U. S. Defense Budget

[spacearrow99]

Yeah, sure, the us military has never doctored its training exercises to favour a certain weapon system.
It's not the tech, it's everything.
You do know that f22 is terrible and F35 is worse, right?

Why would they? Why can F5s not protect AWACS?
You know of the capabilities of f22? Does that include knowing of the fact that they often don't fly? That they're hangar queens? That even something as simple as the oxygen systems doesn't work properly? Could this be contractor greed?

Did you know that the Su27'scan Irbis E radar detect an f22 at 5 km less than an f22 can detect it?
2 aircraft are closing on each other. One subsonic, the other supercruising.
What's 5 kilometres? The blink of an eye. Detection is down to pilot's reaction time. Su27 with Irbis E is cheaper for the same advantage.

Both aircraft have had their problems. They will be very good fighter aircraft once Lockheed Martin fixes their problems.

The PAK-FA can detect, target, and destroy the F-5 at any range. The F-22 should be able to target get the first shot against the PAF-FA. Most aircraft design experts think the F-22 has much lower RCS then the PAK-FA.

The F-22 has a reported RCS of 0.0001. The RCS of F-35 is stated at about 0.1-0.05. Su-35 is component adversary for the F-35 since. The F-22 has much better stealth then F-35. The Russians are developing the PAK-FA for a reason.

 

[CptHa]

Ordnance load? Well if that's the measure of combat effectiveness then lets press the B52 into service as a fighter.
How much faster, given that operationally F15 and F16 are subsonic.
I'll put my cards on the table: I love the F16. But look at what I'm saying; doesn't the F5 have her plus points?

A. That's neither here nor there in our discussion. The point is that the newer jets can aren't going to have to RTB as often after an engagement.
B. Seeing as how fighters these days are often required for CAS roles (not always an A-10 available), the amount of weapons carried is a big deal. Top speed also comes into play for that role, especially when aircraft aren't in the immediate vicinity (10 minutes). Eagles push Mach 2.5, Falcons can get to Mach 2, Tigers top at about Mach 1.5. Obviously, this is going hampered by a combat load, however, the teens are still going to get to the target first from an equal start. Then there's the larger fuel loads on the teen series, that would allow for a longer loiter time if they didn't have to sprint (all three aren't going to be efficient at full augment).
C. I can see price tag, but with everything you'd have to do to bring them up to par, I just don't see the point in reaching that far back. I know you've been emphasizing low maintenance, but that's a really, really ambiguous term.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Both aircraft have had their problems. They will be very good fighter aircraft once Lockheed Martin fixes their problems.

The PAK-FA can detect, target, and destroy the F-5 at any range. The F-22 should be able to target get the first shot against the PAF-FA. Most aircraft design experts think the F-22 has much lower RCS then the PAK-FA.

The F-22 has a reported RCS of 0.0001. The RCS of F-35 is stated at about 0.1-0.05. Su-35 is component adversary for the F-35 since. The F-22 has much better stealth then F-35. The Russians are developing the PAK-FA for a reason.

Oh please. Just how long are we supposed to wait? The craptor was conceived in the disco era for pete's sake!

At any range? So, from 5000 km away?
Of course the f22 should be able to get first shot against the Pak-Fa; it's american.
Sources on both statements please.

And no military anywhere ever lies about the capabilities of it's hardware, the american military least of all.

A. That's neither here nor there in our discussion. The point is that the newer jets can aren't going to have to RTB as often after an engagement.
B. Seeing as how fighters these days are often required for CAS roles (not always an A-10 available), the amount of weapons carried is a big deal. Top speed also comes into play for that role, especially when aircraft aren't in the immediate vicinity (10 minutes). Eagles push Mach 2.5, Falcons can get to Mach 2, Tigers top at about Mach 1.5. Obviously, this is going hampered by a combat load, however, the teens are still going to get to the target first from an equal start. Then there's the larger fuel loads on the teen series, that would allow for a longer loiter time if they didn't have to sprint (all three aren't going to be efficient at full augment).
C. I can see price tag, but with everything you'd have to do to bring them up to par, I just don't see the point in reaching that far back. I know you've been emphasizing low maintenance, but that's a really, really ambiguous term.

So what? What if after one engagement newer jets, heavier with fuel and capabilities, lost?

Because the F5 was never considered for nor pressed into use as a ground attack aircraft? Because with it's maintenance and fuel economy in terms of both time and money, it's actually better suited than most fighters to the role.

The teens cruise subsonic with a weapons load, just like the F5. Top speed really isn't that big a deal; there has only been one supersonic dogfight kill in history.
Even if the teens do get there fractionally faster than the F5, with the F5s economy and quick turn around times it gets there cheaper and has the benefit of being able to be kept in the air (by comparison) constantly.
Aren't the larger fuel loads of the teens offset by their higher fuel consumption?

