Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Share

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:20 am

    ...& now comes stealthy F-18


    KamovHelicopter
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 7
    Points : 11
    Join date : 2011-10-15
    Location : Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  KamovHelicopter on Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:19 am

    Turk1 wrote:With F-22 cancelled, F-35s in Turkey will have to beat Russians back.


    F-35 is greatest mistake in USAF. Every new fighter is better than F-35: Su-35, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Raptor - - - and Sukhoi PAK FA!!!

    F-35 vs Eurofighter

    and than see

    PAK FA vs Eurofighter

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:26 am

    The F-35 has a lot of detractors, but the concept is pretty sound.

    It really depends on how much the export models cost and how stealthy they are.

    With external stores they are not stealthy at all, so the future weapons they carry had better be all they are cracked up to be because they wont be carrying many.

    BTW quite surprised at that comparison between the PAK FA and the Typhoon.

    It didn't actually mention the fact that the PAK FA is a fully stealthy aircraft while the Typhoon is merely Low Observable.

    Also the long range missile of the PAK FA will likely be the R-37M which is a mach 6 280km ranged missile that weighs about 600kgs.

    The other factor of course is that the PAK FA can super cruise with a full internal weapon load, while external stores increase RCS and reduce flight performance for the Typhoon.

    Also I rather doubt the PAK FA has two GSh-301 cannon.

    All talk of two guns might perhaps suggest they have replaced the single barrel 1,800rpm GSh-301 with the GSh-30K with twin barrels and a rate of fire of 2,500rpm-3,500rpm depending on the model.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  SOC on Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:With external stores they are not stealthy at all, so the future weapons they carry had better be all they are cracked up to be because they wont be carrying many.

    The whole point of "first-day stealth" is to use the F-35 to knock holes in certain iterations of hostile IADS networks. F-22s go find fighters to hunt, F-35s go find EW radars and SAM TERs/TELARs to hunt. Once that's taken care of, you've opened the skies for legacy aircraft like the F-15E and externally-loaded F-35s to go about their business. This would work very well against someone with an outdated, limited, or sparsely deployed IADS. Like an Iran or a Syria, for example. If you want to go and fight someone like the PRC, who actually has modern and credible SAM systems (Iran and Syria do not), a crapload of modern radars (Iran and Syria have few), and solid 4th generation fighters (with the J-20 in the pipeline, of course, and Iran and Syria also have few), then things become far more complicated.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:12 pm

    Like an Iran or a Syria, for example. If you want to go and fight someone like the PRC, who actually has modern and credible SAM systems (Iran and Syria do not), a crapload of modern radars (Iran and Syria have few), and solid 4th generation fighters (with the J-20 in the pipeline, of course, and Iran and Syria also have few), then things become far more complicated.

    Serbia proved that even with relatively obsolete equipment that an AD can remain dangerous long after the first day... even after the 70th day... tactics and communication... with the right tools they could have chased NATO out of their airspace.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:06 am

    The main reason people don't like the F-35 is really because it's an attempt to create in a way, a M4 for the Air Force. That is, it combines the roles of different planes and makes it a common platform (while being pretty mediocre for all the roles listed). It's a great idea, but there are far, far too many Cold War fossils out there to support making the F-35 the front line Air Dominance fighter (over the F-22).

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:17 pm

    Yes.

    They have it trying to do so many things at once, yet they actually expect it to be cheap... it is trying to be an F-16, an F-15, an F-22, an A-10, plus an F-18, and an AV-8, plus all the European aircraft it is supposed to replace.

    The F-22 pretty much only had to be a stealthy replacement for an F-15C.

    Of course that is tradition too, most military people like what they used and mistrust the new stuff as being untested... when the 303 Lee Enfield was replaced by the FN FAL the latter was criticised because it was so heavy and that it would burn through the units ammo too quickly... when the Steyr AUG replaced it it was criticised as being a plastic childs toy that lacked range and lethality.

    Lets face it war is not a game you want to lose, and the west always has options, including sanctions or cruise missile or drone attacks. Carlos Kopp can talk about F-35s being defeated by Su-35s, but it is far more likely that the Su-35 base will receive a drone attack or cruise missiles will level their hangars while they are on the ground or the F-35s will not be sent in.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3054
    Points : 3152
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  medo on Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:52 am

    Lets face it war is not a game you want to lose, and the west always has options, including sanctions or cruise missile or drone attacks. Carlos Kopp can talk about F-35s being defeated by Su-35s, but it is far more likely that the Su-35 base will receive a drone attack or cruise missiles will level their hangars while they are on the ground or the F-35s will not be sent in.

