Ubiquitous1Why Russian A/C have poor visibility
Most likely it is because the Soviets envisioned using their aircraft differently to the West. With highly choreographed GCI guidance to an optimal firing point then departure, the Soviets would see little reason to place visibility at a premium. Furthermore, Soviets don’t see dogfoghts as involving one superfighter against many others; their cold war tactics were to send walls of Mig 23s (later Mig 29s) towards the enemy, fire a wall of missiles and then run. However The Soviets, always fearful of Western capabilities, designed the Mig 29 and Su 27 for dogfights to match western capabilities, hence the better visibility compared to previous soviet fighters. However whilst the Soviets may have designed the Su 27 and Mig 29 to match and surpass western capabilities, at a doctrine level, there was much less emphasis on dogfights. This may well have been correct. With the Archer and all aspect Ir missile dogfights, one need only shoot first to attack rather than continiously manouevre on to an opponents six. The HMS / Archer thus represented a dogfight revolution in that an average pilot could best an ace in that he would have first shot in a dogfight with a missile that would likely hit (BVR is was bnot decisive in the 80s, Sparrow had 20% hit rate against the IRAQIS!) and he could turn for home negating a return shot AS he was firing since he could turn home before firing and swiveling his head still fire first at the enemy, buying precious seconds to turn away earlier. It is very irritating that this brilliant concept has been given no recognition by the West. Oddly though, you would expect this concept to put a premium on cockpit visibility. Most likely the answer is reduced drag to allow Soviet fighters to match western ones, a lack of operational awareness of the need for visibility and designers who likewise lack or choose not to give promoinence to cockpit visibility. Additionally Soviet jets have large radomes to maximise radar range, perhaps adding very large canopies as well represents too great a drag penalty?
Ubiquitous1Further info http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html
Ubiquitous1Further info http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html
Ubiquitous1As regards fielding long range Aam to fit F15C. I believe the General Dynamics contender would have fitted. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/aaam.html
Ubiquitous1As regards fielding long range Aam to fit F15C. I believe the General Dynamics contender would have fitted. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/aaam.html
Ubiquitous1Got the radar ranges link! http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-May-04-P.pdf
Also Seahawk and others you might appreciate these articles on F/A 22 and weaknesses of JSF. Also superb info on Russian fifgters / Sam systems.
Heres the link http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
Click on Jsf etc then look at Australian aviation articles.
Ubiquitous1Got the radar ranges link! http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-May-04-P.pdf
Also Seahawk and others you might appreciate these articles on F/A 22 and weaknesses of JSF. Also superb info on Russian fifgters / Sam systems.
Heres the link http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
Click on Jsf etc then look at Australian aviation articles.
Ubiquitous1Meteor is the same size as Amraam / Sparrow so the U.S developing a long range Aam is feasible. As for range, it would be hard to believe that Meteor would have any range advantage over a prospective U.S equivalent given U.S lead in R&D and especially gel fuel developments and active radar minaturization. As regards Typhoon, etc having lower RCS, it is non significant in a duel. Aesa radars double acquisition ranges against normal targets (was going to post Australian Aviation acquisition ranges of Aesa radars vs Bars etc but link no longer works). Against Stealth aircraft this of course is minimal but against Flanker and eurofighters stealth, Aesa will largely negate RCs advantage of these designs. Of course Pak Fa may change all this but 100 Raptors should suffice especially if this cut frees up funding for silver bullet black programs to defeat it. As regards 300 Raptors, The war On Iraq will probably kill this idea anyway. JSF being multi service will have more political support. Like you Seahawk, I believe Raptor makes FAR MORE SENSE than a warmed over X band stealth only A7 type aircraft.
Ubiquitous1Meteor is the same size as Amraam / Sparrow so the U.S developing a long range Aam is feasible. As for range, it would be hard to believe that Meteor would have any range advantage over a prospective U.S equivalent given U.S lead in R&D and especially gel fuel developments and active radar minaturization. As regards Typhoon, etc having lower RCS, it is non significant in a duel. Aesa radars double acquisition ranges against normal targets (was going to post Australian Aviation acquisition ranges of Aesa radars vs Bars etc but link no longer works). Against Stealth aircraft this of course is minimal but against Flanker and eurofighters stealth, Aesa will largely negate RCs advantage of these designs. Of course Pak Fa may change all this but 100 Raptors should suffice especially if this cut frees up funding for silver bullet black programs to defeat it. As regards 300 Raptors, The war On Iraq will probably kill this idea anyway. JSF being multi service will have more political support. Like you Seahawk, I believe Raptor makes FAR MORE SENSE than a warmed over X band stealth only A7 type aircraft.
