DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Nope....the USA pursued a high-low mix even during the Cold War (that's why the F-16 even exists). The US stated objective of "full spectrum dominance" against any present or future adversary kept the now twenty-something F-22 project alive. Jobs in key congressional districts also helped. Gotta agree with perhaps the MiG-25 Foxbat being an exception. It did turn a few heads at first until Col(?). Belenko dropped one off for us. I think radar first picked one up doing Mach 3+ taking pictures of the huge tank battles during Yom Kippur. Only later was it learned that taking it up that fast usually burnt out the huge engines. Wasn't it the F-15 that was in response...sort of? No doubt it had been on the boards for a while, though, I suppose. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Gotta agree with perhaps the MiG-25 Foxbat being an exception. It did turn a few heads at first until Col(?). Belenko dropped one off for us. I think radar first picked one up doing Mach 3+ taking pictures of the huge tank battles during Yom Kippur. Only later was it learned that taking it up that fast usually burnt out the huge engines. Not to mentioned EMP hardened vacuum tubes! Wasn't it the F-15 that was in response...sort of? No doubt it had been on the boards for a while, though, I suppose. Correct, but the Americans mistaked the MiG-25 as air superiority instead of it's true interceptor role. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Not to mentioned EMP hardened vacuum tubes! I know! Pretty incredible how far behind the Soviets actually were yet making incredible "do" with what they had. The Foxbat was mostly made of nicklel-alloy, too which was another shocker. Correct, but the Americans mistaked the MiG-25 as air superiority instead of it's true interceptor role. Little did we know it was merely the Tu-28 Fiddler's replacement with a Nikon camera strapped to the belly. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 I know! Pretty incredible how far behind the Soviets actually were yet making incredible "do" with what they had. The Foxbat was mostly made of nicklel-alloy, too which was another shocker. I have a lot of respect for the FSU....they made do with what they had and got the most out of it. The Americans were wasteful in comparison.....still are. Little did we know it was merely the Tu-28 Fiddler's replacement with a Nikon camera strapped to the belly. We even got a cheesy Hollywood (MiG-31) movie out of the experience.....Firefox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film) Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 I have a lot of respect for the FSU....they made do with what they had and got the most out of it. The Americans were wasteful in comparison.....still are. Russians make excellent aircraft...just they always did depend on the quantity overwhelming the quality. WW2...same deal. It wasn't until late in the war that what we'd call equal aircraft in the form of the La-7 and such. Now they seem to be going in the opposite direction with your more advance MiGs and Sukhois. Meanwhile, the Bear soldiers on... We even got a cheesy Hollywood (MiG-31) movie out of the experience.....Firefoxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film) Back-to-back with Red Dawn and you have a Cold War popcorn classic evening coming-up. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Correct, but the Americans mistaked the MiG-25 as air superiority instead of it's true interceptor role. Which before they knew better justified the production of a counter. There's such a huge disparity between US air power right now and the rest of the world that there simply are no contenders and nothing anyone else is going to be able to build anytime soon will compete even with the F-35. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 You can admit what you please...it won't bring the "Arrow" back. F-22 will solve corrosion and many other problems, just like aircraft that have gone before. The F22 is done like dinner. Even the Air Force doesn't want more of the damned things. They are hangar queens, and very expensive ones at that. They never have and never will see combat, simply because of the hanger queen status. I like the bird myself and think its worth fixing, but that is just me. As it stands the program is dead, there will be no fixing anything, except when it breaks, and maybe not even then. I fully expect these things to get boxed up and sold off. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 Which before they knew better justified the production of a counter.There's such a huge disparity between US air power right now and the rest of the world that there simply are no contenders and nothing anyone else is going to be able to build anytime soon will compete even with the F-35. The F35 is a fine piece of equipment but there are competitors. MIG 35, SU 30, these things are fine aircraft, don't kid yourself. Quote
segnosaur Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 The F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 etc were all designed with the threat of Soviet Russia in mind. When they were being designed and built the Ruskies were building similar and sometimes better aircraft. With the Cold War over and a direct confrontation between Russia and the USA unthinkable, the dynamics of military spending amongst the two have changed. The USA is now hunting guerrilas, militias and terrorists around the world. A stealth fighter that costs $140 million to build and then $50,000/hour to fly isn't an effective use of resources when there's nothing out there that could even come close to testing its capabilities in combat. You are right in that the role of the military has changed since the days of the 'cold war'. However, a couple of things that should be kept in mind: - Given the relatively long time it takes to manufacture a plane like the F-22, the U.S. military should be planning LONG in advance - Even if none of the major superpowers become a threat in the near future, they still may be called on to handle conflicts like Iraq and Kosovo. Now, I don't think those militaries have any chance at defeating the U.S. military, even WITHOUT the F-22 raptor, but in a day when even a single soldier's death can get plastered all over the media, the military might want to minimize the potential casualties. A pilot has a much better chance to survive in an F-22 than any other plane. Wait for the F-35. They'll be able to build and maintain it for a fraction of the cost of the F-22 and it will be better than anything out there BUT the F-22. The F-35 is a good plane. The F-22 is much better (supersonic cruising speed, better stealth capabilities, vectored thrust/more agile). Whether the advantages of the F-22 are worth the cost is certainly debatable though. There is the Su-27, a plane used by many countries, that has a higher top speed, higher higher ceiling, and a better thrust-to-weight ration than at least some configurations of the F-35. Its possible that the F-35 will still have the advantage (based on stealth and manouvering capabilities), but it might not be completely dominante as the F-22 would be. It's highly unlikely that the Pak Fa or anything is going to make it into major production before that and even if it did the Russians aren't exactly going to be giving them away to N. Korea or Iran. Never underestimate either a country's greed, nor its willingness to make dumb political decisions. Remember, the U.S. actually sold F-15s to Saudi Arabia, who are supposedly our 'friends', but not exactly a country I'd fully trust, and F-14s to Iran. Who knows what Russia or China may sell to earn money. Quote
