5th generation jet fighters

[Targan]

The Sukhoi T-50, is it a true 5th gen 'stealth' fighter? Could it go toe-to-toe with the F-22 Raptor?

[Mohoender]

My answer would be yes. Still I'm not convinced it can fully challenge the F22 Raptor which might remain the best fighter of that generation. The future F35 Lightning (also a 5th generation fighter) might still be inferior to the F22.

Mig29 hardly compare with F15 while being of the same generation.

Moreover, according to the US DoD, it seems that they are more concerned about the Chengdu J20.

I don't know if that site is fully reliable but it gives some interesting insights:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-081109-1.html

[95th Rifleman]

With the current economic mess the Americans could find themselves dropping behind. Take the "new" technology for the F22 that allows a pilot to aim a missle wherver he looks, the Russians have had this technology for a while now and use it in their MIG 29's.

I have to disagree with Mohoender, the export MIG 29's are no comparison to the F15 but the Russian model (along with the SU 37's) can compete with the F15.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

With the current economic mess the Americans could find themselves dropping behind. Take the "new" technology for the F22 that allows a pilot to aim a missile wherever he looks, the Russians have had this technology for a while now and use it in their MIG 29's.

Which is a further development of older technology from the AH-64 Apache.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just as an aside, the site that Mohoender has linked to is essentially a series of articles by military science analysts and researchers.
Both the men who founded the site have careers relating to or directly involved with the defence forces.

Dr Carlo Kopp is a qualified pilot and has written for many defence publications including Jane's Missiles and Rockets and Air International. http://www.ausairpower.net/editor.html
Mr Peter Goon is a qualified pilot and has served in the RAAF and graduated from the USN's Test Pilot School. http://www.ausairpower.net/CV-PAG-2007.html

Is it reliable? Yes but it must be pointed out that these two men have a particular aim and that is to promote a better air power capacity for Australia and their collection of articles is meant to support that idea.

http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html

[Raellus]

The Su-50 airframe might end up being as stealthy as the F22 (although I doubt that it will be) and, if the MiG-29 and SU-27 series are any indication of a trend in this direction, it will probably be more manouverable. But the Russians are still a bit behind the west in terms of avionics. So, I'll have to give the edge to the Raptor.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

With the current economic mess the Americans could find themselves dropping behind. Take the "new" technology for the F22 that allows a pilot to aim a missle wherver he looks, the Russians have had this technology for a while now and use it in their MIG 29's.

I have to disagree with Mohoender, the export MIG 29's are no comparison to the F15 but the Russian model (along with the SU 37's) can compete with the F15.

For what its worth: The MiG29 was never meant to square up against the F15- it was designed more as a counter to the F16. The SU27 on the other hand, thats aimed right at the F15.

[Legbreaker]

When you consider that over the last fifty years or so, many of the worlds conflicts haven't really involved East vs West technology (Iraq being one exception to the general rule), and with many of the worlds more unstable and warlike nations/regions fielding essentially the same equipment as each other....

It seems unreasonable to assume Russian built planes will need to go up against Western airframes. A more reasonable approach may be to compare the sale price - a $2 million plane is much more likely to see combat against a similar value, unless the poorer force does something REALLY STUPID and pisses off a wealthier country (or one with a higher amount of it's GDP spent on the military).

Even if similar technology is pitted against each other, the quality of the pilot will have a LOT to do with the outcome. A novice in the seat of the most advanced machine conceived by man is almost guaranteed to loose against a highly trained pilot in a machine 30 years old.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The Su-50 airframe might end up being as stealthy as the F22 (although I doubt that it will be) and, if the MiG-29 and SU-27 series are any indication of a trend in this direction, it will probably be more manouverable. But the Russians are still a bit behind the west in terms of avionics. So, I'll have to give the edge to the Raptor.

Dunno about that, the Russians have been ahead of the curve with thrust vectoring. I think the SU-50 and Raptor will end up more balanced than people think. The Raptor will have a tech advantage with avionics and perhaps better stealth but the Su-50 is likely to be far more manouverable. In a one on one fight the Raptor will need to get the first strike kill because I think the Su-50 will turn out to be the superior dogfighter.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

When you consider that over the last fifty years or so, many of the worlds conflicts haven't really involved East vs West technology (Iraq being one exception to the general rule), and with many of the worlds more unstable and warlike nations/regions fielding essentially the same equipment as each other....

