Originally Posted by Kapedani
Could someone actually make the CASE for…more F-22s? 187 F-22s, with the superiority they provide over existing and near-future platforms (and the fact that the F-35 already exceeds it in many aspects)
1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field can make a CASE…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigadier General Burton Field
While a fine bomb-hauler and (one hopes) a good multi-service airframe,
the F-35 is a mediocre performer.
Said 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field,
“The problem with the F-35 … is speed. It doesn’t have the capability to supercruise.
Speed lets us get inside the decision cycle of the bad guy.”

For the most dangerous air battles and attack missions,
F-35 squadrons will rely on F-22s for support.
That’s an unavoidable state of affairs when you design an airframe to replace
slow- and low-flying Lockheed Martin A-10 Warthogs and Boeing AV-8B Harriers
as well as light and flexible F-16s and Boeing F/A-18 Hornets.
The F-35 is a compromise. Potentially a very successful compromise, but still ..

Well, if the only thing that can be said against the F-35 is that it “can’t supercruise”…then I don’t think its a very good argument. Yes for the “most dangerous air battles” it will rely on the F-22. A force of 187 F-22s is more powerful than any air force currently on earth…just by itself (minus the US).

Under what scenario would such a “most dangerous air battle take place”? Against the RuAF? Even against them, 187 F-22s is way overkill. Any potential scenario of the future…won’t have more than a couple of dozen Flankers on steroids as adversaries…under which you certainly won’t need 187 F-22s but probably…4 🙂

The question is, if you’re going to have nearly 1,500 F-35s, and probably a few hundred stealthy UCAVs in the next couple of decades…do you really need more than 187 F-22s?

As for Iraq vs. Iran, IRIAF Phantoms were only successful against flat-nose attacker variants, the MiG-23BN. In fighter vs. fighter combat they only scored twice against MiG-23MF and once against MiG-23ML, while losing eleven/twelve aircraft. That accounts for the 11:3 score in favor of the MiG-23M, which is a good result.

According to Tom Cooper at ACIG, IRIAF F-4s have shot down at least 6 MiG-23MS/MF/ML.

By contrast Iraqi Mig-23s have shot down, according to the same database, 7 Iranian F-4s.

And as was pointed out earlier, the F-4s were on ground-attack duties at the time. And by the same respect, IRIAF F-4s have shot down a LOT more than 6 MiG-23s (26 MiG-23s to be exact)

At least the russians tried a new combat envelopming demostrator (which is very different from just a NASA testbed -X29-), instead to just “stealtify” an F-15…

The mechanical engineering challenges are way more complicated, than just searching for low RCS, or comming with RCS peaks and claim them as the average measure…when all your real live performances fail, you can always count with the mythical VLO tale…is the whole story of the F22…

Check the JSF or ATF program, nobody did really care about the RCS crap, these programs were under pressure mainly by the physical, and mechanic performances, rather than testing the airframe with radars…and they were won because the physical performances, not because the IR/radar signatire.

Cheerleaders get convided just by novelties and marketing, but the USAF did not, when they chose the less “stealthy” ATF design.

Or when they fit terrain following radars on their B-2s…

Reduced radar signature, while has become important, has not become more important than real performances, like maneuverability

And on that, a successfully aplicated concepts on the su-47 were and are more important than whining about RAM coatings , software “secrets” or ultra electronics on “LPI” (what a joke) mode.

At the end of the day the program was way too ambitious, and was scrapped, the plane is still flying, but these wings could not endure the fatigue for operational requirements

So you’r saying that the “concepts” and manuvrability of the S-47 is more “impressive” in real world terms than the…worthless…stealthy thingies the US puts on its planes?

So according to you…manuvrability…trumps everything?

Some people would disagree 🙂

While the S-47 as a concept is “interesting”, it is a decade too late, and as far as real world applications of the concept, it is good for air shows only.

Simple fact is…that in the past 30 years there hasn’t been a single dogfighting manuvering engagement where the battle was won through superior manuvrability, or superior “aerodynamic concepts”. And the reason for this is the overwhelming superiority of all those…”junk” as you describe them…electronics, radars etc etc etc.

Of course one needs to ask the question as to whether the S-47 actually has any advantage in the aeroynamic side of things or not…But judging form the performance of people in this forum in the past…it would be STUPID of me to ask such a qeustion (only to be swamped with 14-yealr old fan-boy replies). So I’ll leave it at that.

I think I am talking with a 5-year old kid here. How old are you anyway?

I said, compare concepts, not one piece of aircraft vs another. A series produced Rafale surely has better surface finish and fine layers of RAM applied, who cares? Taking a Berkut and adding serrated edges takes 2 months and costs as much as pocket money of all employees together. Now how much does adding canted tails and internal bay on the Rafale take and cost?

