Fallout Studios Forums

Yakolev OKB just won the a new VVS contract for an advanced trainer their Yak-130 design, which is a big boost given the number of trainers the VVS will require if it does in fact mass modernise to new types such as the T-50 for which no two-seat trainer variant is planned (HAL's FGFA design is quite different to the base T-50, and it's been said a few times it's not intended as a trainer). I don't think they're in much of a state to start building new fighter aircraft but they do still have a number of civilian models selling which should help tide them over for a little while.

Why all those subsonic fighters / trainers reminds me L-39?

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 23 January 2009 - 15:33.

CommanderJB, on 22 Jan 2009, 11:49, said:

*Shrugs shoulders* I guess proponents of this particular conspiracy theory would argue that the equipment (weapon systems) of F-15s & F-16s participating in Red Flag exercise was rigged.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that not only are they hard to prove, they are even harder to disprove – particularly because their proponents classify any counterarguments as attempts to cover something up and therefore further proof of the conspiracies’ existence.

I hight doubt a country would dish out multi billion dollars to develop a next gen fighter which cost a leg and arm, have it beaten by old F-15, F-16 and still buy them in bulk. Maybe Bush is stupid, but not the whole country I guess.

Someone, on 25 Jan 2009, 15:39, said:

That would defeat the purpose of Red Flag, considering its designed to improve tactics and ready fighter pilots for air to air engagements. Out of curiosity, where did you hear this rumor?

@Raptor

Well, they could get money, but if Lockheed Martin wanted money, they would have made something that has a much larger market and find a way to repeal the ban on foreign sales of the F-22.

Top Ten Fighters:
10. JAS-39 Gripen
9. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
8. F-16C Viper
7. F-15C Eagle
6. Su-27 Flanker
5. F-14D Super Tomcat
4. Rafale
3. EF-2000 Typhoon
2. F-35 Lightning II
1. F-22A Raptor

Good luck dogfighting in an F-14D - I'd be inclined to place modern Flanker variants well ahead of the Tomcat and at least on par with the Eurofighter/Rafale if not in front. They've even taken steps to reduce the RCS Achilles' heel by significant amounts.
Plus isn't the F-15E every bit as capable as the F-15C in air-to-air? I may be wrong but if anything I'd also rank the F-15K ahead of both its predecessors because of its AESA radar. Some F-15Cs are getting AESA and JHMCS (if I recall correctly at any rate) but at a very slow rate. F-15Ks have them from the start I think.
Edited by CommanderJB, 28 January 2009 - 00:55.

Was the MiG-35 even involved in creation of this list?
Does Su-27 and so have RAM paint? I know Su-35 or new Gripens have this...

partyzanpaulzy, on 28 Jan 2009, 16:02, said:

The Su-35 (improved Su-27) does but the Su-27 does not as far as I know.

DerKrieger, on 28 Jan 2009, 0:40, said:

You can tell that whoever made that list was an American – only one Russian plane made it on the list

Cuppa, on 27 Jan 2009, 2:04, said:

Actually, I first read the theory that F-22 is simply a propaganda tool and not an air superiority fighter a few years ago on a forum not unlike this one. Since then I more than once encountered people saying “the americans employ a propaganda tactic for their new aircraft like the F-22 raptor, praising it so much with it's powerfull armaments so that when an enemy fighter will encounter an F-22 raptor in the air it will just ran away believing that it had encountered an invincible adversary ! but the reality is far from the truth - the F-22 raptor is more like a bluff ! a fighter-aircraft which only exist in the movies downing all the enemy fighters in one dogfight !”.
Although people often do not post their reference sources for such comments, I found out that a lot of such opinions are based on the report by Pierre Sprey (one of the aircraft designers that worked on Lockheed-Martin’s F-16 and Fairchild’s A-10 projects) and James Stevenson (former editor of a USA naval aviation magazine and an author of several books about the USA military). In their evaluation of theF-22 Raptor, Pierre Sprey and James Stevenson came to the conclusion that it is an “overweight, gas-guzzling, unaffordable turkey” (paraphrased by Noah Shachtman).
The report can be found seen here as a pdf file; a “condensed” version of the report is also presented here.