It seems unreasonable to assume Russian built planes will need to go up against Western airframes. A more reasonable approach may be to compare the sale price - a $2 million plane is much more likely to see combat against a similar value, unless the poorer force does something REALLY STUPID and pisses off a wealthier country (or one with a higher amount of it's GDP spent on the military).

Even if similar technology is pitted against each other, the quality of the pilot will have a LOT to do with the outcome. A novice in the seat of the most advanced machine conceived by man is almost guaranteed to loose against a highly trained pilot in a machine 30 years old.

Vietnam War
Six Day War
Indo-Pakistani War
Yom Kippur War
Iran-Iraq War
Bekaa Valley

All proxy wars perphaps regarding US/Western vs Soviet technology, but still a lot of combat between East and Western technology.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Even if similar technology is pitted against each other, the quality of the pilot will have a LOT to do with the outcome. A novice in the seat of the most advanced machine conceived by man is almost guaranteed to loose against a highly trained pilot in a machine 30 years old.

I agree -- the Russians are coming up with some great machines, but I heard somewhere that Russian pilots get as little as 12 flying hours per YEAR -- even an Air National Guard pilot in the US gets about that in 1-2 weeks.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Dunno about that, the Russians have been ahead of the curve with thrust vectoring. I think the SU-50 and Raptor will end up more balanced than people think. The Raptor will have a tech advantage with avionics and perhaps better stealth but the Su-50 is likely to be far more manouverable. In a one on one fight the Raptor will need to get the first strike kill because I think the Su-50 will turn out to be the superior dogfighter.

That's pretty much exactly what I wrote. Not sure where the disagreement is.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's pretty much exactly what I wrote. Not sure where the disagreement is.

I disagree the Raptor has the edge. My interpretation of the available data is that only in the event of the raptor achieving an early, surprise kill does the raptor have an advantage.

In a situation where the SU-50 has warning of the kill shot advanced countermeasures combined with the, superior, Russian thrust vectoring will give the SU-50 an above average to good cance of avoiding a kill. After that it goes to an old fashioned dogfight and I think the SU-50 will have the edge.

Allot of Western advantage is in long range, kill shots from surprise and the east is rapidly developing the technologies to reduce this element of surprise. I think it's a dangerous weakness that the west has in relying too much on stealth and a surprise kill.

[Sanjuro]

Ever since the first world war, the essence of aerial combat (especially between fighters) has been surprise- most of the Red Baron's 80 victims never saw him. Even in a dogfight, it is less often the aircraft you are manouvering to avoid who shoots you down, than his wingman who you never knew was there...

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Allot of Western advantage is in long range, kill shots from surprise and the east is rapidly developing the technologies to reduce this element of surprise. I think it's a dangerous weakness that the west has in relying too much on stealth and a surprise kill.

I agree to this. I recently learned that GPS had been shot down during the Russo-Georgian conflict of 2008, not surprising and explaining part of what appeared to be weaknesses of the Russian forces (who could not use precision ammo and had to attack at shorter range than the West now do). This weakness has already been overcome by Russia (Glonass) and probably by China (Compass).

Also, I don't wish it, I would be very interested in seeing the result of a long conflict were both sides would have tremendous difficulties to maintain the actual technological level.

Another weakness in the West comes from the fact that we have not fought anything outside of petty wars since 1991 (also true for Russia and China). Over the past 20 years, all our offensive actions have been conducted using overwhelming superiority against greatly weakened foe and we, as Russia, are not always doing that well. Actually, I'm even tempted to say that Russia did slightly better than NATO over the last 10 years: the Second Chechen War can compare to the war in Iraq or Afghanistan and the South Ossetia War was won in less than ten days. Remember that the First Chechen War had been lost by Russia, they have already gone a long way.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I agree to this. I recently learned that GPS had been shot down during the Russo-Georgian conflict of 2008, not surprising and explaining part of what appeared to be weaknesses of the Russian forces (who could not use precision ammo and had to attack at shorter range than the West now do). This weakness has already been overcome by Russia (Glonass) and probably by China (Compass).