It's not just low price tag, it's low maintenance and running costs and ease of flight.
When all america's multi-zeta-trillion dollar uber fighters have been shot down she'll need a fighter she can mass produce quickly.
We saw america win the battle of production in WW2, defeating Germany's superior tanks with inferior M4s. See the paralell?
And you say up to par, but just how much do fighters really need all the features they have? Feature creep much?

I think people have a tendency to pick sides and argue points out of stubbornness, hence why I'm not mentioning some of the advantages of the teen series over the F5 (which I would offset with AWACS usage) and you're not seeing the benefits (and there are a great many) of the F5.

 

[spacearrow99]

Oh please. Just how long are we supposed to wait? The craptor was conceived in the disco era for pete's sake!

At any range? So, from 5000 km away?
Of course the f22 should be able to get first shot against the Pak-Fa; it's american.
Sources on both statements please.

And no military anywhere ever lies about the capabilities of it's hardware, the american military least of all.

The PAK-FA can shoot down the F-5 from the maximum range of the R-33/37 missiles. How is F-5 going to evade R-37 missiles? It does not have the maneuverability or AN/APG-77 AESA of the F-22.

I said the F-22 should be to get the first shot against PAK-FA. It depends on the PAK-FA's RCS and AESA N050 radar. You to provide sources for your comments.

Here are the RCS numbers for the F-22 and F-35.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

 

[Mayhem]

You guys crack me up with your rationale for spending money we don't have on groovy toys we don't need. Why don't you admit that's all this is? "Oooh, this toy is shinier than that toy. This toy must be better."

 

[vodkazvictim]

The PAK-FA can shoot down the F-5 from the maximum range of the R-33/37 missiles. How is F-5 going to evade R-37 missiles? It does not have the maneuverability or AN/APG-77 AESA of the F-22.

I said the F-22 should be to get the first shot against PAK-FA. It depends on the PAK-FA's RCS and AESA N050 radar. You to provide sources for your comments.

Here are the RCS numbers for the F-22 and F-35.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

So what you're saying is that BVR missiles work?
BVR missiles fail. Especially against practiced pilts. It doesn't cost much to get an F5 pilot practiced.
It's my belief that the F5, being extremely light and designed specifically for dogfighting, would be able to dodge those missiles, the release of chaff and flares may help (I can't remember if this series is the one the Russian's are claiming can differentiate between flares and an aircraft, but I am familiar with arms manufacturers talking a big talk an being full of shit, a-la the A4, which was, entirely coincidentally, a failed air to air missile.
Incidentally, proving a BVR missile against incompetant Iraqi pilots means very little, about as much as an experienced and trained soldier with an M16 beating a guerilla armed with an AKM.

Frankly, I strongly suspect that the F5, with its much lighter weight, can outmaneuver an f22. I also suspect that, what with the home on jam function we're seeing these days, one should not rely on AESA radars. And that an AWACS could succesfully jam such a missile.

Thank you for providing a source, please tell me what claims you'd like me to provide sources for and I will provide sources for them when I'm sober. If I'm ever sober again.

You guys crack me up with your rationale for spending money we don't have on groovy toys we don't need. Why don't you admit that's all this is? "Oooh, this toy is shinier than that toy. This toy must be better."

Are we gonna do mutual masturbation yet or what?

 

[spacearrow99]

So what you're saying is that BVR missiles work?
BVR missiles fail. Especially against practiced pilts. It doesn't cost much to get an F5 pilot practiced.
It's my belief that the F5, being extremely light and designed specifically for dogfighting, would be able to dodge those missiles, the release of chaff and flares may help (I can't remember if this series is the one the Russian's are claiming can differentiate between flares and an aircraft, but I am familiar with arms manufacturers talking a big talk an being full of shit, a-la the A4, which was, entirely coincidentally, a failed air to air missile.
Incidentally, proving a BVR missile against incompetant Iraqi pilots means very little, about as much as an experienced and trained soldier with an M16 beating a guerilla armed with an AKM.

Frankly, I strongly suspect that the F5, with its much lighter weight, can outmaneuver an f22. I also suspect that, what with the home on jam function we're seeing these days, one should not rely on AESA radars. And that an AWACS could succesfully jam such a missile.

Thank you for providing a source, please tell me what claims you'd like me to provide sources for and I will provide sources for them when I'm sober. If I'm ever sober again.

The AWACS would not have much defense form a R-37 missile. AWACS would have to detect the PAK-FA at the R-37's maximum range to survive. Once the AWACS is gone the F-5s are in trouble. The R-37 has an semi active and active radar seeker.

