Eyewitness From the Cockpit: F-15/16 vs. MiG-29

[Raellus]

Although it takes a while to get going, this is a really interesting article about air combat ranging from the late Cold War to the present day, by a pilot who's flown both U.S. and Soviet-era fighter aircraft.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how...lew-1682723379

It's really interesting to read about how combat aircraft match up by someone who's actually flown (or flown against) all of them.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

That was a very interesting read, as much for the insights into the politics of the USAF of the day as it was for the info on the various aircraft.

[RN7]

That was a really good read, great information and stories about US combat jets and their adversaries. I also liked Clifton's opinion of the F-35, " A pig". If only the powers that be would actually listen to the pilots instead of the lobbyists.

[Adm.Lee]

Agreed, a good read.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Fascinating read.

Especially considering the hundreds of millions the US has dumped into coming up with an HMD that wouldn't be out of place at a Daft Punk concert, meanwhile the Soviets invented a clip on wire monocle that works twice as well and when coupled with the AA11 pretty much means death if you get bounced.

It was however "comforting" to know that the vaunted IRST system wasn't really worth a damn.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

It was however "comforting" to know that the vaunted IRST system wasn't really worth a damn.

Yeah, they've been playing that thing up for years. The last instance I saw was in an article earlier this year.

I wish the subject of the interview had first-hand experience in the SU-27 as that's our current rivals' premiere platform (until the Su-50 hits production lines).

With regards to the F-35, I recently read it referred to as "too big to fail". The various government partners have poured so much money into the project so far, that continuing to authorize spiraling cost-overrides seems less wasteful than cancelling the program entirely. I believe such action is called "reinforcing failure". The interviewee's advice to cancel it and put the money into buying more F-22s (and upgrading existing examples with workable tech from the F-35 program) seems wiser to me.

[Matt Wiser]

I agree, and go with the F-16E/F and the F-15 Silent Eagle. Not to mention staying away from this "Send the A-10 to the boneyard" nonsense. Though a workable compromise might include F-35B for the USMC, RN, and RAF, as they do need a Harrier replacement.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

I agree, and go with the F-16E/F and the F-15 Silent Eagle. Not to mention staying away from this "Send the A-10 to the boneyard" nonsense. Though a workable compromise might include F-35B for the USMC, RN, and RAF, as they do need a Harrier replacement.

That's a valid point, but from what I've read, that model is by far the most jacked-up of the three. Apparently, its engines melt current carrier decking material so it's not cleared for VTOL use yet, or something to that effect.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yeah, they've been playing that thing up for years. The last instance I saw was in an article earlier this year.

I wish the subject of the interview had first-hand experience in the SU-27 as that's our current rivals' premiere platform (until the Su-50 hits production lines).

With regards to the F-35, I recently read it referred to as "too big to fail". The various government partners have poured so much money into the project so far, that continuing to authorize spiraling cost-overrides seems less wasteful than cancelling the program entirely. I believe such action is called "reinforcing failure". The interviewee's advice to cancel it and put the money into buying more F-22s (and upgrading existing examples with workable tech from the F-35 program) seems wiser to me.

I get the impression that Clifton is not overly impressed with the Flanker derivatives and its Chinese clones. As he said the Flankers are not stealthy and he described it as being slow and its manoeuvrability is not great, so in a WVR scenario it holds no advantage whatsoever over any modern US or Western European fighter. The Flanker would seem to come into its own in a BVR environment and unfortunately there was no information on its capabilities in this arena. However I think any advantage if any the Flankers would have over a Western fighter at BVR would be reliant on technology, and that advantage would be restricted to the F-15 and F-16 generation rather than the current F-22 or F-35. However even an F-15 and F-16 could hold its own against the Flankers in both BVR and WVR environments with upgraded avionics, AESA, long ranged AAM's and engines, and as Clifton stated Western pilot training is superior. In WVR a Eurofighter would certainly give an F-22 a run for its money, but at BVR the only aircraft on the horizon that might really trouble an F-22 would be the Russian T-50 which is an unknown quantity. I don't rate the Chinese at all as their technology is not good and they steal and copy from other countries. However the stats on the T-50 show it to be smaller and less powerful fighter than the F-22, so any advantage the T-50 would have would be in the technology the Russians put into its radar, sensors and missiles.

