wow. never seen anyone lap up russian propaganda like this. when have we seen russian fighter/awacs combinations work in combat oh thats right we havent.NATO have always enjoyed more sophisticated aircraft then russia….. USAF Vs RuAF would lead to terrible losses on the russian side…. Having putin in power is not like having Robin Olds in every russian aircraft like you suggest of the RuAF abilities.
Meanwhile, NATO, USAF& RAF have combat proven awacs/fighter combos, expeditionary warfare, round the world strategic bombing capabilities and air refueling… USAF has more tanking capabily in one wing then the whole RuAF!!!

The Russians don’t need combat experience to prove that they’re superior. They’ve used simulators, and artificial intelligence, as well as press releases, to demonstrate that all other Air Forces might as well surrender, due to the overwhelming odds against them.:cool:

Even in neutral environment. Ruaf would have advantage over any NATO opponent. MIG-31/Su-27 simply have longer legs with longer weopons in operations both for AAM & AtoG. Same is true for high power A-50. which can see further than NATO AWACS. Most of bomber force is Supersonic so can deliver more tonnage per day basis vs B-52/B-2. Russians give raw power of sensors, speed and longer range of aircraft the most importance. So future fleet of MIG-31BM/Su-34/PAK-FA/Su-27SM2 will have distinct advantage over NATO aircraft like JSF/F-22/EF/Rafale/F-18E. And also land based aircraft are more suitable for antiship/ASW role along with fleet defence.
NATO forces assume that they will always have access to friendly airbases and airspace along with tanker/AWACS support to make up of shorter leg aircraft but Russian assumes that there economic/military power along with space based survellence will prempt that possibility fo sudden attack and neutralize the friendly enviornment.

Western pilots are no more proficient on per capita basis just like Olympic athletes. And Russians are using advance simulators to make for certain skills.
u dont need to produce exact number of flying hours to produce the same result.

-Let me understand you correctly- the RuAF fighters taking off in Russia and flying into Western Europe, are going to have longer legs than fighters that took off in Western Europe?:rolleyes:

-Are you saying that the A-50 is gonna be operating over Western Europe too?

-Unless you’re counting on weapons that you think are operational, and with the sorts of ranges you’ve claimed(though without one iota of proof), then there’s not gonna be a range advantage of AAMs.

-I’m gonna have to put my money on a B-52-B-1B, B-2 force, for endurance, payload, weapon variety/effectiveness. With the exception of the B-2, no bomber is gonna penetrate the airspace in a non-permissive environment(though the B-1B’s low altitude/high speed might pose a good challenge for air defenses).

-Flying in a simulator is better than nothing, but it can’t replace the real thing, and Western pilots get considerably more flight hours than their Russian counterparts, and are considerably less dependant on GCI.

I can still remember some Italian fishermen back at 1999 claiming that NATO F-16s from Aviano airbase were dropping “huge bombs” into the Adriatic sea but still continuing their mission to Serbia.;)

They most likely were carrying more than 2 bombs and 2 AAMs, and used AB takeoff.

The configuration was meant to be a comparison with the F-35s internal ordinance.

The F-35’s internal carriage is a first day of war option, not a necessity at a later date. That’s also if it’s carrying 500-2000lb bombs. It can carry more SDBs.

Also true, but avionics can be incorparated into almost any aircraft, f.e. an F-16 block70 or block80.

But that F-16 is never gonna have the RCS of an F-35, no matter what level of avionics it’s fitted with. It’ll have to depend on having longer range AAMs than it’s opponent, to remain competitive. The F-35 has more flexibility with regards to engaging and disengaging, on its own terms.

That would be a tough clash with many losses. But it depends on the situation, too. Russians would fare much better over their own territory as defenders than over foreign territory as attackers..

They’d have a fuel advantage, not to mention the IADS/ground based radars.
I suspect the western pilots are much more proficient on a per capita basis though.

Here’s the real reason, It will only be a waste of money if you don’t buy something else you need!!.

What do you think you need more?

Tankers.
Transport aircraft.
Armoured Humvees.
Coin aircraft.
Body armour.
Anti IED support equipment.

How many US troops have been lost due to enemy air action in the last 50 years?, how many to ground forces?

This is where you will find the answer.

Cheers

The reason that ground troops haven’t been lost to enemy air action, is because the USAF/USN/USMC cleared the skies.

Asking about what capable enemy did the F-15 fight brings us back to the first point. Is the F-22 a waste of money?

I agree that the F-15 has been flown by some of the best trained pliots in the world. The US, Israeli, Saudi, Japanese and now South Korean and soon Singapore. All have well funded armed forces. Its opponents have been lesser trained and equipped. The Serbs had the best training of the Eagle’s adversaries but let’s face it they had the “export” MiG-29A’s and were trained in the old Soviet style of relying on ground controllers. If the F-15 is still the king of the hill just replace the old F-15’s with new builds with new avionics instead of building the pricey F-22.

The F-22 was designed in the mid 80’s to go into service in the mid 90’s to face the Soviet fighter hordes however the Soviet Union collasped and the F-22 program was delayed and scaled back like the Eurofighter and the Rafale.

IMHO the F-22 is a waste of money and resources in the current environment but the program was really too far along when the Cold War ended and it was the US Air Force’s baby and they weren’t going to kill it.

The issue is that the USAF doesn’t want parity with an enemy. They want overwhelming supremacy(i.e. clubbing baby seals:cool:).

The Eagle fought against the enemy they faced; the Eagle pilots didn’t exactly chose their opponents during the morning briefs. However, among victims you can count a number of high speed, high altitude MiG 25 (a plane that the Eagle was designed to kill), and a number of MiG 29, aside a large number of MiG 21, Mig 23 and a few Mirages…Keep in mind that most of the kills were in ’80 and in 1991 Gulf War. In those days, those planes were the nowadays Su 30, or Rafale.

And the Eagles made those kills with older, less capable missiles and avionics.

The max installed thrust is of secondary importance, when the max military is that in use for over 90% of flight-time. The F-35B is in desperate need of higher military to cope with the rising weight of that. A side-effect is, you can get a higher AB thrust too. But that value is published to cover-up the weight problems. Whatever AB thrust you will install into a F-35, it will neither rise max speed nor adding something in performance to normal missions, except take-off run and climb out. At level flight the drag may have not changed and the F-35 is “overpowered” = less economic already. 😉

Is the exact military power on the F-35 known though, or are the figures that have been given merely in the general ballpark? If the figures are on the conservative side, they may not truly reveal the situation in a truly realistic manner.