Other than Pierre Sprey’s & James Stevenson’s report, the proponents of “rasptor-propaganda” may point out:

1) F-22 failed to impress veterans; Raptors were refused deployment to Iraq
2) Raptors lack the ability to rapidly exchange information with other weapon platforms (see Fixing The Raptor article).
3) Emerging stealth-detection technologies make expensive stealth aircraft like F-22 useless
4) Eurofighter Typhoon defeated F-22 raptor in simulated dogfight (this claim was made in 20th issue of “International Air Power Review” magazine (ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917))
5) Raptor suffers from numenrous quality issues and technical problems including leaks (leading to corrosion), questionable boom strength (boom is said to be analogous to a ”backbone”), overheating electronics, software glitches (some photographs can be seen here), radar-absorbent coating peeling-off (and “clogging” the engine) and pilots getting trapped in cockpits that will not open



Now although I am no F-22 expert, here is my own personal opinion:

Is F-22 Raptor a propaganda tool?

Yes. I fully agree with the statement that “the americans employ a propaganda tactic for their new aircraft like the F-22 raptor, praising it so much with it's powerfull armaments so that when an enemy fighter will encounter an F-22 raptor in the air it will just ran away believing that it had encountered an invincible adversary !”
I also want to point out that due to human psyche, american pilots will perform better if they believe they operate an “invincible” aircraft.

Is F-22 Raptor a competent air-superiority fighter?

Yes.
Simply put, there are much less expensive ways to spread propaganda than developing and purchasing aircraft worth several hundred million USA dollars. Thus, F-22 is probably more than just a propaganda tool.
So what about Pierre Sprey's & James Stevenson's report? The article entitled RAPTOR ... OR TURKEY? provides some counterarguments for it.
As for F-22 notable technical issues, I want to point out that all aircraft have similar issues when they first enter service (though with all the money put into development of F-22, one would imagine that it would have operational, peel-resistant stealth coating and properly-working canopy).
The other issues (failure to impress veterans, refusal to deploy to Iraq, lack of rapidly exchange of information, emerging stealth-detection technologies, Eurofighter Typhoon , etc.) are either a) not substantial enough to draw an informed conclusion or b) show that F-22 is not perfect (but not nessecaraly an “overweight, gas-guzzling, unaffordable turkey”).

Is F-22 Raptor “a good investment” of money?

I think these two quotes can best describe my opinion on this subject:

From http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...big_to_fail.php

Quote

From http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t...torder-asc.html

Quote

Edited by Someone, 31 January 2009 - 03:42.

Well I'll just drop my two cents. You guys are looking at the Raptor too much, remember what the topic is about









...humans seem to ignore danger until it happens.

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 26 Jan 2009, 22:21, said:

As far as I know, Bush-administration reduced the proposed number of F-22s to be built.

Cuppa, on 27 Jan 2009, 3:04, said:

Something I forgot to mention in my last post: according to Pierre Sprey's & James Stevenson's report, the mock-dogfights between F-22 and other airplanes were biased and “[exploited] the F-22’s theoretical advantages and [excluded] its realworld vulnerabilities.”
However, this report was published in 2006, before F-22 participated in 2007 Red Flag exercise. I wonder what Pierre Sprey and James Stevenson have to say about that exercise?

Cuppa, on 27 Jan 2009, 3:04, said:

Is Lockheed Martin cooperation not trying to lift the export ban?

Destiny, on 31 Jan 2009, 9:07, said:

OK.

Would anyone care to post “stats” for MiG-31 interceptor?
It is said to be undergoing a modernization program, giving it the ability to take on 5th generation fighters, stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, etc.
However, other than what I read in a few articles (eg: MiG-31 to Get Fifth-Generation Upgrades, MiG-31 Modernization, Modernized MiG-31 test flights successful), I do not know much else about new MiG-31. Does anyone have more information about this aircraft or know its “stats"?

Destiny, on 31 Jan 2009, 9:07, said:

I do not see how this applies to what was said thus far.
Edited by Someone, 01 February 2009 - 23:24.

I'd take anything the CDI says with a grain of salt...they've become infamous for saying any US weapons system is worthless...they more or less discredited themselves back before the Gulf War by stating that the US military would be trounced by the "superior (their words)" Iraqi military. Same with Matthew Yglesias...I've taken craps that have more sense in military matters than he or the regular readers of his blog do.

The F-22 wasn't deployed in Iraq because there's no need for air superiority fighters or their pilots (the reason why not so many pilots are trying to be transferred into units flying them.)

