China puts refurbished soviet carrier into service
115 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Swebonny;37805963]After United States.[/QUOTE]
They have the F-22, but its out of production and being replaced by the F-35 which isn't even fifth gen.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37806069]Isnt the F-22 a fourth generation fighter though.[/QUOTE]
I'm quite sure it's a 5th generation fighter. According to Wikipedia that's how the US classify their newer planes such as the F-22 and the F-35. And in that category the new Russian fighter also fits.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;37806102]I'm quite sure it's a 5th generation fighter. According to Wikipedia that's how the US classify their newer planes such as the F-22 and the F-35. And in that category the new Russian fighter also fits.[/QUOTE]
For being so old I didn't think it classified as a full fifth generation fighter, but its now out of production and grounded plus its being replaced by the F-35, which does not fully qualify as a fifth gen fighter.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37796079]Good thing its a massive waste of money considering you're probably never ever going to use them and are going to be using F-35's, yes out of all the aircraft you could of used.. F-35's.[/QUOTE]
You obviously don't know a great deal about why Britain requires giant mobile runways at it's disposal. Ever heard of the Falklands war? Even the recent small conflict with Libya proved we required a carrier or two.
Britain still has sovereign territories which need protecting, and the best way of doing so is with a couple of carriers and Type 45 and 26 Destroyers.
[QUOTE=Flyboi;37807098]You obviously don't know a great deal about why Britain requires giant mobile runways at it's disposal. Ever heard of the Falklands war? Even the recent small conflict with Libya proved we required a carrier or two.
Britain still has sovereign territories which need protecting, and the best way of doing so is with a couple of carriers and Type 35 and 26 Destroyers.[/QUOTE]
Okay sure, protecting oil interests, territory and bullying other small nations. I understand, but why F-35's.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37807182]Okay sure, protecting oil interests, territory and bullying other small nations. I understand, but why F-35's.[/QUOTE]
It really isn't hard to comprehend. The F35 is the only fifth generation VTOL aircraft available, the only alternative would be to commission another company, say BAE to build a new airframe, which would be a lot more expensive.[B] "Bullying other small nations"?[/B] Yes, obviously modern day Britain is an evil empire building tyrant hell bent on bullying small nations... you're naivety astounds me.
[QUOTE=Flyboi;37807359]It really isn't hard to comprehend. The F35 is the only fifth generation VTOL aircraft available, the only alternative would be to commission another company, say BAE to build a new airframe, which would be a lot more expensive.[B] "Bullying other small nations"?[/B] Yes, obviously modern day Britain is an evil empire building tyrant hell bent on bullying small nations... you're naivety astounds me.[/QUOTE]
Except it isn't 5th generation.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37807395]Except it isn't 5th generation.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's debatable as to what "5th Generation" actually means. Clearly, the JSF Program refers to the F-35 as a fifth generation fighter. It's a debate arm chair military strategists often jump head first into.
Regardless of wether or not the F35 is fifth generation, it's still a stealth fighter.
With modern naval anti-aircraft defence systems, carrier born fighters must be stealthy if they're to launch attacks on enemy vessels, else they're useless.
[QUOTE=Flyboi;37807538]Well, it's debatable as to what "5th Generation" actually means. Clearly, the JSF Program refers to the F-35 as a fifth generation fighter. It's a debate arm chair military strategists often jump head first into.
Regardless of wether or not the F35 is fifth generation, it's still a stealth fighter.
With modern naval anti-aircraft defence systems, carrier born fighters must be stealthy if they're to launch attacks on enemy vessels, else they're useless.[/QUOTE]
I understand that, but hasn't it been said quite abit that its actually inferior to a Su-35 when it comes to air dominance? Stealth isn't much when our enemy can defend against it with age-old tactics.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37807573]I understand that, but hasn't it been said quite abit that its actually inferior to a Su-35 when it comes to air dominance? Stealth isn't much when our enemy can defend against it with age-old tactics.[/QUOTE]
Depends - if you can nab th enemy before they can retaliate, stealth becomes incredibly important.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;37800600]still amounts to complacent training and leadership.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't really say so, if you're talking about training previously sure, but recently training has become more rigorous, afaik McChrystal introduced MMA into Ranger School, etc.
Training in a draft army (Vietnam) vs. Training in a volunteer army (modern day) is much different.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;37808821]Depends - if you can nab th enemy before they can retaliate, stealth becomes incredibly important.[/QUOTE]
Long ranged stealth operations with no support from aircraft carriers require AWACS to be present. And that's a dead give-away if enemy is even closely capable. Unless it really really is a surprise attack - like, without diplomatic warnings and declaring war.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37806069]They have the F-22, but its out of production and being replaced by the F-35 which isn't even fifth gen.[/QUOTE]
The F-22 just doesn't have any current orders. The ability to manufacture them still exists.
