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

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.