The chorus of critics of the F-35 seems to be growing louder by the week. The F-35 is just not a good fighter aircraft and its reliant on technology which so far has proven to be unreliable. No US pilot seems to have a good word to say about it, but those who have publically criticised it have been reassigned or censored. Too much money has been ploughed into the project for it be cancelled but John McCain is now the now the chair of the Armed Service Committee and is no fan of the F-35 and he has prolonged the service life of the A-10. After 2016 when Obama is gone it would make a lot of sense to keep the F-35 as an attack aircraft as it is very stealthy and has advanced radar and sensors. However it would also make a lot of sense to upgrade the F-22 and perhaps some F-15's and F-16's for the Airforce, and buy more Super Hornet's for the Navy until the 6th generation F-X fighter enters service in the mid 2020's.

[Matt Wiser]

Those are very likely courses of action that McCain and his counterpart at HASC will pursue. And there's an ex-Hog driver now in Congress: Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ), Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.). She has vowed to fight to preserve the A-10, and she sits on HASC.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

I get the impression that Clifton is not overly impressed with the Flanker derivatives and its Chinese clones. As he said the Flankers are not stealthy and he described it as being slow and its manoeuvrability is not great, so in a WVR scenario it holds no advantage whatsoever over any modern US or Western European fighter.

I may have missed something, but IIRC, his criticisms of the Flanker's lack of maneuverability at low speeds were specifically concerning the misuse of vectored thrust capabilities on some models and the impracticality of the Su-27's more notorious airshow theatrics (ie Pugachev's Cobra). In the case of the former scenario, I think he pointed out that F-22 pilots could also get themselves into trouble by over-relying on vectored thrust in a dogfight. His point was that you don't want to trade too much speed for fancy manouvers as if the aerial kung-fu stuff doesn't work first time, you're left in an incredibly vulnerable position.

I'm all in favor of upgrading our existing fleet but some of those airframes are pushing the limits of their airframe lifespans. On a somewhat related note, in an article I posted in another thread here a couple of months ago, the author stated that the USAF is no longer training its F-16 pilots for air combat. Although that might save money, it seems awfully short-sighted to me.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I may have missed something, but IIRC, his criticisms of the Flanker's lack of maneuverability at low speeds were specifically concerning the misuse of vectored thrust capabilities on some models and the impracticality of the Su-27's more notorious airshow theatrics (ie Pugachev's Cobra). In the case of the former scenario, I think he pointed out that F-22 pilots could also get themselves into trouble by over-relying on vectored thrust in a dogfight. His point was that you don't want to trade too much speed for fancy manouvers as if the aerial kung-fu stuff doesn't work first time, you're left in an incredibly vulnerable position.

I'm all in favor of upgrading our existing fleet but some of those airframes are pushing the limits of their airframe lifespans. On a somewhat related note, in an article I posted in another thread here a couple of months ago, the author stated that the USAF is no longer training its F-16 pilots for air combat. Although that might save money, it seems awfully short-sighted to me.

Well all of that is true Raellus but the Soviets designed the original Flanker (the Su-27) as an Eagle killer. From what we now know about Soviet aerospace technology and pilot training it is highly unlikely that the Su-27 would have bettered an F-15 at WVR, and in all likelihood would have been slaughtered by a GE engined F-16 flown by a competent USAF pilot in WVR. The point being the Flanker is a big heavy air superiority fighter in the same class range as an F-15, and its best air combat environment is in the BVR arena. All of the Flanker derivatives and its Chinese clones are similar in size and capability to the original Su-27, and their alleged advantages seem to be upgrades related to radars, sensors, missiles, the tweeking of the their engines performance and additions such as vector thrust, not anything to do with radically new airframes.

Currently the F-15 and the F-16 are still being built for export, so therefore they could still be built for the USAF or newer built in-service models could also be rebuilt and upgraded at the same facilities and I'd say for a lot less money than buying a new F-35.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I think all branches and countries - outside of politicians and defense contractors, and military types about to become defense contractor salespeople (e.g., 1 and 2 star generals about to "retire" at 50) - realize now that the F35 is a turkey. What DoD is hoping for is that the F35 will "season" over time and like the Phantom gradually grow into its role. On the contrary I believe it's going to wind up like F111. A capable aircraft in a very, very narrow role but one that did nothing but drain the budgets of multiple departments and services on its way to the boneyard.