The F-22 is not being replaced by the F-35 and was never intended to be replaced by the F-35. The F-35 is a multirole aircraft, the F-22 is an air supremacy aircraft.
The other countries can tout their little fighters all they want, but at the end of the day you are fucked if you go against Raptors. It was an aircraft intended to break the bank from the very start and has a ridiculous amount of tech behind it.
[editline]26th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37807573]I understand that, but hasn't it been said quite abit that its actually inferior to a Su-35 when it comes to air dominance? Stealth isn't much when our enemy can defend against it with age-old tactics.[/QUOTE]
How? What tactics are they going to use?
The F-22 can close to GUN RANGE before being detected by the most advanced aircraft in NATO right now.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37809706]The F-22 just doesn't have any current orders. The ability to manufacture them still exists.
The F-22 is not being replaced by the F-35 and was never intended to be replaced by the F-35. The F-35 is a multirole aircraft, the F-22 is an air supremacy aircraft.
The other countries can tout their little fighters all they want, but at the end of the day you are fucked if you go against Raptors. It was an aircraft intended to break the bank from the very start and has a ridiculous amount of tech behind it.
[editline]26th September 2012[/editline]
How? What tactics are they going to use?
The F-22 can close to GUN RANGE before being detected by the most advanced aircraft in NATO right now.[/QUOTE]
Out turn missile, go after poor F-35 then watch as F-35 is shot down by Su-35 due to the F-35 underperforming compared to a Phantom..
The PAK-FA is meant to compete against the F-22 and it most likely will come up matched.. but at the moment it certainly would be outmatched with the amount of problems it(F-22) has.
They should have just made F-22 carrier based versions instead of going with the JSF.. it really can't do much compared to even 4.5Gen aircraft.
Also by "Other countries can go tout their little fighters all they want" made you sound like a nationalist.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37811969]Out turn missile, go after poor F-35 then watch as F-35 is shot down by Su-35 due to the F-35 underperforming compared to a Phantom..
The PAK-FA is meant to compete against the F-22 and it most likely will come up matched.. but at the moment it certainly would be outmatched with the amount of problems it(F-22) has.
They should have just made F-22 carrier based versions instead of going with the JSF.. it really can't do much compared to even 4.5Gen aircraft.
Also by "Other countries can go tout their little fighters all they want" made you sound like a nationalist.[/QUOTE]
MiG-29 was designed to counter F-15s. The combat records speak for themselves.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37811969]Out turn missile, go after poor F-35 then watch as F-35 is shot down by Su-35 due to the F-35 underperforming compared to a Phantom..
The PAK-FA is meant to compete against the F-22 and it most likely will come up matched.. but at the moment it certainly would be outmatched with the amount of problems it(F-22) has.
They should have just made F-22 carrier based versions instead of going with the JSF.. it really can't do much compared to even 4.5Gen aircraft.[/QUOTE]
Out turn what missile? It is an F-22 sitting right on top of you. Your missile warning system would blip for about half a second before you had a missile inside you. That is assuming he doesn't just tear you to shreds using the cannon. You never even see him. Even if you do, your RADAR can't maintain a lock on him and he isn't generating enough of a heat signature to launch missiles. The system doesn't even realize he is there, so while you could theoretically engage him with cannons, the system won't maintain a lock and thereby won't calculate the lead necessary to actually connect with him.
You keep spewing stuff about problems with the F-22. The F-22 had an issue with pilot hypoxia that turned out to be largely the fault of the pilots not understanding why always selecting 100% O2 is not a good idea coupled with a valve that didn't work quite like it was supposed to. A simple fix and the valve is actually on the flight suit, not the aircraft, and wouldn't even have been a problem had the pilots been using the automatic adjustments built into the F-22.
It dominates pretty much every simulation, both computer and using actual fighter aircraft, you can throw at it. It is performing precisely like was hoped.
But even assuming it was the F-35 vs the Su-35, I'm not sure the Su-35 would win. I'm no fan of the F-35, but the aircraft is far from a pushover. If your aircraft needs to rely on extreme performance to accomplish its objectives, you are going to have a wildly varying level of results. The F-35 is built around its avionics. F-35's network and share virtually all forms of information seemlessly. If one F-35 knows where you are, all of them know. One can target you, and another can launch the missile. They can target you in a sphere, rather than just relying on forward facing RADAR. So while you are grabbing a lock on the tail of one, he has already locked on you and his buddy launched the missile. Though frankly, they don't even need that, you can be on the tail of one and they can still nail you with a missile. Kind of hard to pursue an aircraft that can shoot at you regardless of his orientation. This is assuming you can grab that lock in the first place. The F-35 isn't quite as nasty about stealth, but getting an IR lock and maintaining a good RADAR lock on the F-35 isn't exactly easy either.
