Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

The entirety of air combat history is that the plane which is not seen kills the plane that is seen 4:1 or more, yet you doubt stealth's central importance?

 

Let's say the stealthier aircraft A can detect the less stealthy (but still LO) aircraft B at 40 km distance and supercruises at M1.6

Aircraft type B can detect type A at 60 km and supercruises at M1.6 as well.

Let's use 330 m/s as M1.0. That's roughly 1 km/s closing speed if they approach head-on.

This leaves a total of 20 seconds advantage to A.

 

Sounds nice, but what if A is approached by B from the side. LO from side is not all that great, and closing speed is still 0.5 km/s.

 

Thus A needs to use a chain of fighters as a tactical formation, and the flank planes of that chain need to be over frinedly territory to avoid flank vulnerabilities.

 

Now it's still a mere 20 second advantage if everything works perfect. maybe 5...10 seconds for real.

 

Let's add free-flying decoys. Let's add B sprinting away at M2.0 once targeted or guessing it's targeted. Let's assume the MRAAM has a pk of 0.05...0.5.

Keep in mind type A has but six MRAAMs.

 

Now you need a 2nd line/chain of type A fighters that can fill a gap caused by A type fighters being forced to turn and run or being out of missiles.

 

The ''front' may be 600 km wide. Suddenly you need like 20 type A fighters on station for one chain.

At two sorties per day (including readiness issues) and on average 1 hour on station per sortie (lots of supercruise, tankers cannot survive LRAAMs and can't be close etc).

 

Now you have a need for 480 type A fighters. Which you don't have, so you mix with slightly LO 2nd rate aircraft developed in the 80's and 90's. You don't have enough of those either, so you have to use 3rd rate fighters developed in the 70's and upgraded with 90's radars at best.

 

Now you have at best one chain of 1st and 2nd rate fighters backed up by a second chain of 3rd rate fighters.

 

First chain wastes its missiles on free flying decoys and disengages, 2nd chain gets overwhelmed by red 1st and 2nd rate fighters.

 

Rinse, repeat.

 

By end of the day you are down to one incomplete chain of 1st and 2nd rate fighters that suffer from exposed flanks.

 

By the third day you have to resort to pulsing tactics, with little to no 'forward' CAP for most of the night, if not for most of the time.

 

By the fourth day you are down to defensive CAP and interceptor tactics.

 

And that's all before we think about attacks on 1st and 2nd rate fighters on the ground or about "stealth" fighters entering IADS traps.

 

 

Somehow I grew a suspicion a long time ago that having good area air defences and PGM SRBMs matter a helluva lot more than having expensive "stealth" fighters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

WTF? The U.S.S.R. MILKED its Eastern European allies, it drained them through COMECON to sustain its own insane warlike military spending for decades.

 

If that would have been the case the quality of life of the USSR would have been higher, which was not the case. Life in Hungary, East Germany or Czechoslovakia was way better than in USSR, especially Republics in Caucasus and Central Asia. In the link below there are many statistics on housing, GDP per capita and so on.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc

 

 

You didn't understand. They milked their WP allies to finance their huge military spending.

Your figures are not in conflict with this historical reality in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Early on, the Soviets bled Eastern Europe to rebuild, even to the point of 'liberating' their plant equipment. Im not sure from the 1950s on it had any truth in it.

 

And a fair bit of that Warsaw Pact military spending was home grown. Look at the Poles building their own T72s and warships for the Soviets. I think even the East Germans built ASW Corvettes for the Soviets. Czechs built artillery and exported it to a few Warsaw Pact nations. Built their own military trainers too.

 

I think the warsaw pact was not as homogenaic as we thought at the time. And I think a fair bit of the money that was driving the Soviets into arrears was funding to prop them up. it was certainly true of Vietnam and Cuba.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, the Soviets controlled the Eastern European economies through COMECON. They ensured monopolies (such as eliminating the recovering East German aviation industry and largely excluding the satellite states from world trade), controlled raw materials prices (again, monopoly because satellites were allowed very little trade with the West until 1984) and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The flyaway costs of F-35 are almost competitive with 4.5 generation fighters already; the US is eating the staggering development cost.

That is more than bold statement o_0

Well, ofc if you exclude shit like indian Rafale sell.

 

It's always very hard to compare the costs of various aircraft deals because it's often not clear what parts and services are included. However from what I can tell, F-35 costs are in the neighborhood of $130 million. Compared to Russian aircraft that probably is a lot. Compared to other Western aircraft, that's perhaps 30-50% more than a 4.5 gen a/c and that price is going down, not up. We may argue about Su-57/J-20 vs F-35, but F-35 against anything else I think we can agree gives a lot of advantages the to the F-35. At the end of the day, I think the only ones who turned down the F-35 when offered it were the Koreans, who then rebid the entire deal as a result, and the Canadians, who likely will come back into the fold after Boeing tried to skull fuck their aviation industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian F-35 problem is mainly political - the Liberals and PC's like to cancel each other's military contracts when they get into power.