Good news about A10 fans being part of acquisition, although I'm quite sure the USAF will find a way to fuck it up.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

I think all branches and countries - outside of politicians and defense contractors, and military types about to become defense contractor salespeople (e.g., 1 and 2 star generals about to "retire" at 50) - realize now that the F35 is a turkey. What DoD is hoping for is that the F35 will "season" over time and like the Phantom gradually grow into its role. On the contrary I believe it's going to wind up like F111. A capable aircraft in a very, very narrow role but one that did nothing but drain the budgets of multiple departments and services on its way to the boneyard.

Good news about A10 fans being part of acquisition, although I'm quite sure the USAF will find a way to fuck it up.

Could you see a dud like the F-35 project ever being developed in Russia, or the company that built it and its design team ever escaping lengthy prison sentences in Siberia for ripping off the Russian armed forces? What happens when the F-35 has to go into combat against credible opponents and its electronic gadgets start to malfunction? Not even worth thinking about.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

Currently the F-15 and the F-16 are still being built for export, so therefore they could still be built for the USAF or newer built in-service models could also be rebuilt and upgraded at the same facilities and I'd say for a lot less money than buying a new F-35.

I'm under the impression that current production is intermittent and very small batch. I know we do ugrades on existing customers' airframes but don't think we're doing high volume sales of new-build aircraft.

It's also hard to sell new-production of older models of aircraft when...

A. All the cool kids are buying the shiny new F-35.

B. Our former customers are offloading their old F-16s at rock bottom prices. (I think the resale market for F-16s is actually doing better than new sale market).

C. Our rivals and competitors are underselling us with their own offerings (i.e. the SU family, Dasault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon). For example, I just saw some Sukkoi sales material showing South Korea as customer for it's new PAK-50.

Don't get me wrong- I don't building upgraded models of tried and true platforms is a bad idea, I just see it as a really hard sell, both domestically with the politicos and internationally with prospective customers.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by RN7

Could you see a dud like the F-35 project ever being developed in Russia, or the company that built it and its design team ever escaping lengthy prison sentences in Siberia for ripping off the Russian armed forces? What happens when the F-35 has to go into combat against credible opponents and its electronic gadgets start to malfunction? Not even worth thinking about.

Go into combat? The fucking thing's gun won't even fire - the software to do that won't be ready until 2019. Carrying what else, four JDAMs and angry thoughts?

God willing someone will finally pull the plug on this disaster.

But what am I saying? This is the brain trust that cancelled the A12 and said "Oh the F/A-18-E/F can do it all!"

*facepalm*


With that said the Russians/USSR developed plenty of "dud" aircraft (and vehicles). Their museums are dotted with them...

[RN7]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

With that said the Russians/USSR developed plenty of "dud" aircraft (and vehicles). Their museums are dotted with them...

True but it only cost 13 roubles, a bottle of vodka and a sack of potatoes to develop them!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm under the impression that current production is intermittent and very small batch. I know we do ugrades on existing customers' airframes but don't think we're doing high volume sales of new-build aircraft.

It's also hard to sell new-production of older models of aircraft when...

A. All the cool kids are buying the shiny new F-35.

B. Our former customers are offloading their old F-16s at rock bottom prices. (I think the resale market for F-16s is actually doing better than new sale market).

C. Our rivals and competitors are underselling us with their own offerings (i.e. the SU family, Dasault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon). For example, I just saw some Sukkoi sales material showing South Korea as customer for it's new PAK-50.

Don't get me wrong- I don't building upgraded models of tried and true platforms is a bad idea, I just see it as a really hard sell, both domestically with the politicos and internationally with prospective customers.