    This work against inferior Arab states, but not against Russia or China. Their air defense and early warning capabilities are far more capable, so it will be very hard for drones and cruise missiles to reach airfields. Also their airfields are far more hardened than western, which have planes actually on the open. For example, NATO intensively bomb Priština airfield in Kosovo, but after war all Migs fly into Serbia, because they were safe deep inside mountain and they could also take off from grass. NATO could destroy only planes, which were outside, but not those underground.

    The eastern doctrine is to have armed and ready fighter planes deep underground or inside mountain, which come out only to take off and fight. Hangars are only for peace time storage.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:17 am

    Sorry I wasn't clear.

    My point is that the west doesn't fight "fair".

    They evaluate the strengths of their enemy and their own strengths and base their tactics around maximising their own strengths and minimising their enemies' strengths, while attacking their weaknesses.

    An attack directly on Russia by NATO or the US is so unlikely I don't really consider it a possibility.

    Russia has in many areas comparable resources to the west... even in their degraded state of 20 odd years of neglect their SAMs are pretty potent, and more importantly the conflict in Kosovo showed their tactics would have been pretty spot on in terms of dealing with attacking forces.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    First New AC-130J Gunship in Production

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:11 pm

    The first MC-130J Commando II that will be converted to become an AC-130J Gunship is being built at the Lockheed Martin Marietta, Ga., C-130 production facility. The AC-130J will be equipped with a Precision Strike Package creating the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command’s newest gunship. Sixteen AC-130Js are planned with an Initial Operating Capability scheduled for 2015.


    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/7630157104/

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Basing of first U.S. Space Fence facility announced

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:33 pm

    Basing of first U.S. Space Fence facility announced

    9/25/2012 - PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. (AFNS) -- The Air Force will base a Space Fence radar site on Kwajalein Island in the Republic of the Marshall Islands with initial operations capability planned for fiscal 2017.

    The Fence will provide a critical Space Surveillance Network capability needed to give warfighters the ability to maintain a full and accurate orbital catalog, ensure orbital safety and perform conjunction assessments.

    Air Force Space Command will award a contract to build the radar, which will be capable of detecting, tracking, identifying and characterizing space objects in low and medium earth orbits. Construction is expected to begin September 2013 and is planned to take 48 months to complete construction and testing.

    Until the final design is determined, it is unknown exactly how many personnel will be required to construct the radar site. After construction is complete and the radar is operational, approximately 10 to 15 contractor personnel are projected for the long-term work force at Kwajalein to maintain the Space Fence radar. A support agreement will be established between Air Force Space Command and the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site for site support and facilities maintenance. Contractor operations and maintenance support for the radar site will fall under the responsibility of the 21st Space Wing here.

    The Space Fence is a radar system operating in the S-Band frequency range to perform uncued detection, tracking, and accurate measurement of orbiting objects in low earth - primary -- and medium earth - secondary -- orbital regimes.

    The Space Fence will provide precise positional data on orbiting objects and will be the most accurate radar in the Space Surveillance Network. Space Fence data will be fed to the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Data from the Space Fence radar will be integrated with other Space Surveillance Network data to provide a comprehensive space situational awareness and integrated space picture.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2012/space-120925-afns01.htm?_m=3n.002a.615.dd0ao031i6.k3s

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    USAF’s Hypersonics Road Map Sets Long-Term View

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:47 pm

    http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_26_2012_p40-518983.xml

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    COPE India 2004 : Mig 21 Bison/F-15C

    Post  nemrod on Thu May 09, 2013 11:39 pm

    A decade ago, an air exercise that I ignored, took place in India, and provide interresstings results.
    First of all indian Mig 21 bison was engaged successfully against F-15C -event though, in the seventies syrian mig 21bis successfully downed israelis F-15A -.

    This exercise where India engaged Mig-21 bison and Su-27 familly were tested against US state of the arts aircrafts, leads us to several observations. No use to tell more about Su-27 familly, they are still the best aircrafts in the world, in the condition that a good pilots run them.