Also, I don't wish it, I would be very interested in seeing the result of a long conflict were both sides would have tremendous difficulties to maintain the actual technological level.

Another weakness in the West comes from the fact that we have not fought anything outside of petty wars since 1991 (also true for Russia and China). Over the past 20 years, all our offensive actions have been conducted using overwhelming superiority against greatly weakened foe and we, as Russia, are not always doing that well. Actually, I'm even tempted to say that Russia did slightly better than NATO over the last 10 years: the Second Chechen War can compare to the war in Iraq or Afghanistan and the South Ossetia War was won in less than ten days. Remember that the First Chechen War had been lost by Russia, they have already gone a long way.

While I won't speak as to the others, I do feel that I have to say something about the last example. The war with Georgia isn't as much as a glowing example of how good the russians are. The fact that it was pretty much all over in 10 days isn't something the Russians should be bragging about. While it is true that the Georgian's 'officially' started the mess by over reacting to what they felt was a minor provocation by mostly internal security concerns was proven pretty threadbare when all those russian divisions, who by merest of coincidences, just 'happened' be to right there, and by strange turn of luck, just 'happened' to be fully up and ready to invade another country. The Georgians was way way out of their league against the Russian Army. The best trained and equipped forces they had wasn't available, the air was natural at best, and downright hostile most of the time, and was outnumbered by a truly significant degree. The fact that they lasted 10 days is a knock on the russians inability to deliver a knockout blow and the sheer will to fight on in the Georgians. At the end, the russians had to fall back to the old fashioned soviet doctrine of throwing enough sh*t at the wall to get some to stick. I won't go into the political debacle that surrounded the US reaction to it, since its a rather inflammatory point of view on my hand, but be it as it may, I wouldn't call the invasion of Georgia as an example of how the russian army is getting its stuff together.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

While I won't speak as to the others, I do feel that I have to say something about the last example. The war with Georgia isn't as much as a glowing example of how good the russians are. The fact that it was pretty much all over in 10 days isn't something the Russians should be bragging about. While it is true that the Georgian's 'officially' started the mess by over reacting to what they felt was a minor provocation by mostly internal security concerns was proven pretty threadbare when all those russian divisions, who by merest of coincidences, just 'happened' be to right there, and by strange turn of luck, just 'happened' to be fully up and ready to invade another country. The Georgians was way way out of their league against the Russian Army. The best trained and equipped forces they had wasn't available, the air was natural at best, and downright hostile most of the time, and was outnumbered by a truly significant degree. The fact that they lasted 10 days is a knock on the russians inability to deliver a knockout blow and the sheer will to fight on in the Georgians. At the end, the russians had to fall back to the old fashioned soviet doctrine of throwing enough sh*t at the wall to get some to stick. I won't go into the political debacle that surrounded the US reaction to it, since its a rather inflammatory point of view on my hand, but be it as it may, I wouldn't call the invasion of Georgia as an example of how the russian army is getting its stuff together.

One could say many of the same things of the U.S.-led coalition's two "wars" against Iraq (i.e. the Iraqi army plainly sucked and was pounded by numerically superior forces at the points of attack).

One of the things that makes T2K so cool is the whole "what if?" of what a major war between NATO and the WTO would look like. One simply can't predict the outcome of WWIII based on the respective combatants' performance in proxy wars against third-rate powers (or guerrilla wars).

[ArmySGT.]

Does it have a net centric war fighting capability?

The Raptor can get all of its targeting information from other friendly Active radar in the area.

The AWACs or J-STARS will be feeding the Raptor squadron targeting info by satellite down link. Each plane becomes an extension of the squadron leaders plane after that. The Squadron Leader then designates targets and when he fires,the systems on the other raptors fire also. Each independently targeted so that a missile is not wasted targeting an enemy airframe twice.

The Raptors would be vectored to their targets and would have firing solutions before even coming into range of the enemy aircraft radar and IR sysytems, assuming those systems could see the Raptor in the first place.

This precludes the assist from Modified F-111s that are being changed to a payload of AIM-120 AAMRAMS. Something like the ability to carry 20+ engaging at medium range and using the F-111s speed to avoid a dog fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjyJT9wAaWY

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Raellus

One could say many of the same things of the U.S.-led coalition's two "wars" against Iraq (i.e. the Iraqi army plainly sucked and was pounded by numerically superior forces at the points of attack).