We both know that military spending is the issue that both parties are in agreement. The F-35 program is the biggest defense contract in history. The program has suppliers in 45 states Obama and Congress will not cancel the program.

 

[CptHa]

So what? What if after one engagement newer jets, heavier with fuel and capabilities, lost?

Because the F5 was never considered for nor pressed into use as a ground attack aircraft? Because with it's maintenance and fuel economy in terms of both time and money, it's actually better suited than most fighters to the role.

The teens cruise subsonic with a weapons load, just like the F5. Top speed really isn't that big a deal; there has only been one supersonic dogfight kill in history.
Even if the teens do get there fractionally faster than the F5, with the F5s economy and quick turn around times it gets there cheaper and has the benefit of being able to be kept in the air (by comparison) constantly.
Aren't the larger fuel loads of the teens offset by their higher fuel consumption?

It winds up balancing out in favor of more gas, especially when external fuel tanks are on the jet. For instance, a slick F-16 can fly for roughly an hour before it hits bingo fuel. With two tanks (370g each), the flight time is pretty much double. The pilot is the real determining factor, though. The more they throttle up, the faster gas used.

It's not just low price tag, it's low maintenance and running costs and ease of flight.
When all america's multi-zeta-trillion dollar uber fighters have been shot down she'll need a fighter she can mass produce quickly.
We saw america win the battle of production in WW2, defeating Germany's superior tanks with inferior M4s. See the paralell?
And you say up to par, but just how much do fighters really need all the features they have? Feature creep much?

I see your point there, but the tank scenario had as much to do with Allied strategy as the numbers game (bombing of oil refineries and heavy industry). Secondly, the F-16 was designed to be an easy to maintain, low cost aircraft. They pretty much succeeded, the newer F-16s don't break all that much (I worked on jets delivered in the 2000s to start with). You do have a very good point with the feature creep, though. I think that's an issue with both the 22 and 35, trying to do too much with them, not so much the 4th gen fighters, which are a lot more modular with equipment (TGPs, mostly).

I think people have a tendency to pick sides and argue points out of stubbornness, hence why I'm not mentioning some of the advantages of the teen series over the F5 (which I would offset with AWACS usage) and you're not seeing the benefits (and there are a great many) of the F5.

Perhaps, we're about to the point where we are going to start going in circles, and have started to an extent. At any rate, I'm not saying your wrong, really, just saying I'd do things differently.

 

[vodkazvictim]

The AWACS would not have much defense form a R-37 missile. AWACS would have to detect the PAK-FA at the R-37's maximum range to survive. Once the AWACS is gone the F-5s are in trouble. The R-37 has an semi active and active radar seeker.

So why can't it detect Pak-Fa at max range? Other countries can see stealth.

We both know that military spending is the issue that both parties are in agreement. The F-35 program is the biggest defense contract in history. The program has suppliers in 45 states Obama and Congress will not cancel the program.

So what if both parties are in agreement? Doesn't mean it does the country any good.
Just like the F35

It winds up balancing out in favor of more gas, especially when external fuel tanks are on the jet. For instance, a slick F-16 can fly for roughly an hour before it hits bingo fuel. With two tanks (370g each), the flight time is pretty much double. The pilot is the real determining factor, though. The more they throttle up, the faster gas used.

I see your point there, but the tank scenario had as much to do with Allied strategy as the numbers game (bombing of oil refineries and heavy industry). Secondly, the F-16 was designed to be an easy to maintain, low cost aircraft. They pretty much succeeded, the newer F-16s don't break all that much (I worked on jets delivered in the 2000s to start with). You do have a very good point with the feature creep, though. I think that's an issue with both the 22 and 35, trying to do too much with them, not so much the 4th gen fighters, which are a lot more modular with equipment (TGPs, mostly).

I'm perhaps the biggest F16 fan you'll meet who doesn't fly one, so you have no need to preach to me.

Perhaps, we're about to the point where we are going to start going in circles, and have started to an extent. At any rate, I'm not saying your wrong, really, just saying I'd do things differently.

Since you're in the AF, I'd like to ask your thoughts on:
F22
A10
Pak Fa
F16XL
F5

 

[spacearrow99]

So why can't it detect Pak-Fa at max range? Other countries can see stealth.

The PAK-FA is going to have a small RCS; the PAK-FA could also have a LPI radar which would protect it from passive sensors. AWACS can see stealth aircraft, but not at a range of 215nm.

 

[Mayhem]

Russian sources indicate the PAK FA lacks the very-low-observable (VLO) stealth of the F-22. Instead, reducing observability with composite materials, aerodynamic configuration, and engine signature reduction measures to achieve low (but not very-low) levels of radar, optic and infrared signatures.[64] Carlo Kopp has said that once the PAK FA is fully developed into a stealthy design, it should be a rough match for the F-35 in low observability, but aerodynamically superior.[65] Sources claim that the PAK FA may incorporate "Plasma stealth" although no solid evidence of this has been shown.