    - At first even an old upgraded Mig-21 could successfully won against US state of the arts aircrafts.
    - US pilots were confronting to high trained indian pilots, and once US hardware was in front of the same quality human and materials, the results is far to be shinning.
    - Even though I staid amazed about the results, in fact, if we back to the history, Korea air war, and Vietnam air war, the result was not a surprise. And could not be a surprise, and could not be another result.
    - The true nightmare of US air force, is to meet a third world countries with high quality aircrafts, and chieftly high trained pilots.
    - Russia's hardware honnours the Soviets legacy regarding its aircrafts quality, its training technicals, even though Russia passed a hard economic, social crisis. Russia's hardware is still very efficient.

    http://defensetech.org/2004/06/24/india-1-usaf-0/

    My conclusion :
    As I said since the beginning, without Russia's help, USA are unable to win a war, because Russia's military hardwares, matches perfectly with any US hardwares, in every areas.
    If you have any other examples of exercices between US hardwares and russian's hardwares please post.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 09, 2013 11:41 pm

    It really isn't that shocking.
    F-5s have "shot down" much more advanced USAF birds in training. So what?
    I bet you could find examples of Soviet "agressor" MiG-21s blasting MiG-23s out of the air. Now the generational gap isn't as great, but nontheless...

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  nemrod on Fri May 10, 2013 12:42 pm

    TR1 wrote:It really isn't that shocking.
    F-5s have "shot down" much more advanced USAF birds in training. So what?
    I bet you could find examples of Soviet "agressor" MiG-21s blasting MiG-23s out of the air. Now the generational gap isn't as great, but nontheless...

    Exercises between soviet/russian mig-21/23 in Russia and exercises F-5/F-4/F-16/F-15/F-18/F-22 in USA, France, UK, Germany, Australia are not the same between indian/US, in other words, between developped countries and third world countries.
    The shade is important.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    US Air Force: News

    Post  nemrod on Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:43 pm

    82 F-16Ds removed from flight status due to longeron cracks

    Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/82-f-16ds-removed-from-flight-status-due-to-longeron-cracks-60364/#ixzz3AxmQenMw

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Above the Artic : Match between Mig-31 and the F-22

    Post  nemrod on Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:03 pm

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-is-deploying-its-fastest-interceptors-to-the-arc-1647183496/+pgeorge

    America is relying much on its supposed -it does not mean it is the reality- superiority regarding air to air missiles, and especially AMRAAM. It is usefull to mention tha during air war above the Iraq's sky, it is interresting to notice -between 1992 and 2002, the no fly zone- that several F-15, F-14, F-16 and F-18 were engaged against the old Iraqis Mig-25 PD. Several air to air shot with amraam reached a Mig 25 in 1992 causing its destruction, this was swaggered by US Media as huge victory.



    However, they forgot to mention :
    1-US used to engage at least 5 fighters -if not 7 or 8, reaching often 10- against 1.
    2-After several missiles amraam launched, it would be infortunate to miss all the target. If so, the AMRAAM is useless. But the next will give you more interrestings stories.

    In other incidents, occured between 1998-2002, few Iraqi Mig-25 penetrated deeply inside Jordan, and inside Saudi Arabia terroritory. US launched several fighters F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and launched several dozens of AMRAAM but all missed the iraqi Mig-25 -See Acig.org for more informations-.
    This events prove several things.

    1- First fo all, the US doctrin about the air battle relying on BVR does not work -as it was the case in the past-, if US are not in situation of outnumbering their ennemies. It does not work against old iraqi Mig-25, what about against the more modern Mig-31 ?
    2- As we've seen before, the stealth technology concept, did not work in the past, and does not work nowadays, and won't work in the future.
    3- With the new russian-chinese hardwares now, and in the near future, the west will loose definitly its supposed suprematy.
    4- The future air combats will still last in dogfight, regarding this feature, Russia with its Mig-31, Mig-35, and SU--35 does not have to be afraid by any western fighters, whatever F-22, Typhoon -maybe the best western fighters-, Rafale, F-15, F-18, F-16 etc.. No use to tell more about the JSF, aka F-35.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:25 am

    The two key features of the F-22 are stealth and supercruising.

    Stealth means that it can fly high without the risk of detection at long range, and supercruising means maximum distance covering at minimal fuel consumption. It also adds speed to any weapon it launches and means any weapon fired at it has to literally climb a hill to get there... which reduces the weapons energy level for the terminal attack phase.