One of the things that makes T2K so cool is the whole "what if?" of what a major war between NATO and the WTO would look like. One simply can't predict the outcome of WWIII based on the respective combatants' performance in proxy wars against third-rate powers (or guerrilla wars).

Very true: And to be fair, the terrain was very much on the Georgians side. The only point(s) in favor of the US invasion of Iraq on this subject is that while all organized resistance to the invasion was pretty much put down fast and hard (The size of Iraq should be taken in account on how long it took) our biggest, most massive, most unforgivable goof was Rummy's decision to override the Local Commander and totally disband the Iraqi Army. If it was left in place, all those soldiers who wound up arming, or even joining, the resistance would not have happened to the same degree. If for no other reason that staying in the Iraqi Army bases meant that the Allies would provide food and pay. Which, hindsight being what it is, would probably been the cheaper option of the two - in every measurable way.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Does it have a net centric war fighting capability?

The Raptor can get all of its targeting information from other friendly Active radar in the area.

The AWACs or J-STARS will be feeding the Raptor squadron targeting info by satellite down link. Each plane becomes an extension of the squadron leaders plane after that. The Squadron Leader then designates targets and when he fires,the systems on the other raptors fire also. Each independently targeted so that a missile is not wasted targeting an enemy airframe twice.

The Raptors would be vectored to their targets and would have firing solutions before even coming into range of the enemy aircraft radar and IR sysytems, assuming those systems could see the Raptor in the first place.

This precludes the assist from Modified F-111s that are being changed to a payload of AIM-120 AAMRAMS. Something like the ability to carry 20+ engaging at medium range and using the F-111s speed to avoid a dog fight.

Someone watched Dogfights of the Future.

[Panther Al]

Back OT(ish), a lot of attention has been paid to the Su series, but what of the good old MiG29?

Sure, its a 4th gen fighter, and lately, the russian ones have had nothing but issues. But India still has more than a few, and like them well enough that they are getting more. The German Luftwaffe liked the ones they inherited, and the Poles still use them as well as a number of other countries.

I think that you can't count out the MiG29. The Indian ones are getting avionics and ECM from the Israeli's, who are also giving a hand to Poland with theirs. Romania actually asked the Israeli's to do a total upgrade from the rubber up on the MiG29's they had, but eventually for cost reasons backed off and upgraded the snot out of the MiG21. Even the Israeli Air Force took a long hard look at the 29 - They leased a number for use as aggressors and to evaluate them for the possibility of a no holds barred upgrade building on the prototype of the MiG29 Sniper for the Romanian Air Force - which makes sense as you can probably get a good price on the Airframes from former users, as well as I am sure if you presented cash to the russians they would be more than happy to sell as well (Hence the 5 privately owned flyable MiG29's in the USA), providing a second source of Aircraft, second sources being a very important thing for the Israeli Military.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Someone watched Dogfights of the Future.

Indeed: Neat idea, but the F111 has been long long gone from USAF service, even the Aussies have gotten rid of the ones that they used.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

The war with Georgia isn't as much as a glowing example of how good the russians are.

I didn't meant it that way and agree with you about the political debate. I said they had done slightly better not much better. I only thought of military performance and don't argue that it was outstanding. I'm neither saying that the West is performing baddly. I'm only saying that neither the West nor the Russian, Chinese or Indian have had much experience with large scale operation against a challenging foe.

Back to the fighter/equipement part. Over the past 70 years, the advantage has moved constantly and neither side had the oportunity to really test its best against the other side's best. When they first appeared over Israel Mig-25 outrun everything Israel had (that was a surprise that conducted US to produce its best aircrafts: F14, F15, F16, F18 and the other way around). These are terrific warbird and IMO Rafale, Grippen, Mig-29 or Su-27 are equally impressive. Still all these aircrafts had been created using a technology dating back 30-40 years. They are as old as I'm and we have yet to see the next generation at work.