Probably older than you, but thats besides the point. The SIMPLE and…easy…point is that some Russian fanboy cam here and said the S-47 was the BEST stealthy design (after the Americans), in the world…EVER :p Now to make such a claim, it is necessary to have some basic FACTS on that design. Since none have been shown…after about a dozen attempts…that this design is BETTER…IN RCS REDUCTION…than other non-US low-observable designs…than thats the end of the story. Thats the point of the story.

Going on and on about “it has canted tails” means absolutely nothing if there can be no data available on whether taking an Su-27 tail and canting it by 3 deg…makes ANY ANY difference at all in RCS reduction.

And yet you keep on insisting…and insulting me along the way in a jouvinile manner…that somehow it is BETTER, regardless of the facts which point that it…PROBABLY and most likely…isn’t…because of its FSW design itself.

Instead you keep beating the same old ridiculous things…its got canted tails (yeah…so did the F-18 30 years ago…so do countless designs…the actual BENEFIT of the actual tail design in this case and others HOWEVER…CAN and is questioned 😉 )

———-

I only asked one extremely simple and easy to answer question. IF it is BETTER…HOW is it better? :rolleyes: Its not so extremely difficult to answer, if it so clearly it is better. Simple question…do the canard, FSW and Su-27 tails tilted at 3deg…somehow…lead to an RCS reduction that is BETTER than the efforts put into the Eurofighter and Rafale?

I would say…NO. Thats my opinion…and you’r free to keep INSULTING in jouvinile manners all you want. People in this forum seem to be adapt at this.

What a dissapointment…

Can the Sniper pod serve a similar function?

Ugh…

First of all there’s ZERO relations between putting in a ABM system in Poland…and Russian gas and oil to Europe. Its not very hard to understand but I’ll try to explain it…: the two have no relation.

Russia depends on those oil and gas pipelines even more than Europe depends on them. Where do you think Russia gets its money from? Vodka sales? The last thing Russia wants to do is cut off oil and gas to Europe and therefore FORCE them to go and get it from other sources (as someone already mentioned, W.Europe is more than happy to keep getting it from Russia because its easy…without any regards for what that might actually mean…down the road). Russia starts playig around with Western Europe…and it can kiss its economic development goodbye.

They’r not THAT stupid.

The US putting ABM missiles in Poland would have no effect on this whatsoever. Russia wants to make NOISE so that Putin can come on TV and sounds like the tough guy who put the US down for the average Babushka to be impressed with. Political noise to bolster internal support for the Putin regime over a military issue that is of no threat to anyone…has no relations to sales of a commodity by private companies on the free market, sales on which that country depends on for its survival BTW.

I’m pretty sure most intelligent politicians in W.Europe understand this much…but then again there’s always more of the less intelligent ones.

——–

Secondly, as far as E.European countries. Whether the system was good or not is of no issue. The US made the request to base them there…and they went out of their way to accomodate this. And in the process, had to take a lot of flack.

And the return from the current US administration for that was? Leaving them in the mud.

There’s a certain thing about keeping your allies close…and if you throw them by the wayside too many times, you won’t have many allies left next time around.

All this once more, is about the current US administration, not the US as a country. An administration that can’t see past its nose.

So you do admit that you dont give sqwat about what the general public even in these two countries not liking it either, as long as their governments appove them. Yeah your a true humanist…

We’re not all blessed with your obvious humanist qualities, unfortunately.

What exactely did they do? Except from housing secret CIA torture prisons?

Well despite what you’ve read in the newspapers, E. European countries have lost hundreds of soldiers for America’s war on terror. A committment that didn’t come easy for any of those nations, and which none took lightly.

But then again, you’v probably only heard of the “torture prisons”.

As I said, we’re not all blessed to be such humanists as you.

But tell me again, what were the long lasting diplomatic punishment Poland and Czh took for sucking up to this? Did the rest of the European Union impose trade sanctions on them or even dissaproved of their decission? No? Ok, just name one thing and I’ll let it go, ok?

Hmm…the fact that Polish and Czech politicians had to take a lot of flack at home and risk their own careers just to accomodate the US plans…only to have the current US administration just say “oh we were just kidding”. (and of course similar examples not just in Poland and Czech republic but in a number of other E.European countries)

This is certainly a slap in the face of relations with America’s Eastern European allies. They all did so much to accomodate the US…and during Bush there was mutual appreciation of those efforts. Now?

Hmm…so last time I brought up some of these points…you all jumped at me as if I had denounced Jesus or worse…

Lets take a look at what these articles say:

This text basically mentions that Mig-29s will have to last untill at least 2015,when a squadron of new multi-role airplanes will be procured.