In August 2011, the Russian Air Force said that the new Sukhoi fighter is to enter service in 2014–2015. "We will receive a T-50 prototype in 2013," CinC Zelin told reporters. "Mass produced aircraft will not arrive until 2014–2015."[82] Former deputy defense minister Vitaly Shlykov has cast doubt on the industrial capacity of Russia to produce the aircraft in significant numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAK-FA

 

[spacearrow99]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAK-FA

We only procuring 187 F-22s; they are replacing over 250 F-15 C/D models. The Russians are probably going to develop a second smaller fighter like the U. S. and China.

 

[Mayhem]

We only procuring 187 F-22s; they are replacing over 250 F-15 C/D models. The Russians are probably going to develop a second smaller fighter like the U. S. and China.

That's over 28 BILLION dollars.....for a plane that doesn't work! And that figure does not cover maintenance costs. Are you really this comfortable, bankrupting your nation for a warplane that isn't needed and doesn't do what it's supposed too?

 

[spacearrow99]

That's over 28 BILLION dollars.....for a plane that doesn't work! And that figure does not cover maintenance costs. Are you really this comfortable, bankrupting your nation for a warplane that isn't needed and doesn't do what it's supposed too?

Military spending is only 20% of our federal budget. The F-35 is not going to bankrupt the U. S. The U. S. defense spending is going to take some cuts in the coming years.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Military spending is only 20% of our federal budget. The F-35 is not going to bankrupt the U. S. The U. S. defense spending is going to take some cuts in the coming years.

Doesn't the F35 now cost more than the F22?
Also, way to avoid answering his questions.

Finally, only 20% You're either broke or have a good accountant.

 

[spacearrow99]

Doesn't the F35 now cost more than the F22?
Also, way to avoid answering his questions.

Finally, only 20% You're either broke or have a good accountant.

I already stated before that I would choose the F-22 over the F-35 and cancel the F-35 program. The U. S. debt level is not close to the debt level of Japan. The U. S. Air Force needs replacements for four generation aircraft. The U. S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps supports the F-35 program. The U. S. executive and legislative branches need to follow their wishes.

 

[vodkazvictim]

I already stated before that I would choose the F-22 over the F-35 and cancel the F-35 program. The U. S. debt level is not close to the debt level of Japan. The U. S. Air Force needs replacements for four generation aircraft. The U. S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps supports the F-35 program. The U. S. executive and legislative branches need to follow their wishes.

By that logic the US can just dump it's education program because Afghanistan has worse education.

 

[spacearrow99]

By that logic the US can just dump it's education program because Afghanistan has worse education.

U.S. public debt can be controlled. We can fix our federal budget deficit before U. S. debt gets unwieldy like in Japan.

 

[CptHa]

Since you're in the AF, I'd like to ask your thoughts on:
F22
A10
Pak Fa
F16XL
F5

I've only been on 16s, so I can only give you a limited view on some of these things.

The 22 is actually a very, very capable airplane, though a lot of what I here is second hand. Whether it's worth the price tag or not, I don't know. The OBOGS issue is a really strange from my POV, F-16CJ's use an OBOGS system and there have been no events like with the 22 that I've heard of. There are some other issues with weapons compatibility, and its onboard maintenance system. A lot of those issues have since been worked out with the later models, but again the O2 issue remains a mystery, and the Raptor pilots are fairly upset about it.

The Warthogs need to be kept in service for awhile. I dare say it's the perfect CAS plane. The only thing I'd change from the A-10C is maybe look at an engine upgrade to coax a little more speed out of them, as a lot of WWII fighters can out run the thing. It wouldn't be anything drastic, most likely taking a civilian engine type.

I don't think I could say too much on the PAK FA, it's still in the prototype stage. It does look to be on par with the best NATO jets, though. As for the XL, it was supposedly in direct competition with the F-15E for a ground attack aircraft. Obviously, the Strike Eagle won out. FYI, with a GE-129 engine, one of the XL's achieved super-cruise.

That brings me to the F-5, which the AF never really used out side of training operations. The most it was used for was as an aggressor aircraft, which the Navy is still flying them for.

 

[Mayhem]

I'd like to see the A10 with a smaller chaingun. We're not facing the possibility of Soviet main battle tanks in the Fulda Gap anymore. A 20mm or even a .50 cal would be a smaller, lighter gun with a bigger ammo payload. Obviously the hardpoints on the wings would remain, and using armor piercing ammo will at least disable armor if it came down to it. With the way things have shaped up, the 30mm is kind of like swatting flies with a shotgun.