F-16 outmatch Mig-21 and 23
Su-27 outmatch Mig-29
NATO loses little aircraft as it conducts long range strike, operating away from the threat of air defense (fair but what would be the result if it had to face Patriot/SA-10/SA-20 missiles?)
The Russian lose a Backfire to a SA-11 when they had to mount improvised recon missions (relevant only to their own long range capability at the time)
A F-117 is shot down by a SA-3 Goa being tracked by a WW2 technology radar (that's a surprise but it simply means that every technology has its drawback).
A10 Thunderbolt would have been retired if not for the 1991 Gulf War.
US aircraft could freely flight over USSR until a certain U2 was shot down by an SA2.
In time, SA6 proved a real threat to Israeli aircrafts.
We are now making a big deal about all these MRAP vehicles but we forget that the South Africans have used them for almost 40 years as the rest of the world was looking at them with amusement. Nobody laughs anymore.

Things change
...

[Panther Al]

From what I recall, loosing the 117 to the SA3 wasn't that big a shock to those that knew what the situation was. At the time I was gaming with an AF guy whose job was to portray Russian Air Defense. I asked him about it and he laughed. Basically, he pointed out the usual rule of warfare: Don't do the same thing at the same time at the same place for days in a row. In this case, the pilots, knowing they was in an invincible aircraft would make its runs down that Mountain Valley night after night. The Serbs noted that their people in the valley reported that a jet would scream over them at the same time for the past few days. Well, on night four, they placed a Goa Battery aimed at the point where any aircraft screaming down it would have to exit at, and placed a guy at the other end with a telephone. As soon as that guy heard the plane, the battery pumped out massive amounts of power into a *very* small area, and placed the finger on the launch button. As soon as they heard the aircraft, they launched blind, and as soon as the missile was halfway to the valley opening, the 117 exited right at the focus of all that Radar energy. Oops.

Less a dig on the technology of neither plane nor missile, but massive props to the Serb Commander who came up with that plan - like it or not, that was genius. Even if the circumstances that he took advantage of will never happen again.

[Mohoender]

Interesting and nice indeed.

[95th Rifleman]

laziness and complacency (spelling?) have killed more pilots than any other factor.

Same thing in the battle of britain. Stukas had worked so well in the European blitzkrieg they got lazy and used the same damn tactics against British coastal radar. The problem was the RAF where organised and effective and Britiah wasn't poland and the low countries.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Indeed: Neat idea, but the F111 has been long long gone from USAF service, even the Aussies have gotten rid of the ones that they used.

Oops your right. It is a B-1 Lancer refit in the simulation. Something I am hearing of may be kitted out as the new Wild Weasel that will accompany LR bombers on the 1000 mile plus flights.

[Raellus]

For some reason, MiG-29s don't seem to have lasted as long as F-16 built around the same time or even earlier. I wonder why? Is it inferior materials in the airframes, poor maintenance, hard use, or a combination of various factors?

When the West first got a good look at the MiG-29, I remember it came as quite a shock. Here was a light, twin-engined fighter with manouverability comparable to the F-18, with passive IR detection system, and helmet-mounted sight for non LOS IR missile targetting. I'm glad it didn't happen, but I'd love to see what an air war over Europe would have looked like c.1988. I really think that, save for pilot quality, the MiG-29 and SU-27 would have been a good match for F-16s and F-15s and Tornado F3s. Throw in massive numbers of MiG-21s and 23s, and NATO would have had their hands full.

[95th Rifleman]

I think WP nations had less resources and less time/skill/money to maintain aircraft. That and the east made more aircraft.

In the west we nurse aircraft along for decades because we only build a limited number at a time. Britian is a good example as our Tornadoes are over 30 years old now!

In the west we keep an aircraft going, in the east they just built a new one.

[Panther Al]

Thats a really good question on why they haven't lasted.

My take is this:
In Russian service maintenance has been a joke at best. Stored outside, exposed to the weather, and hardly used. That destroys an Airframe faster than anything.

In German/Polish service, they lasted: In fact Poland figures they won't replace them till 2015-2020, and these airframes was made in the 80's. India also isn't having much issues with Airframe issues, save for cracking at the wing-roots, where the most stress on the aircraft is. But its an easy and cheap fix.

My 2 cents is in the maintenance of the aircraft. NATO MiG29's (And isn't that a odd phrase) get plenty of maintenance, and flight time, to sort out issues as they arrive before they become bigger issues.

I still want to see a Israeli rebuilt Fulcrum. Talk about a Fulcrum you'd have to respect.