    Over the Arctic however the F-22 will be facing a lot of problems... for example though it flys high and fast routinely, it doesn't fly as fast as a MiG-31 on interception duty which can fly at mach 2.4 all the way out and all the way back and at similar or greater heights than the F-22 so it no longer has the high ground advantage.

    A few years ago the arctic was empty so it would have been MiG vs F-22, but now that troops are being stationed north and the radar gaps are being steadily... indeed rapidly filled, the chances for the F-22 are degrading rapidly.

    One of the MiG-31s little tricks is to link radars and fly in a huge formation with each aircraft 150-200km apart. With the old setup the could link 4 aircraft and scan a front of 1,000km of air space... I would expect that capability has been enhanced and improved... with 4 or more radars linked the design of the F-22 which redirects radar beams striking its surface away from the original source in other directions might lead to one aircraft painting the target with its radar, but the energy is redirected and picked up by another aircraft that is linked and just listening... which should also work for other stealthy objects including the B-2 and any stealthy weapons or UCAVs.

    With the support of ground radar and each other I think the MiG-31s shouldn't have too much to worry about the F-22s... they would need external tanks to operate over the arctic anyway, and operating from Canadian bases just makes those bases targets for the first SLBMs.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    ATošić
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 4
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2014-10-18
    Age : 34
    Location : Hackney

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  ATošić on Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:07 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    1- First fo all, the US doctrin about the air battle relying on BVR does not work -as it was the case in the past-, if US are not in situation of outnumbering their ennemies. It does not work against old iraqi Mig-25, what about against the more modern Mig-31 ?

    Let me use the 1990-91 Gulf war analogy. The US M1 Abrams tank scored more hits against the Iraqi T-72s. But that was primarily because the Iraqi T-72s did not have night fighting capabilities. The US Army did not carry out much attack during daytime. They used the cover of the night to fight the Iraqi tanks. So, it was not that the M1 Abrams was a better tank. It's just that the Americans used better tactics. Just like Iraqi insurgents used better tactics to blow away M2 Abrams during the 2nd Gulf War using just IEDs.

    The same analogy applies for air-to-air combat. The Americans may choose to shoot down fighter aircraft of Iraq, Libya or any Afro-Asian country with their BVR missiles but against Russia they will not be that successful, primarily because Russia always had a BVR philosophy.

    Domestic version of the MiG-31 has a service ceiling of 69,000 ft compared to the 65,000 ft service ceiling of the F-22. Therefore, during the opening phase of an engagement the MiG-31 will fire 3 to 4 round of BVR missile at the F-22, forcing the F-22 to jam, decoy and/or outmanoeuvre these 3-4 BVR missiles.

    The onus is therefore on the F-22 to escape a [combined] kill probability of 75%-80% and fire at least two AIM-120D at the MiG-31 which by that time has already reached an altitude higher than the F-22 and is capable of jamming the AIM-120D with it's DRFM.




    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3054
    Points : 3152
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  medo on Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:13 pm

    This is interesting, that AMRAAM have such difficulties with old MiG-25PD fighter. MiG-31 and Sukhois now have far more modern ECM equipment, specially in Sorbtsiya or SAP-518 ECM pods. I wonder if MiG-31BM could carry ECM pod like Talisman, which have MAWS sensor build inside and protect plane against missiles with ARH like AMRAAM or Meteor.

    MiG-31BM is equipped with data link complex, which connect it with other MiGs in group as well as with A-50 AWACS and ground command post. With building radar network with big OTH radars, long range VHF radars, usual EW radars and ELINT posts and to station in region 4 A-50 AWACS planes to ensure constant presence, than F-22 and F-35 could very difficultly make a surprise to MiGs in the air. ECM pods will protect MiG against AMRAAMs and give a chance to launch R-33S or R-77 missiles on them. It will be smart for MiG crew not to come to close to F-22 as MiG-31 is not good for dogfight. I would say IR version of R-77 or R-27 would be the most suitable weapon for MiG-31BM against F-22 or F-35.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  nemrod on Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:09 am

    ATošić wrote:
    ...Let me use the 1990-91 Gulf war analogy. The US M1 Abrams tank scored more hits against the Iraqi T-72s. But that was primarily because the Iraqi T-72s did not have night fighting capabilities. The US Army did not carry out much attack during daytime. They used the cover of the night to fight the Iraqi tanks. So, it was not that the M1 Abrams was a  better tank. It's just that the Americans used better tactics. Just like Iraqi insurgents used better tactics to blow away M2 Abrams during the 2nd Gulf War using just IEDs.

