“You get what you pay for” couldn’t have a more appropriate example than the F-22.

Judging from these globalsecurity.org numbers:

Date Deployed
July 1972

Production
[for USAF]
360 F-15A/B
408 F-15C
61 F-15D

Total Inventory
275 F-15A/B
410 F-15C/D

Approximately 100 F-15s are in storage @ AMARC

Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory

45 F-15A/B Air National Guard Air Defense Force
45 F-15A/B Air National Guard
126 F-15C/D Air Combat Command
90 F-15C/D Pacific Air Forces
36 F-15C/D US Air Forces Europe

342 F-15A/C TOTAL

What’s the difference between Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory and Total Inventory? Does it mean that the USAF currently has almost 700 F-15A/Cs at its disposal, but it’s ‘useable’ inventory is 342, or does it mean something else?

If the later is the case, 218 F-22s should easily replace that, being so much more capable etc and so far and away superior to anything on the horizon.

Cancelling F-22, at this point, simply is not possible. There’s no replacement for it out there, and the JSF will simply not be able to do what F-22 can, at all.

Originally posted by flex297
That is questionable… Not every country that buys Russian equipment currently must strictly hold up to Russian tactics or training doctrines. Well, some 20-30 years ago in the Fishbed and Flogger era it was less possible to stay independent but now Russians simply produce multirole fighters just like anybody else.. I am dead sure you could fit a Flanker even with APG-70 and US made RWR and ECM suite if you strictly wanted it that way. It is only a question of money (the little problem) and politics (the big problem).

Germans as strictly Western-oriented country have recognized the ex-NVA MiG-29 as a perfect close-scenario fighter platform (R-73 and HMS plus good aerodynamics performance). They have also recognized its drawbacks, short MTBO for engines, short engine service life expectancy, small combat radius and some limits in BVR capabilities (N-019EA and early R-27R1). With the current MiG-29 versions all these (repeat ALL) drawbacks were removed (upgraded RWR, upgraded avionic, new radar, new missiles, A-G modes, CFTs, uprated engines with almost triple MTBO etc.)

It is up to each user what he can do with that. There are several countries that use Russian stuff combined with Western tactics and even Western aircraft.. Germany, India, Iran, Malaysia for example..

You’re wasting your time mate- at best, he’ll simply wave his hand, not respond to those parts of your post he can’t think of something to say for, and just repeat himself. I already pointed out the use of Soviet fighters in a NATO system to rebut his nonsense that you can only use Russian fighters with Soviet doctrine once before, he simply ignored it and tried to change the subject.

Whatever, dumbass. Keep running your mouth off, I’ve finished slapping your retarded brain around the forum for all to see.

You’re such a chickhensh1t Goldendragon, what’s the point of even talking to you? You edit what I say out of your own replies (all the more easy to lie about what your opponent is saying), and just repeat your blanket, mind-numbingly stupid general statements again and again. I think it’s quite clear whos came out to be the idiot. I need not right up another lengthy reply which you’ll simply ignore.

F%ck it.

That picture is from an airshow. Russians stage stuff like displaying Kh-41 next to SU-30s and SU-33s even though both planes (the SU-30s at that time) could not even come close to being able to technically support those missiles through their radars.

They seem to have stopped this practice, and unless I’m mistaken Kh-41 was the only thing they ever did it with. The Kh-35 however is still appearing on the MiG-29K and MiG-29M2 as of MAKS 01/03. Perhaps other aircraft as well.

Find me a pic, man. Urans and Sunburns are no big secret and sellable export commodities.

Kh-35/Uran may be no big secret but the Kh-41 (not Moskit) isn’t exactly widespread. Personally, I like Oniks/Yakhont better.

You have no reason to find it hard to find air version pics of these missiles if they actually exist in sellable form (e.g. something more real than a mockup). Pics of R-77s, Kh-31s, Kh-29s, Kh-59s, KABs, R-27s and R-73s are plentiful . They are truly without a doubt.

And pics of Kh-15s & Kh-25s- heck, even unguided rockets (on the Su-35 etc) aren’t. Does that mean it’s in doubt? Or are we simply unlucky?

I’m only making one point: the Kh-41 *has* flown, according to Jane’s- and there’s no good reason to think they’re lying or are wrong. Heck, in their entry for the Oniks, they actually overestimate the in service date (the entry I have dates from before MAKS 03) to 2005, never mind it was accepted in 2002- they’re not optimistic arms sellers. They do make errors occasionally, but usually minor details like the exact characteristics of say the gunner’s sight on the T-80, rather than “this missile is in service”. As has the Kh-35 (though I’ve seen conflicting in-service dates- perhaps related to confusion about the Kh-35 and the improved Kh-35U, the consesnus is that whatever the exact date, the air launched version was accepted).

Originally posted by crobato
[B]Oh don’t give that carriage shot. I know the exact webpage you can find that (http://www.aviation.ru/Missiles/)

It’s actually originally from Jane’s. And why is that carriage shot so unworthy?

Note how such planes are said to be spec’ed for the Kayak, but the pictures don’t show it.

Ever seen a picture of an Su-35 with say, X-25MPs? Does that mean the missile is vapor ware and the Su-35 can’t carry it?

Carriage? You mean you’ve missed the carriage shots? That’s easy!