Someone, on 2 Feb 2009, 10:20, said:

The administration did so, true, mostly at the behest of Secretary for Defence Robert Gates and another guy called England IIRC, because they think they can get the same capability for cheaper by mass-producing F-35, which they can't. What they might be able to do is get enough capability - even perhaps the right capability - with F-35s. The USAF, on the other hand, have been on their hands and knees begging Congress for more ever since the program numbers started to drop. They (say they) need an absolute minimum of 381, which by all appearances they aren't going to get now Obama's brought Gates back as SecDef, just to keep the same front-line dedicated air superiority capacity they have with all the (larger number of) F-15s the Raptors are supposed to replace. So this is 99.999995% likely a government cutting corners on cost, not a way of quietly getting rid of useless aircraft.

Someone, on 2 Feb 2009, 10:20, said:

Ah, Sprey and Stevenson (and Wheeler, too). Hmm. They're pretty much hated by the entire US defence establishment (which could be seen as support for the theory, I suppose) because they like tiny lightweight fighters and think the F-35 in particular is a disaster waiting to happen. Their pet project was the LWF, which turned into the F-16, and they've been pretty rabid about the Block 30/40/50/52/60 changes that have slowly added and added to its weight while doing nothing about the tiny wing area. They are quite highly qualified, but there's no doubting they have one hell of an axe to grind. Their Australian equivalent is a guy named Carlo Kopp, who also publishes near monthly tirades against the F-35 which are interesting reads if you can get past the agenda at the front of everything.

Someone, on 2 Feb 2009, 10:20, said:

AFAIK yes, as they would get an extremely juicy contract with Japan (who wants them desperately) and probably Israel as well. Australia would also like them a lot (particularly Dr. Kopp) but doesn't really have the cash. It's a Republican senator named Henry Hyde who keeps blocking any efforts to allow export because of concerns about eroding the technological lead the fighter represents by other not so friendly nations getting their hands on them via relaxed security controls (particularly following an incident involving the Japanese losing some rather sensitive information about the AEGIS systems they bought for their destroyers if I recall correctly).

Someone, on 2 Feb 2009, 10:20, said:

I'm not wholly familiar with the MiG-31 in the same way that I am with certain other aircraft such as the Flanker series or Raptor/Lighting II but I do know the basics. The MiG-31BM upgrade program is quite badly needed, I think - they're analogue aircraft restricted to a mid-80s weaponry and avionics set, and while this allowed them to be deployed in large numbers and they're still good for hunting bombers across Siberia, they aren't exactly useful for anything else (nor were they intended to be, so obviously a product of their environment as they are, but they do need to string them along for a while further and can relatively easily expand their capabilities while they're at it). But as far as I know, there hasn't been a lot happening with the program. The VVS seems to have rather tight purse strings at the moment and I think a lot of it has to do with Kremlin dithering, along with an almost certain rise in costs for PAK FA (after all, every other advanced fighter project in the world has gone up recently...). Certainly other major projects are being put off, if not officially, then certainly by all appearances; the Su-34 procurement has ground to a halt while the Su-24M2 upgrade is apparently going nowhere, Su-35 has no firm orders of any kind and despite projections of anywhere between 70 and 200 aircraft there has been no further comment by RuAF leadership practically since its first flight, the Su-27SM upgrades are apparently doing nothing more than trickle through (if that) and the Su-33s are still the same as they were in 1988. Nor have I seen any more than a couple of examples of the Su-25TM upgraded Frogfoots which have become higher priority of late (just like their American counterpart the A-10), which probably wasn't helped by having to bomb one of their major production facilities last August. About the only project that does seem to have gone off without a hitch is the mass upgrading, reactivation and new-build of Tu-160 examples.
Put simply the MiG-31BM is a digital upgrade to the Foxhound that gives it a partially glass cockpit and digital systems integration, allows it to integrate with modern weaponry, fine-tunes the Zaslon phased array radar's infamous raw power to a Zaslon-M standard that is actually mildly useful in resolution, precision and efficiency, and gives it secondary capabilities in the air-to-ground role, though I doubt they're anything more than moderate given the airframe's exceptional lack of adaptation to a land attack profile. But there have been no reports of the program progressing beyond more than proof-of-concept models.
Edit - looks like I got it sort of right, but here's the word from an extremely knowledgeable Russian industry insider:

Quote

Edited by CommanderJB, 02 February 2009 - 23:15.