 

 

Last Dingo Let's say the stealthier aircraft A can detect the less stealthy (but still LO) aircraft B at 40 km distance and supercruises at M1.6. Aircraft type B can detect type A at 60 km and supercruises at M1.6 as well.

 

 

Your scenario is LO vs LO, which is decidely not LO vs. non-LO. A 60km vs. 40km advantage would need to go into the AI simulator to evolve the correct tactics for the superior aircraft. I doubt these will involve running around at high speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, the Soviets controlled the Eastern European economies through COMECON. They ensured monopolies (such as eliminating the recovering East German aviation industry and largely excluding the satellite states from world trade), controlled raw materials prices (again, monopoly because satellites were allowed very little trade with the West until 1984) and so on.

 

There is a very good book called 'A Cardboard Castle?' that illustrates that the Soviets had increasingly limited control over Eastern Europe. Yes, im sure Comecon was intended as a straightjacket. The problem is you look at Bulgaria, or Romania, or increasing, Poland, it wasnt working.

 

Well they could export cars. We got East German and Czech motorbikes here Im lead to understand. Ill admit im not quite sure what kind of levels of trade there were, but one example of a fairly close tie was the Romanian and British Rail co production of the Class 56 Locomotive. Not altogether successfully, but the traditional argument would have you there shouldn't have been any ties at all.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_56

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well they could export cars. We got East German and Czech motorbikes here Im lead to understand. Ill admit im not quite sure what kind of levels of trade there were, but one example of a fairly close tie was the Romanian and British Rail co production of the Class 56 Locomotive.

 

Romania and Soviet diplomatic relations went sour after 1968 (Ceacescu critisised the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia), thus relations with the West improved, which led to credits, trade and technology transfer. It was also the only Warsaw Pact country not to have Soviet bases.

 

Your figures are not in conflict with this historical reality in any way.

 

 

GDP per capita:

 

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic - $3,764

Polish People's Republic - $2,229

Soviet Union - $2,711

Hungarian People's Republic - $3,115

 

How can you milk a country for funding and end up with lower GDP? Also, Soviets imported L-39 trainers (huge market) and also gave production licenses, which also allowed exports.

Edited by alejandro_
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian F-35 problem is mainly political - the Liberals and PC's like to cancel each other's military contracts when they get into power.

 

 

Last Dingo Let's say the stealthier aircraft A can detect the less stealthy (but still LO) aircraft B at 40 km distance and supercruises at M1.6. Aircraft type B can detect type A at 60 km and supercruises at M1.6 as well.

 

 

Your scenario is LO vs LO, which is decidely not LO vs. non-LO. A 60km vs. 40km advantage would need to go into the AI simulator to evolve the correct tactics for the superior aircraft. I doubt these will involve running around at high speed.

 

It's indeed a huge OR question.

I was in part making the point that a head-on engagement in which the F-22 has the opponent in its radar's field of view is not the likeliest case and flank security would be a huge challenge.

This is but one of many reasons why F-22 would have a very hard time over red territory and may very well be purely defensive assets.

 

Regarding the speed; I'm not even sure the F-22 would be able to reach its service ceiling without going supersonic. The wing loading is high. It's no U-2. It may need that speed to get that high (certainly almost as much thrust as is available with the supply of oxygen), and that 60k ft service altitude is a big part of its strength (maybe a greater one than LO).

Link to post
Share on other sites

F-22 was basically built as a dedicated interceptor almost more along the lines of F-102/106 in that it is optimized for high altitude. I'm not sure what it's cruise speed/sub sonic ceiling is, but I suspect it's pretty high in a clean configuration. At red flag pilots talked of hanging out at high altitude as a sensor for the 4th gen planes and 'dropping the nose' to get up to supercruise for intercepts, which makes me think they were still at a very high altitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's another scenario:

LO fighters flying along old fighters and picking the kills like seasoned aces did among rookies during WW2.

That way of fighting would surely yield very high kill ratios, but at the expense of the cannon fodder, the "low end" peasants in the mix.

 

It's doubtful that this would work particularly well against LO adversaries, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the article I read, the F-22s were kept aloft because they had longer detection ranges and could pass off their info to other aircraft. They still generally took the lead, except when they were Winchester. At that point they often stayed aloft to provide guidance and deconflict 4th gen fighters that were still armed. Which I had the article; it was something in Aviation Leak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That superior range doesn't really matter against LO adversaries, though. They would come fairly close without being detected by F-22 - but close enough for a no escape shot against at 3rd rate fighters.

Either that or the 3rd gen fighters stay back so far that they're not of much use as missile lobbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F22 was arguably designed for a role it no longer has. The idea at the end of the Cold War when they did the design brief on it, was that it would hang out over Warsaw Pact airfields, and Seal cub anything that tried to take of. Think of it as an airmobile Sam battery parked at the end of each runway and you pretty much have it.