Ubiquitous1The F 15 has more life in it than most realize. See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm With regards to F 15 being inferior to Raptor, no argument but an Aesa radar, maws and a long range missile (meteor costs around 3 billion to develop and field) has got to be more cost effective than buying 10 more Raptors. True the R&D has been spent so Raptor might as well be built but how many? Reducing to 100 airframes makes each cost a ridiculous amount adding in R&D but will save the U.S BILLIONS upfront that can go to newer silver bullet forces. Just as reducing the B2 has opened up billions to be spent elsewhere. Really the U.S messed up. Raptor was justified in the Cold War. Clipping JSF’s capabilities so as not to threaten the Raptor has led to really no option but to field Raptor. Coincidence? I doubt it. Really an stealthy F 16 type jet is what the U.S needs. High performance but not at the price of high cost. JSF would achieve this if not for the complexities of meeting 3 requirements plus support for it dwindling, reducing airframe purchases and economies of scale (plus that terrible transonic wing). Don’t know the cost benefits of a 300 Raptor force vs 100 Raptors plus F15s updated and a new missile. It might favor Raptor but I doubt it given the tremendous full cost (including R&D) and flyaway cost of Raptor.
Ubiquitous1Well that changes the Mig 29s chances of winning that India contract for the better…
Ubiquitous1I agree with Flex 297. Against most threats Raptor will do just fine but its important to question its cost effectiveness and to question its survivability. Thats whats great about these forums. Different views on aeronautical subjects by people as knowledgable (if not more so) than oneself.
Ubiquitous1Reconditioning F15 airframes plus modest updating costs 3-4 billion at most (see Fas entry on F 15).U.S navy already has rebuilt centre-section barrels for Hornets, the RAAF may do the same. Likewise, Tornado F3’s had centre-section replacements due to unexpectedly high fatigue. As a Raptor critic, reconditionong F 15 airframes and adding AESA and a ultra long range AAM would be the cheaper alternative to Raptor. Raptor would not be cancelled but cut to 100 units. This silver bullet force should be sufficient to secure air supremacy working alongside F15s. Money saved (not a choice with Iraq bills) could go towards next generation fighter development. Its important to remember a Rand study and Ben Rich’s comments that advanced experimental airframes in small numbers can be decisive; large airforces are not always necessary to achieve results (F 117 in Gulf War). Rand report suggests continously fielding secret new technology fighters in small numbers to win wars, maintaining U.S tech advantage, each generation replacing the next so other nations can’t match you. Have Blue and Area 51 imply that the U.S actually does this. If Raptor had been fielded as a small force of fifty airframes not needing to be easily maintained (like F 117 to begin with), would it not have fielded earlier before counters to it emerged. It would not need to be so advanced since it would not need to field threats 30 years fronm now. Another project would have taken its place. Mass ap[plication of high technology so it would have cost less as a program as well. Easily maintained stealth and a changing threat envronment that the Raptor had to survive, boosted Raptors cost and development timescale. Programs like EAP, Have Blue, Tacit Blue in small batches would make more sense. Frontline fighters should be affordable like F 16, leave high tech, high cost to small production lot platforms that continiously change raising U.S tech to a level no one can ever match. Use these assets as force multipliers for more affordable assets, not as programs so expensive, you cannot easily replace them should their technology fail.
Ubiquitous1Well it will be even sadder if there is a Taiwan Straits conflict. Phoenix whatever you believe of its effectiveness sure has a no escape zone that will be missed. Nonetheless the F14 lives on in Iranian colours. http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml
Ubiquitous1Thats why the U.S has the Government Accounting Office (GAO). To make sure the Pentagon doesn’t just get its way. Democracy and military spending need oversight to work properly (A12 anyone?). Incidentally the GAO have slammed both F/A 22 and F/A 18 EF (some call it the Stupid Hornet) largely because of cost overruns and performance shortfalls. Does anyone know how technically literate the GAO are on the weapon systems they evaluate? Or does GAO look not from a needs basis but just an accounting perspective?
Sign In