Which is what I said earlier…about 10 years is when they can start looking for new procurements. Strangely I was wrong when I said it earlier… :rolleyes:

Current projects that will be actively pursued until 2010

– Lasta 95 , piston powered aircraft for basic pilot training
– Self-propelled howitzers (122mm and 155mm)
– M21 infantryman equipment program (introduction starts in 2007)
– Computer network within Air Defense system
– Modernization of “Neva” SAM guidance system (targeting radar and so on)
– Research and development of TV and IR missile guidance systems
– Research and development in rocketry and ballistics
– MoD has created group for military cooperation with Israel
– Most likely from Israel will come communication equipment, command and information systems (in stead of satellite)
– There will be limited modernization of M84 main battle tank (communication equipment, fire control system)

So…whats missing from this list??

No G-4Ms, no TV or laser guided weapons…and look…no M-2001…the modernization of M-84 is said as comm and fire control systems.

Hmm…isn’t this what I said earlier as well?? M-2001 is an export model which can’t and won’t be introduced in Serbian service…for one simple reason that its mostly a Russian upgrade? And strangely I was wrong back then too…

– 2007 – 10% of military budget will go for modernization

– 2010 – 12 %

– 2015 – 20%

– Expected defense budget in 2010 will be 2.4% of gross domestic product

– Above financial figures have been produced by Serbian Ministry of Finance

Lets look at these numbers. At 2.4% of GDP…Serbia will spend far more on defense as a precentage than any of its neighbours. I don’t really know if that is achievable or sustainable or a very smart thing to do at all…but thats up to your voters to decide if bread and butter is less important to them then military.

So 10-20% will be spend on “modernization” in these next 12 years. Keeping in mind these things will change almost certainly in this time…given that government changes lead to changes in this as well…and this seems like a very unlikely and unsustainable rate either way…it smells more of propaganda…but for arguments sake lets say it is so. Lets say this gives us an average of 15% anually for these 12 years…

With an average defense spending of lets say…600 million during this period of time…this gives us about 1 billion dollars spend on procurements and modernizations in this period of 12 years…or so. This is just for argument’s sake becasue it almost certainly can’t be this high…its not a sustainable rate. But for argument’s sake.

Given the list there of all the modernizations and procurements they are planning for this time period…I just don’t see where the money…even at this rate…will be found for even modest purchase of NEW MODERN multirole fighters of the class these newspapers are describing. Of course journalists take liberties with such things..

But lets figure this much…Austria bougth 18 Eurofighters for the pricetag of nearly 2 billion dollars! Thats twice as much…so in real terms if Serbia SAVED that 1 billion dollars for the next 12 years and sepnd it on absolutely nothing at all…they’d still be able to afford only about 9 Eurofighters. Of course this is very unrealistic and just for argument’s sake…as money will be spend on a lot of other things…but its an example of illustrating that the things many of you were saying (and keep saying), or these journalists…aren’t realistic in the least!

Even something cheaper…Malaysia bought 18 Su-30s for nearly 1 billion…so again we’r talking that if Serbia saved that money and spend it on NOTHING at all for 12 years…they’d be able to afford 18 Su-30s. Well…once more unrealistic at all.

So…was I still wrong when I said all these things a couple of months back?? I guess I was…
—————————————

– No later than 2010 MiG-21’s are going in to retirement .I wonder what will happen with MiG-21bisR? If MiG-21R is also retired than there will be no other option but to use IJ-22 but they lack speed and their ceiling is much lower compared to MiG-21bisR.My opinion is that MiG-21bisR should stay in the service.

What would be the reconn reuiqrements or needs of Serbia in the future…to require the need to maintain such an aircraft? Considering there are only 3 left in existance? None…

For support role I think that SAF should go with either Ka-52 or Mi-28

At 12 million dollars a pop…plus weapons and support and so forth…Hmm…

– Medium range SAM will most likely come from Russia (BUK-M) but in my opinion SAF will be much better of with missiles that have active radar homing device in stead of semi active / command guidance missiles like one found used by BUK missile complex. For example Norwegian NASAMS would be good option because it will provide fire and forget capability thus increasing system survivability and resistance to anti radiation missiles like H-31 and AGM-88

Hmm…one battery of Buk-M will go for at least 1 billion dollars…or the total ammount of money saved up for modernization and procurement for 12 years. You think thats likely?

It looks that G-4 will stay in service until 2020. It would be nice to restart production sometimes after 2010 so that new airframes can be introduced in the service (and potential exports should not be overlooked) As is seem during 2010 – 2015 current airframes will be modernized .I think that same modernization should be implemented as proposed to Lybian government (new HUD, HDD, FLIR, laser designator pod, LGB-250 and wingtip mounted Air to Air IR missiles

With the problem that if the Libyan deal goes through…that means that Serbia will in fact be selling ALL its remaining G-4s to Libya…not leaving any for modernization for the Serbian AF.

New multirole fighter will be introduced in the service and in my opinion by far the best option will be JAS-39 although Eurofighter would be very good option but I think that price of it is too high for SAF

One JAS-39…one of the “surplus” ones they’r selling…goes for nearly 70 million dollars a pop. This not including spares, training or weapons.