    The same analogy applies for air-to-air combat. The Americans may choose to shoot down fighter aircraft of Iraq, Libya or  any Afro-Asian country  with their BVR missiles but against Russia they will not be that successful, primarily because Russia always had a BVR philosophy.  

    About 1990-1991 war I have not enough accurate informations about what's happened exactly.
    First of all, the war was mostly aerial, than ground.
    They -american's hype- told us about so-called ground battle in Kuwait, and asserted about a -supposed- easy air domination above iraqi's sky. The reality -i will post the link about a troubling document about the war in iraq- seems to be more nuanced. At first there was no real battle in Kuwait, as most of iraqi army retreated before US coalition launched ground assault.  
    Secundly, they claimed having near immediatly the total control of the iraqi's sky. The reality, america's air campaign lasted nearly 45 days, untill this date, iraqi fighters continued to fly, in spite of US coaltion's domination. US have 10 more times more aircrafts than iraqis. Moreover, during this time, when US swaggered that their fighters downed easily about 40 iraqi aircrafts, during this time, it is important to mention that more than 150 iraqi aircrafts fled to Iran. Including the very agile, that could easily evade any US air air missiles the .....IL-76, and the icing on the cake the two iraqi awacs IL-76 Adnan. I've heard about friends that did war among US coalition, US lost several dozens of F-16, more than 30, adding to the official figures given by DOD, US coalition seems to have lost more than 70 aircrafts -untill now, I did not find any Internet link relating this losses-. Obviously, US will deny, nevertheless, if we backed to the air war of Vietnam, we saw exactly the same situation. If, indeed many iraqi Mig-23-25-29 were lost, but at what price ? 800 air air missiles to shoot down 20 aircrafts ? In other side, US coaltion lost at least 40-50, including a B-52, and several F-111 ?
    What I mean, about Desert Storm we know nothing, other than the lies given by DOD,  and we are not ready to know something in near future. Nevertheless if a think is sure, the US casualitities seems to be far higher than they admit.

    Back to our initial subject, Iam near sure that Russia does not need the very expensive and cumbersome Su-Pak T-50. Because nowadays SU-27 familly, and Mig-29 familly are enough, and could easily inflict huge losses to any US adventures. If, indeed the F-22 have supercruise -as mentionned by Garry- feature, do not forget that this US fighter is far to be the only one to have this feature, let's mention the Mig-35, Rafale, Typhoon, and SU-35.
    Moreover, the F-22 has a special feature, the vector thrust engine, yes this aircraft has vector thrust engine, but, the Mig-35, and SU-35 too. It is usefull to mention that these sophisticated engine, if indeed, are very usefull for the aircraft in combat adding in manoevrabilty, they are nevertheless too much fragile, and hence less availlable.
    About the 187 F-22 with their sophisticated avionics, and engines, you can clearly say that in the best case no more 90 are ready for combat, after few days of intensive air war, this number will dramatically drop, and US will still rely on 4th generation aircrafts -as Russia, and China- like the F-15, F-16, F-18.
    All this hype about the so-called superiority of the F-22 is mere intox. Now, there is a new dramatic setting  that modiffy all US calculus.
    US is lack money. Dollar worth nothing, hence, they could not feed their war machine as before. Their only strong point is to outnumber, and now the danger is they could not.

    Airbornewolf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 338
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-02-05
    Location : netherlands

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  Airbornewolf on Wed Oct 22, 2014 12:33 am

    nemrod wrote:


    S . I've heard about friends that did war among US coalition, US lost several dozens of F-16, more than 30, adding to the official figures given by DOD, US coalition seems to have lost more than 70 aircrafts -untill now, I did not find any Internet link relating this losses-. Obviously, US will deny, nevertheless, if we backed to the air war of Vietnam, we saw exactly the same situation. If, indeed many iraqi Mig-23-25-29 were lost, but at what price ? 800 air air missiles to shoot down 20 aircrafts ? In other side, US coaltion lost at least 40-50, including a B-52, and several F-111 ?
    What I mean, about Desert Storm we know nothing, other than the lies given by DOD,  and we are not ready to know something in near future. Nevertheless if a think is sure, the US casualitities seems to be far higher than they admit.