The F-35 is an overpriced pain in the ass, but only because we don't really need it right now. The folks we use multirole aircraft against aren't going to have much in the way of RADAR to begin with. Better to just use the cheaper F-18's and F-16's. As far as what it was intended to do though, the F-35 isn't an aircraft to write off.
You can tell yourself that climb speed and rate of turn matter, but they don't. The F-22 and the F-35 aren't there to play that game. They have been designed to detect you long before you could possibly detect them, and put the hurt out on you before you have an opportunity to react. Both are hardcore 5th gen fighters and will ruin your day if you go against them.
[QUOTE=Apache249;37812360]MiG-29 was designed to counter F-15s. The combat records speak for themselves.[/QUOTE]
You can't compare foreign use of dated Mig-29 export versions which are most likely poorly maintained etc and have a poorly trained crew to Russian aircraft. Its like comparing saddams tanks to russian tanks.
[editline]26th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;37812362]Out turn what missile? It is an F-22 sitting right on top of you. Your missile warning system would blip for about half a second before you had a missile inside you. That is assuming he doesn't just tear you to shreds using the cannon. You never even see him. Even if you do, your RADAR can't maintain a lock on him and he isn't generating enough of a heat signature to launch missiles. The system doesn't even realize he is there, so while you could theoretically engage him with cannons, the system won't maintain a lock and thereby won't calculate the lead necessary to actually connect with him.
You keep spewing stuff about problems with the F-22. The F-22 had an issue with pilot hypoxia that turned out to be largely the fault of the pilots not understanding why always selecting 100% O2 is not a good idea coupled with a valve that didn't work quite like it was supposed to. A simple fix and the valve is actually on the flight suit, not the aircraft, and wouldn't even have been a problem had the pilots been using the automatic adjustments built into the F-22.
It dominates pretty much every simulation, both computer and using actual fighter aircraft, you can throw at it. It is performing precisely like was hoped.
But even assuming it was the F-35 vs the Su-35, I'm not sure the Su-35 would win. I'm no fan of the F-35, but the aircraft is far from a pushover. If your aircraft needs to rely on extreme performance to accomplish its objectives, you are going to have a wildly varying level of results. The F-35 is built around its avionics. F-35's network and share virtually all forms of information seemlessly. If one F-35 knows where you are, all of them know. One can target you, and another can launch the missile. They can target you in a sphere, rather than just relying on forward facing RADAR. So while you are grabbing a lock on the tail of one, he has already locked on you and his buddy launched the missile. Though frankly, they don't even need that, you can be on the tail of one and they can still nail you with a missile. Kind of hard to pursue an aircraft that can shoot at you regardless of his orientation. This is assuming you can grab that lock in the first place. The F-35 isn't quite as nasty about stealth, but getting an IR lock and maintaining a good RADAR lock on the F-35 isn't exactly easy either.
The F-35 is an overpriced pain in the ass, but only because we don't really need it right now. The folks we use multirole aircraft against aren't going to have much in the way of RADAR to begin with. Better to just use the cheaper F-18's and F-16's. As far as what it was intended to do though, the F-35 isn't an aircraft to write off.
You can tell yourself that climb speed and rate of turn matter, but they don't. The F-22 and the F-35 aren't there to play that game. They have been designed to detect you long before you could possibly detect them, and put the hurt out on you before you have an opportunity to react. Both are hardcore 5th gen fighters and will ruin your day if you go against them.[/QUOTE]
The F-35 will not even get close to a Su-35, because its a extreme outmatch at anything in visual range. The Su-35 will not see the F-35 until it fires its missiles, but its advanced detection systems will see the missile and the flanker will drop counter measures and turn extremely sharply to avoid it. It will most likely do this until the F-35 runs out of its armament then they will turn and go on the offensive. Most likely shooting it down as it cannot escape. There was a good article about the weaknesses and strengths of each aircraft floating about on the internet.
I honestly think the F-35 is a massive waste of America's money, they should go with F-22's.
[URL="http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html"]Here is a good one, although bias towards the F-22 here it goes..[/URL]
[QUOTE=Flyboi;37807538]Well, it's debatable as to what "5th Generation" actually means. Clearly, the JSF Program refers to the F-35 as a fifth generation fighter. It's a debate arm chair military strategists often jump head first into.
Regardless of wether or not the F35 is fifth generation, it's still a stealth fighter.
