention the phase array radar that the F-22 carries and that via the datalink the other Raptors in the flight can use that ONE radar to target, track and fire from. Talk about not knowing what hit them! All the evildoers see is one A/C. They realize there has to be more, but just where "they" are who knows?

Time to DiDi Mau! Supercruise, thrust vectoring, so on and so forth.

 

Yes these planes COST BIG. Are they worth it? Wait and see. Chances are yes. As a deterrent? During an actual "big" conflict? Is that something anyone really wants? What I find interesting about the Russian developments is the number of different aircraft or different incarnations of the same plane. Sukhoi must be a mad house of design and production. The Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Su-47 and whatever else that they are working on. Then there's all of the Migs.

 

The US military is looking to consolidate. Down to 3+ primary combat aircraft. Sounds cheaper in the long run to me. At one point the Airforce, Navy and USMC operated these combat A/C : F-15, F-16, F-14, F/A-18, F-4, A-7, AV8-B, A-10, A-6, EA-6B. Now certain aircraft a mission specific and difficult to replace. The A-10 is a perfect example. As much as Viper pilots want to say they do CAS great, realistically they can't do it the way Hogs can. Likewise F-15E's can't either. Can the Hornet pull the same duty as an EA-6B? I've read varying opinions.

 

The F-15 is almost 40. The Tomcat is out to pasture. The F-16 is where the F-5 was in 1980. Tapped out. The F/A-18 has a new lease but till when? 2020? What's that...50 years from beginning of active service? Too put it all in perspective, something to think about, the Spitfire design will be 100 years old within the FIRST half of this century! Not too long after the P-51. By 2063 the F-4 will be 100 years old (I'll be in my 90's).

 

Will countries be operating Phantoms in 2020? So, time must march on and old horses do eventually get put down and new designs and innovations take their place. All Except the B-52 (the only fossilized active duty combat aircraft).

 

As to the original post: couldn't the Russians gotten enough info on Tomcats from the Iranians?

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Australia wants the F-22 because it is clear the F-35 for all it's worth won't ensure any kind of air superiority.

 

Won't happen. Firstly, the Senate still gets the F-22 and F-35 confused. There have been a few calls to bypass the F-35 and grab the F-22, usually from the think tanks, a couple of times from sitting members, but not from either the MoD or the RAAF. Plus, despite this not being stated officially although everyone in the industry and in government will say this off the record, no one in any government will ever purchase a plane who's unit costs match that of an ANZAC frigate.

 

There are simple too many uninformed people in the government (and unfortunately the RAAF) who don't understand the nuances of the growing capability gap in the Asia-Pacific region and believe silver bullets or panaceas... that simply having better missiles or better radar will do the job. There is SO much more to it than that! Stealth is the latest buzzword and we run the risk of governments relying too much on the hype and forsaking capability. It doesn't help that legacies from the cold war like not taking Russian equipment seriously don't help either.

 

Oh, and for the record, no, RAAF F/A-18+ Hornets would not match regional Su-30s if they were being effectively maintained and manned by skilled pilots. The technology gap between the two planes is far too great. Consider that the RAAF has only been training and operating AMRAAM for about 6-8 years now. But then again, our neighbours have a tough time of finding funding for maintaining their fleets, let alone flying them!

[JediMaster 451]

A fighter on the ground is a threat to no one but ground crew.