38 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

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.

[partyzanpaulzy]

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

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

[Someone]

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

Someone, on 3 Jan 2009, 6:54, said:

About the Raptor, I am totally unqualified to say either one way or another, but I heard a rumor that it is far less capable than what the official reports say and exists simply as a “propaganda tool”. In fact, the rumor says USA refuses to export F-22 so that no one finds out how poorly it truly performs.

That's extraordinarily unlikely. In a recent Red Flag exercise (credited by pilots who've seen actual combat as more intense than the real thing) Raptors scored 144 kills for one loss when heavily outnumbered by the best F-15 and F-16 pilots the USAF had to offer. There are multiple reports of pilots seeing it visually but being completely unable to target it with their weapons systems, including one of an Australian pilot on exchange.

*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.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

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.

[Cuppa]

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

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.

[DerKrieger]

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

[CommanderJB]

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.

[partyzanpaulzy]

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...

[DerKrieger]

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

Does Su-27 and so have RAM paint? I know Su-35 or new Gripens have this...

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

[Someone]

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

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

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:

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

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?

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

Yes, the F-22 is a great fighter if we’re locked in an apocalyptic struggle against an invading alien race. Wouldn’t Will Smith look great in one? However, for fighting an actual war against an actual enemy, it’s like using an electron collider to cut a steak. No one’s quite sure what it would do, but it’s definitely both cool and expensive.
In the meantime, our next nearest strategic competitors are developing quite effective, missile-based alternatives to maintain the threat of aerial bombardment without establishing air supremacy. Heck, the much less expensive un-manned aerial drones capable of remotely firing laser-guided munitions are perhaps a much bigger advancement in the art of warfare than the F-22.
In short, we don’t need the F-22 to win a war against any rival nation’s military. We don’t need it to fight terrorist organizations. We don’t need it to advance state-of-the-art research on military weapons. We don’t need it.

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

Quote

They say the F-22 is an air dominance fighter that can shoot down any plane in existence and I completely believe that. They mainly designed it for BVR combat and not WVR. When they should have considered that other countries like China and Russia are developing their own stealth tech which would cause both planes to have to get closer in order to lock-on. But the F-22 has just about the same role as the F-15. After about 2 weeks into a combat situation the F-15s circle the AWACS until they run out of fuel looking for a bad guy that is never going to leave the ground because they already blew them up. So most of them go back home. That means we are spending over $100 mil per F-22 to have it circle the AWACS and occasionaly blow something up. Now everyone is probably saying it's really the F/A-22 and it can attack ground targets as well so it will still be useful after the 2 weeks. But if it can attack ground as well as air, then why in the hell would we need so many F-35s? Plus we can take out ground targets easily with a Tomahawk and not risk losing an aircraft to a SAM.
I really think the JSF will become the workhorse of the USAF just like the F-16. Although the F-16 was not intended to be a multi-role fighter until the AF brass "Gold Plated" it, they do it with all aircraft.. Building a multi-role fighter that can do the jobs of many aircraft seems like a far better idea to me.

The F-35 has many pluses over the F-22 such as: it is far cheaper than the F-22, can carry a greater payload. and is or will be stealthier than the Raptor. It will also be able to shoot down A-A targets and bomb A-G targets. It seems to me that the F-22 is nothing but an F-15 with a new airframe. I serioulsy don't hate the F-22 or the F-35, I would like to fly either one of them. I just think the F-35 is a better plane mission wise than the F-22.

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

[Destiny]

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.

[Someone]

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 26 Jan 2009, 22:21, said:

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.

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:

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

That would defeat the purpose of Red Flag, considering its designed to improve tactics and ready fighter pilots for air to air engagements.

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:

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.

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

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

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

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:

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

I do not see how this applies to what was said thus far.

Edited by Someone, 01 February 2009 - 23:24.

[DerKrieger]

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.)

[CommanderJB]

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

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 26 Jan 2009, 22:21, said:

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.

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

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:

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

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

That would defeat the purpose of Red Flag, considering its designed to improve tactics and ready fighter pilots for air to air engagements.

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?

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:

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

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.

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

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:

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"?

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

Just in order to try to put it more or less right:
The RuAF is still pondering what its posture/doctrine/battle orders will be in the next decade(s), so it's very likely that all current plans will/are undergoing change and modification of some sort.
Latest rumours are:

1. The air force guys are not totally satisfied with the current SM mod of the typical Flanker, they want the more advanced SM2 instead (logically)
2. Similarly (but the other way round) they are not satisfied with the current M2 mod of the Fencer, they want the much cheaper but almost exactly as efficient M1 version (that has the huge merit - in costs/efficiency terms - to originate not from Pogosyan's head, but from a competitors' R&D)
3. The current layout of the future force evolution is supposed to be like this:


- gradual phase out of early Fulcrums, replacement/need of replacement still debated
- vintage Flankers to be replaced by SM (1,5 - now - to max 3 regiment-strong force) and SM 2 (more or less 30% of current Flankers): "affordable multirole", rest with latest Su-35 (total multirole non-stealth, some Fencer and Fullback overlap, and export of course)
- phase out of most Frogfoots, a max figure of 70+ retained as modernised versions (precision attack, PGMs) till 2015/2020
- PAK FA gradually replacing remaining Su-27/MiG-31 (and forthcoming Su-27SM/SM2 and MiG-31BM in the air superiority role) in tandem with the Su-35
- MiG-31 will remain in service till the 2020s or maybe even 2030s if its BM version proves good, otherwise phase out since 2014-2015 and replaced by Su-35/airborne AEW assets + PAK FA mix.
- The future of the Su-32/Su-27IB/Su-34 whatever (i.e. Fullback or whatever) is still uncertain (despite pilots' conversion at Lipetsk and the second serial prod "bort" flying, because it is still not clear whether its role can be fulfilled by modernised Fencers/Backfires and Su-35 much better and in a more affordable manner
- Backfires are finally set to go on till at least 2015, with unspecified modernisations (that could kill the Su-34 eventually). If not, the Su-34 will replace all Fencers and Backfires from 2015-2020 on.
- and (last but not least), as an anecdote, rumour has it that some of the remaining vintage Foxbats will be modified as unmanned recce platforms

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