    Back to our initial subject, Iam near sure that Russia does not need the very expensive and cumbersome Su-Pak T-50. Because nowadays SU-27 familly, and Mig-29 familly are enough, and could easily inflict huge losses to any US adventures.

    this is without mentioning Rotary Aircraft losses endured.

    the U.S and coalition lost rather a lot of F-16's and F-18's against ...again.."obsolete" ZSU-23-4 platforms. not all iraqi crew where stupid to leave their radars on for EW aircraft to find them before strike craft actually could be heard or seen. then activated and shot the shit out of both A-10's, Supercobra's, Apache's and F-16/F18's when they came into visual range.

    i remember this one vid from liveleak:"A-10 saves downed airman". it was bullshit really, his buddy got blown out the sky when it got turned to swiss cheese and his wingman was just evading incomming fire from an ZSU-23-4 while still getting hit in the process. still, granted...the surviving A-10 was a tough piece of flying armour tough. it understripes a bit of the NATO reliance on high-tech warfare and their vulnerability as soon you pass that outer shell.

    and, ...to show how american night vision warfare is not perfect either. some might know the story of the iraqi commander that drove his T-72's in cover and ordered then his T-72's to mingle with the advancing M1's . the american crew...or optics or both...where not enough to prevent some serious blue-on-blue fire.

    that part of the movie where this with Denzel washington is just one little bit of the truth. it was not one M1 that got blown up in the confusion but they shot at least 5 M1's to shit themselves before realising what was going on. after that, the standard procedure got addopted that if you where not 100% sure you call in an mortar/artillery IR round on target. with night optics that works like an area-wide flashlight and makes things see clear as it would in daylight.

    this all points a bit to what i always said here, that NATO/US cant get it trough their thick skulls that the other side just might be ahead of them with thinking and practical technology and that "next gen" warfare is all but holy on the reality of the battlefield.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:06 am

    granted...the surviving A-10 was a tough piece of flying armour tough.

    The huge irony is that every time there is mention of saving some money by cancelling a program they look at the A-10 first while ignoring the white elephant that they might try to replace it with (F35).


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  nemrod on Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:03 pm

    Airbornewolf wrote:
    ...the reality of the battlefield.

    Battlefield ? Well, let's talk about a little bit about it. Here is a documentary about a part -I say a part, we won't never know what's really happenned- of what's happened in Kuwait.


    Untill now, I used to believe that there was a great ground battle in Kuwait, and I used to believe that US easily erased the very old fashionned iraqi army with their modern hardware as AH-64, A-10, F-15 E, M1-Abrams. Sergent Marrocco Omari confirmed what I suspected, there was no battle in Kuwait, iraqi army withdrew from Kuwait before the so-called US invasion of Kuwait.

    Airbornewolf wrote:

    this is without mentioning Rotary Aircraft losses endured.

    the U.S and coalition lost rather a lot of F-16's and F-18's against ...again.."obsolete" ZSU-23-4 platforms. not all iraqi crew where stupid to leave their radars on for EW aircraft to find them before strike craft actually could be heard or seen. then activated and shot the shit out of both A-10's, Supercobra's, Apache's and F-16/F18's when they came into visual range.

    i remember this one vid from liveleak:"A-10 saves downed airman". it was bullshit really, his buddy got blown out the sky when it got turned to swiss cheese and his wingman was just evading incomming fire from an ZSU-23-4  while still getting hit in the process. still, granted...the surviving A-10 was a tough piece of flying armour tough. it understripes a bit of the NATO reliance on high-tech warfare and their vulnerability as soon you pass that outer shell.
    Not all du the ZSU-23-4, but most of the US losses were in air to air combat. And the so-called obscolescence of ZSU-23-4 is asserted only by western pseudo-specialists, often paid by either the US military complex, or even by US governement.


    Airbornewolf wrote:
    ....that part of the movie where this with Denzel washington...
    Is it a metaphore ? Indeed, most of what asserted DOD is a mere film, even their so-called state of the art weaponneries starting with their filthy stealth fighters and bombers.


    Airbornewolf wrote:
    and, ...to show how american night vision warfare is not perfect either. some might know the story of the iraqi commander that drove his T-72's in cover and ordered then his T-72's to mingle with the advancing M1's . the american crew...or optics or both...where not enough to prevent some serious blue-on-blue fire.
    .... is just one little bit of the truth. it was not one M1 that got blown up in the confusion but they shot at least 5 M1's to shit themselves before realising what was going on...