GostHacked Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Name one Soviet aircraft that was better than its US/NATO counterpart.Hint: there's only one. Contenders (considering the time frame) Mig 29, 31 SU 27 However the YAK 35 was a complete bust. But when the USA started going fly by wire, and planes that were digital in nature, the Soviet air craft would not be as affected as much by EMPs. (nuke blasts). Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 The F22 is done like dinner. Even the Air Force doesn't want more of the damned things. They are hangar queens, and very expensive ones at that. They never have and never will see combat, simply because of the hanger queen status. I like the bird myself and think its worth fixing, but that is just me. As it stands the program is dead, there will be no fixing anything, except when it breaks, and maybe not even then. I fully expect these things to get boxed up and sold off. Really? Then I wonder how all those type qualified pilots will maintain their required flight hours? The "program" is hardly dead, as it just began the operational part of its program life cycle. There will be block upgrades just like any other program. Can you cite the squadrons that have been deactivated? Or perhaps Google some mothballed Raptors gleaming in the Arizona desert (Davis-Montham). How about F-22's on eBay with $100 million "Buy It Now"? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Contenders (considering the time frame)Mig 29, 31 SU 27 However the YAK 35 was a complete bust. But when the USA started going fly by wire, and planes that were digital in nature, the Soviet air craft would not be as affected as much by EMPs. (nuke blasts). Nope...those are (almost) post-Soviet...or in the case of the 31...a Foxbat with some transistors. In any case none are the better of their American/NATO contemporaries. Edited July 30, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Think earlier... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Answer: The MiG-15. At the start of the Korean War, America had only P-80s and F-84s to engage the MiG-15 and suffered accordingly. The F-86A Sabre came along soon after the war started, but even it had a hard time dealing with the MiG-15's rate of climb. Even though the Sabre did extremely well against the MiG, this was due mainly to superior pilot skills on the American's part rather than any particular failing of the MiG-15. It was not until the F-86E (with the flying tail) that it slipped into the lead infront of the MiG even though the Mig still had a slightly higher top speed at altitude and a higher ceiling. Edited July 30, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Think earlier... The only thing I can think of would be the MiG-21. In Vietnam they shot down a LOT of US aircraft. That was one of the reasons Top Gun dogfighting schools were created as far as I can recall. With that being said it's probably true that Russian aircraft since then have been inferior to US aircraft, but it doesn't change the fact that the US and its allies built fighters etc on the perceived risk of the Soviets having better aircraft. They never wanted to have to worry about that and they made sure they were always ahead. Now that there's really no competition for US air power, why spend billions uselessly on a plane that will NEVER be cost effective for its role? Edited July 30, 2009 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 The only thing I can think of would be the MiG-21. In Vietnam they shot down a LOT of US aircraft. With that being said it's probably true that Russian aircraft since then have been inferior to US aircraft, but it doesn't change the fact that the US and its allies built fighters etc on the perceived risk of the Soviets having better aircraft. They never wanted to have to worry about that and they made sure they were always ahead. Now that there's really no competition for US air power, why spend billions uselessly on a plane that will NEVER be cost effective for its role? Close...but the 21 was definately a quantity over quality plane. The F-4s had them for dinner. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Bonam Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 F22 raptors are extremely expensive, which is one of the reasons that the US is canceling the program. Considering where our air force is at right now, F35s would be more than good enough. Of course really what we should be doing is designing and building our own aircraft. Quote
Bonam Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Also, the time of manned combat aircraft is pretty much over. UAVs are where it's at. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Also, the time of manned combat aircraft is pretty much over. UAVs are where it's at. Robots don' feel no stinkin' G-Forces. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Bonam Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Robots don' feel no stinkin' G-Forces. Indeed. Robotic aircraft are also much smaller and quieter, and thus harder to detect. They are also vastly cheaper, as they can be manufactured with much lower safety standards, and again since they are smaller that too reduces their cost. The biggest advantage of course is that they don't place a human pilot into harm's way. The current generation of UAVs can be remotely piloted by people in the continental US, while the mission is taking place in Afghanistan or Iraq. The next generation of UAVs will be autonomous. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Robots don' feel no stinkin' G-Forces. That's funny...lets have a war - like the nerds do - and our machines will kill your machines..sounds civlized to me..and there are no regrets. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 That's funny...lets have a war - like the nerds do - and our machines will kill your machines..sounds civlized to me..and there are no regrets. Oleq? Is that you? When did they let you out of the box a la Cool Hand Luke? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 F-22J Raptor......Japan http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...craft/f-22j.htm Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 The next generation of UAVs will be autonomous. Don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm sure it's possible, but probably not desirable. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Sabre Rider Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 F-22J Raptor......Japanhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...craft/f-22j.htm That's a three year old article........so what has happened since then? Has Japan committed to actually buying this lame duck or has the deal been allowed to quietly die? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.