 

The problem is, even though the Russians today have far fewer airfields than they did, there is significantly fewer F22's than they intended to buy. So its going to be very difficult indeed to find enough (deployed over 2 oceans mind you) to create an air dominance effect. So I can see why they are trying to use them as force multipliers for the 3rd gen fighters. The interesting thing is what happens when F35 enters service, because from what little ive read on the subject, there may be some issues with getting F35's and F22's to talk to each other. There was some clever discussion of creating flying information bridges, which would be able to take information from F22 and F35 and exchange with both. Though if that is true (and if Im not massively misunderstanding the problem) that sounds like a very expensive hammer to crack a nut.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also issues with F-35/F-22 talking to legacy fighters. The F-35 lacks link16. For the USN I think this the bridge is the E-2D, which apparently can talk to everyone. For the USAF a system that handles this is the TALON pod, which takes the place of a centerline drop tank on the F-15 and doubles as an IRST in addition to being a cross platform datalink.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That superior range doesn't really matter against LO adversaries, though. They would come fairly close without being detected by F-22 - but close enough for a no escape shot against at 3rd rate fighters.

Either that or the 3rd gen fighters stay back so far that they're not of much use as missile lobbers.

LO fighters are generally going to cause a lot of cassualties to non LO fighters, unless the latter can be datalinked to a system that gives them warning and intercept. For the USN that is E-2D. I don't know what the USAF's plan is. But first someone has to put an LO fighter in service. Currently the only candidate is J-20, so perhaps USAF can deploy something. Though really China is more of a Navy problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F22 was arguably designed for a role it no longer has. The idea at the end of the Cold War when they did the design brief on it, was that it would hang out over Warsaw Pact airfields, and Seal cub anything that tried to take of. Think of it as an airmobile Sam battery parked at the end of each runway and you pretty much have it.

 

The problem is, even though the Russians today have far fewer airfields than they did, there is significantly fewer F22's than they intended to buy. So its going to be very difficult indeed to find enough (deployed over 2 oceans mind you) to create an air dominance effect. So I can see why they are trying to use them as force multipliers for the 3rd gen fighters. The interesting thing is what happens when F35 enters service, because from what little ive read on the subject, there may be some issues with getting F35's and F22's to talk to each other. There was some clever discussion of creating flying information bridges, which would be able to take information from F22 and F35 and exchange with both. Though if that is true (and if Im not massively misunderstanding the problem) that sounds like a very expensive hammer to crack a nut.

4th gen, not 3rd. You're not chinese I assume. And datalinks are long used and not so difficult thing to implement (with air-air since MiG-31 arrival and ground-air for much longer for SU). It's F-22 that somehow appetared with pretty rudimental capabilities in that regard.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also issues with F-35/F-22 talking to legacy fighters. The F-35 lacks link16. For the USN I think this the bridge is the E-2D, which apparently can talk to everyone. For the USAF a system that handles this is the TALON pod, which takes the place of a centerline drop tank on the F-15 and doubles as an IRST in addition to being a cross platform datalink.

 

 

That was it, I know I heard something about that somewhere. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The US has defense obligations with several different nations in the Western Pacific,

 

That's a choice, and it can be changed.

 

This is weird about modern alliances; people pretend that they're eternal and kind of law of nature. Same with NATO.

Gone the times of changing alliances (save for maybe Turkey) - heck, Italians even changed sides during both world wars!

To treat non-self evident things as self-evident may lead to very stupid policies.

 

U.S: and PRC do not need to be rivals or opposing each other, and the U.S. doesn't need to prepare for war against the PRC.

It's all about choices.

 

During the Belle Epoque when there were several leading world powers, each of comparable strength, a certain amount of shifting alliances made sense. The various nations would jockey for position, but the others were quick to ally against any single nation that became strong enough to disrupt the overall balance of power.

 

Things are different now. Can you guess how? I give you one hint:

 

yxBtZ0d.jpg

 

The United States is a world-spanning empire and dominant superpower. The second place is so far distant that it doesn't even matter. The United States' foreign policy is to contain any possible rival powers. Right now that means Russia and China, but India is on notice as well. One instrument for this containment is the creation of armed states friendly to the USA adjacent to any potential rivals to keep them bottled in. Unfortunately, the Russians have a habit of calling Sam's bluff on this game (see: Ukraine), so in order for this strategy to work, the US proxies actually need to be armed.

 

Until the global order of powers changes or plate tectonics moves South Korea further away from China, there is no reason to ever change these alliances. US territory is not de jure threatened by a Chinese invasion of Japan, but it is de facto, unless you're silly enough to think that Japan isn't a US territory in all meaningful ways.

 

There are all sorts of invective names you can call this foreign policy; imperialism, neo-colonialism, jingoism, etc. Nobody cares. The American Empire will endure for a thousand years, irrespective of the whining of peasants. The nonsense in Syria is a minor setback caused by Trotskyite wreckers who are being purged as we speak. Dehumanize yourself and face to Trump. Hail Satan!

 

You mean, the design of M1AGazillion Abrams? :P

 

 

Ummm...why did the Chinese fighter thread end up about Su-57, and Su-57 thread ended up being about China?

Was that a rhetoric question? If not, the answer is: Because, TankNet :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Presumably for peacetime operations and ferry purposes. US F-22s made extensive use of drop tanks when used to patrol US airspace near Alaska. There isn't an absolute need for stealth on every mission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...