    What is perfect with US hardware ? Have they already produced something like this ? Most of the perfection is due the hype's miracle in order to convince the poor dudes like me, what I was before.

    My feelings about what's happenned in -it would be the same for air war in Serbia- Desert Storm -waiting confirmation-.

    The first stage of war, US undertook massive air bombing on Iraq, however with mixed results. If, indeed US coalition dominated the sky above Iraq, nevertheless, the bombings campaign was not enough accurate to have a total dominance of the sky of Iraq defended by the very efficient soviet-russian weapons. Because most of this bombing campaign was either due to cruise missiles, or high altitude bombing with zero accurate -they even used B-52-. Worse, many and the best of Iraq aircrafts withdrew into Iran -even iraqi Il 76, and their awacs -, meanwhile US coalition claimed -falsely- that they had the total dominance above Iraq.
    Iraq army evacuated all its ground force from Kuwait, and most of its best fighters bombers found harbour into Iran. US waged air campaign, untill the total retreat from Iraq's army from Kuwait. If the iraqi staf and army wanted to resist -as it was the case in Serbia-, the head or the leaders of Iraq choose to negociate, and choose to make confidence to US. Once US was sure that they could not meet resistance they invaded Kuwait, but stopped just in front of Iraq's borders. Avoiding iraqi army inside Iraq.

    Even with this devasting assault from US coalition, Iraq had good asset to inflict a severe blows to US coaltion, and it seems to have occured, but no enough to allow to Saddam to negociate in good position against US.

    Back to our subject. As I've said,  Iam near sure as Russia is far to be Iraq, or Serbia, none US fighters nowadays could match with the very modern Mig-35, SU-35, and even Mig-31. No use to rely on F-22, and even less the F-35. The only thing that could save US is precisly maybe the british Typhoon, or french Rafale.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  George1 on Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:46 am

    USAF will downgrade T-X requirements to shave cost

    In an effort to reduce cost and speed up its often snail-paced acquisition system, the US Air Force intends to water down the capabilities it expects to see in a new jet trainer, as well as several other ongoing acquisition programmes.

    USAF Secretary Deborah Lee James said on 14 January that the Air Force is specifically targeting four programmes for capabilities downgrades, including the T-X trainer replacement for the Northrop Grumman T-38 jet trainer. Also in the crosshairs of the so-called cost-capability analysis (CCA) programme are the long-range standoff weapon, the follow-on to the space-based infrared system (SIBRS) and the multi-domain adaptable processing system (MAPS), which is envisioned as a pod to enable communications between stealth fighters.

    “By gathering data from a range of sources it should be possible to identify instances where small changes in capability could have a major effect on cost,” James said during a speech at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC.

    The four programmes will be the first to undergo what will be a “specific industry engagement process” to identify capability reductions that the air force could stomach if they are offset with significant cost savings.

    “Say we have a requirement for a new jet to fly 500mph, but discovered we could achieve significant cost savings if we amended the requirement to 450mph,” James offered as a hypothetical scenario. “Maybe we might choose to modify that requirement.”

    James said the Air Force was about two years from issuing a request for proposals (RFP) on the T-X programme, but did not offer specific examples of what capability requirements might be amended. The program will consider alteration of both “higher level” and “bare bones” requirements, she says.

    The air force still refuses to water down the requirements for its top three modernization programmes: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the Boeing KC-46 aerial refueling tanker and a new long-range strike bomber. James specifically mentioned the bomber replacement in her remarks.

    “It is one of our top three acquisition priorities,” she said. “It is a new programme that is highly classified. There have been no changes to speak of in the parameters, but when we roll out the FY16 budget, it will similar to what was projected in the FY15 budget.”

    The Obama administration is expected to publish its budget in early February.

    The air force suffers from systemic acquisition sluggishness, James says. In sole-source cases where there is a single known supplier, it takes an average of 17 months to award a contract, she says. Several initiatives are aimed at bringing that gulf to single digits.

    Later this month at George Mason University, the air force will unveil the PlugFest Play initiative where it will solicit industry demonstrations of specific technologies with the intention of awarding a contract within months. The first system to undergo the operation will be the distributed common ground system, which collects and distributes multiple sources of signals intelligence for both the air force and Army.

    James also announced a $2 million X-Prize for a midsize turbofan engine that could power both commercial and military aircraft.

    Sponsored content

    Re: US Air Force: Discussion and News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:50 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:50 am