The customer here would be the US armed forces. Both the F-16 and F-15 production lines are still running, they can be upgraded and it would not cost that much money compared with the F-35 program. If other countries want to buy improved F-15's and F16's so be it. The US could also start building a few more upgraded F-22's and offer downgraded ones for export until the F-X is brought in the 2020's. Its a temporary fix until the US gets over the F-35 mess. But the US and others can still buy and use the F-35, just not as a fighter which it clearly is not suitable for many reasons.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by RN7

Could you see a dud like the F-35 project ever being developed in Russia, or the company that built it and its design team ever escaping lengthy prison sentences in Siberia for ripping off the Russian armed forces? What happens when the F-35 has to go into combat against credible opponents and its electronic gadgets start to malfunction? Not even worth thinking about.

I can recall the MiG-23 swing-wing.
While not totally worthless as a combat aircraft.... it was close.


Uncle Ted

[Raellus]

I could get behind that. At this point, I think I'd rather take two or three proven platforms fresh off the factory floor with all of the latest upgrades for the price of one hot mess F-35. I don't think the DoD feels the same way, though, and Lockheed-Martin and its lobbyists have every reason to push the super-pricey F-35 over its more reasonably-priced, tried-and-true F-16.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Like unkated mentioned, the USSR was not immune to this sort of thing. For example, the AK74 was purchased not because it was the best rifle in the small arms competition (it came second place) but due to lobbying from the Kalashnikov team about the virtues of a design "known" to industry and the troops (i.e. the AK) versus the unknown Konstantinov SA-006.

[Targan]

If any of our American friends here have a direct line to the Senate and Congress could you please get them to allow Australia to buy F-22s? Because the F-35 program is a complete cluster-f**k, we've already contributed a fistful of cash to its development, it's way overdue and it's left us with a yawning capability gap.

Yes, I know the F-22 and the F-35 were designed for different roles but Australia buying more Super Hornets as a stopgap measure isn't exactly an ideal situation.

K thanx bai.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Targan

If any of our American friends here have a direct line to the Senate and Congress could you please get them to allow Australia to buy F-22s? Because the F-35 program is a complete cluster-f**k, we've already contributed a fistful of cash to its development, it's way overdue and it's left us with a yawning capability gap.

Yes, I know the F-22 and the F-35 were designed for different roles but Australia buying more Super Hornets as a stopgap measure isn't exactly an ideal situation.

K thanx bai.

We'll do it as quickly as we can get the tooling out of the vaults Lockheed Martin was ordered to put it in by Congress/The USAF. And get the F/B-22 under production.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

We'll do it as quickly as we can get the tooling out of the vaults Lockheed Martin was ordered to put it in by Congress/The USAF. And get the F/B-22 under production.

Excellent. Good man

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

If any of our American friends here have a direct line to the Senate and Congress could you please get them to allow Australia to buy F-22s? Because the F-35 program is a complete cluster-f**k, we've already contributed a fistful of cash to its development, it's way overdue and it's left us with a yawning capability gap.

Yes, I know the F-22 and the F-35 were designed for different roles but Australia buying more Super Hornets as a stopgap measure isn't exactly an ideal situation.

K thanx bai.

For Australia there is really no option but to hope that the F-22 will be resurrected and upgraded over the next five years, because the F-35 will leave Australia with precisely the same type of aircraft as the Super Hornet.

The Super Hornet holds two distinct advantages over all current flankers. Its more stealthy and its liquid cooled APG-79 AESA radar is superior to the current Russian BARS which gives it an advantage at BVR. However in the WVR arena even the well trained RAAF pilots in Super Hornet's are at a distinct disadvantage because the Super Hornet is severely handicapped by its lower combat thrust/weight ratio and hybrid wing planform.

The Super Hornet cannot compete with any Flanker variant in terms of supersonic speed, supersonic and subsonic acceleration and climb. In terms of combat radius performance the Flanker also outperforms the Super Hornet even with the latter carrying external tanks. The Flanker in all current variants outperforms the Super Hornet in aerodynamic performance, and the near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants in AESA and radar signature reduction features will not last long given ongoing Russian development of supercruising Al-41F engines and better AESA' and BVR missiles. Aerodynamically and performance wise the F-35 is more of the Super Hornet, and the F-35 if its works might keep ahead of the Russian and Chinese Flanker's in the technology curve but not against an T-50 PAK-FA. The only alternative to an upgraded F-22 would be an upgraded F-15 which is aerodynamically at least a match for a Flanker with better pilots and US/NATO grade avionics. The F-15 production line in St. Louis may be shut down this year, hopefully they will extend that until we know if they are going to re-open F-22 production. Hopefully John McCain and others with sense can influence all this.

[Targan]

The whole situation sucks for us. We have 55 F/A-18As, 18 F/A-18Bs and 24 F/A-18Fs (Super Hornets). The Super Hornets were purchased when it started to become apparent how delayed the F-35s would be. Since then the situation with the F-35s has become even worse. We were supposed to buy 72 F-35s but now? I think the ADF and the Australian Government are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Thanks a lot Lockheed Martin. Usually we Australians like to be kissed before we're sodomised. No kiss for us eh?

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Targan

The whole situation sucks for us. We have 55 F/A-18As, 18 F/A-18Bs and 24 F/A-18Fs (Super Hornets). The Super Hornets were purchased when it started to become apparent how delayed the F-35s would be. Since then the situation with the F-35s has become even worse. We were supposed to buy 72 F-35s but now? I think the ADF and the Australian Government are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Thanks a lot Lockheed Martin. Usually we Australians like to be kissed before we're sodomised. No kiss for us eh?

Canada is in the same boat, and Sikorsky is screwing us on CH-148 Cyclone too so nothing like getting it twice from two big US companies

[RN7]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Canada is in the same boat, and Sikorsky is screwing us on CH-148 Cyclone too so nothing like getting it twice from two big US companies

Canada is an even worse defense situation to Australia in regards to the F-35. Unlike Australia who is unlikely to face actual Russian forces near Australian territory, the Canadians directly face the Russians over the Arctic and Russian bombers would fly over Canadian territory during an attack on the US. Russian Air Force Flanker's use better radar, sensors and missiles than any other Flanker user including China, and the T-50 PAK-FA will be more stealthy than the F-35 and probably the F-22 as well as being an aerodynamically superior fighter to the F-35. Canada and a lot of other countries are really going to have to think about alternatives to the F-35 in regards to BVR air superiority, which will mean either the F-22, Eurofighter or upgraded F-15's unless they want to buy Flankers.

[RN7]

The 'success' of Lockheed-Martin's F-35 on the international arms market may have unintentionally engineered a fighter and fighter-bomber gap between most Western and Western aligned states and the Russian/Chinese bloc.

The F-35 is considerably aerodynamically inferior to and less stealthy than an F-22. The F-35 is also aerodynamically inferior to the F-15, all Sukhoi Flanker variants, most Chinese 4th and 5th generation fighters and also the Eurofighter. Additionally the F-35 is also aerodynamically inferior to the T-50 PAK-FA, and in all likely hood will be less stealthy than the T-50. Within WVR ranges the F-35 is also aerodynamically inferior to the Eurofighter, the Rafale, all GE engined F-16's and probably the Mig-29.

So far the USAF, USN, USMC, Australia, Britain, Canada, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, South Korea and Turkey and probably other countries plan to replace their current fleets of F-4, F-15, F-16, F-18, Harrier and Tornado with the F-35. As a fighter its aerodynamically inferior to most of these aircraft and has no-where near the payload and range of a Tornado. So basically the US, most of NATO and key Western allies will be using an aircraft which is reliant on stealth and so-far unproven and unreliable gadgets to fend of Russian and Chinese aircraft that are superior BVR fighters, and who will have more powerful strike aircraft. The USAF will still have the F-22, its bomber fleet and the F-15E, but the other's who don't have the Eurofighter (maybe the Mitsubishi F-2 as well) will become vulnerable if not downright outclassed by Russian and Chinese BVR fighters, and this will get worse if Russian and Chinese stealth detection technology matches or surpasses the F-35's alleged attributes. This gap will continue until the late 2020's when the US 6th generation fighters such as the USAF F-X and USN F/A-XX start to come on line.

Worrying.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Somewhat OT

You know, with only a small number of corporations left to supply equipment and the fact that those corporations are huge multi-national entities with considerable power to sway governments, it seems to me that the world has reached the problems of the Cyberpunk genre of games* - except we seem to have got them about 10-20 years ahead of Cyberpunk storylines.



* As in, corporations fighting dirty to sell their product even if it means foisting off any old crap to the customer - the product is not important, the sale is paramount.