With modern naval anti-aircraft defence systems, carrier born fighters must be stealthy if they're to launch attacks on enemy vessels, else they're useless.[/QUOTE]
A fifth generation fighter is one that looks futuristic, duh!
[QUOTE=Apache249;37793237]A very important line.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they also said it was going to be a cruise ship. I don't hold their official statements in very high regard.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37812398]
The F-35 will not even get close to a Su-35, because its a extreme outmatch at anything in visual range. The Su-35 will not see the F-35 until it fires its missiles, but its advanced detection systems will see the missile and the flanker will drop counter measures and turn extremely sharply to avoid it. It will most likely do this until the F-35 runs out of its armament then they will turn and go on the offensive. Most likely shooting it down as it cannot escape. There was a good article about the weaknesses and strengths of each aircraft floating about on the internet.
I honestly think the F-35 is a massive waste of America's money, they should go with F-22's.
[URL="http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html"]Here is a good one, although bias towards the F-22 here it goes..[/URL][/QUOTE]
Except the AIM-9X will out perform the Su-35 straight up, is hard to fool with countermeasures, and its itself highly resistant to detection from missile warning systems. Given that the Su-35 would be unlikely to detect either the F-22 or the F-35 at any significant range, the attacking aircraft would open fire inside the no escape zone of their armaments. Even with the use of countermeasures and extreme maneuvers, the likelihood of dodging a missile inside its no escape zone is close to zero. This is why maneuverability is not valuable when compared to stealth, you simply can't dodge missiles past a certain point.
EDIT:
Wow that link. That link is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. Everything from the comparison of avionics to what armaments the F-35 can carry.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37812720]Except the AIM-9X will out perform the Su-35 straight up, is hard to fool with countermeasures, and its itself highly resistant to detection from missile warning systems. Given that the Su-35 would be unlikely to detect either the F-22 or the F-35 at any significant range, the attacking aircraft would open fire inside the no escape zone of their armaments. Even with the use of countermeasures and extreme maneuvers, the likelihood of dodging a missile inside its no escape zone is close to zero. This is why maneuverability is not valuable when compared to stealth, you simply can't dodge missiles past a certain point.[/QUOTE]
This is where tactics comes into play, and its likely the F-35 would launch from maximum range to avoid getting into a dogfight with the more agile fighter. Thus ones its systems pick up the missile it might have time to react and pop countermeasures or out-do it. AIM-120's would be a ton easier to out-do for the Flanker-E though. By the time the F-35 is in range to even use a AIM-9 it will already be seen by the Su-35, which is why AIM-120's are more suited for BVR stealth operations, I'd assume. The su-35 is russia's latest version of the flanker, its fully digitalized and has modern systems installed on a modern airframe. Its quite competitive for a 4.5Gen.
Also the link is from 2010, its still probably relevant and they're quite reputable.
I don't understand why they would order the F-35 for all arms of air service though, it makes no sense when there are 200+ F-22's sitting there ready to be used or upgraded.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37812768]This is where tactics comes into play, and its likely the F-35 would launch from maximum range to avoid getting into a dogfight with the more agile fighter. Thus ones its systems pick up the missile it might have time to react and pop countermeasures or out-do it. AIM-120's would be a ton easier to out-do for the Flanker-E though. By the time the F-35 is in range to even use a AIM-9 it will already be seen by the Su-35, which is why AIM-120's are more suited for BVR stealth operations, I'd assume.[/quote]
No, the F-35 would launch from [I]effective[/I] range. That is the point of stealth. Amateurs launch from max range. Stealth aircraft get close enough that their targets are inside the no escape zone of their weapons, and then they fire. The aircraft they are targeting stops mattering and all the maneuvering and countermeasures in the world are of almost no use.
[quote]Also the link is from 2010, its still probably relevant and they're quite reputable.
[/QUOTE]
It isn't even remotely relevant anymore. And the fact that they were comparing the abilities of a hugely unfinished aircraft to the abilities of a completed one are ridiculous. Not the actions of a reputable site
[quote]I don't understand why they would order the F-35 for all arms of air service though, it makes no sense when there are 200+ F-22's sitting there ready to be used or upgraded[/quote]
Because the F-22 is an air supremacy aircraft designed to launch from ground stations. It can't attack ground targets and it isn't designed to withstand the extremely harsh conditions of being exposed to ocean air on a carrier, much less reinforced to withstand the constant stress of carrier launch and retrieval or any number of other concessions that have to be made to launch from a carrier.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37812817]No, the F-35 would launch from [I]effective[/I] range. That is the point of stealth. Amateurs launch from max range. Stealth aircraft get close enough that their targets are inside the no escape zone of their weapons, and then they fire. The aircraft they are targeting stops mattering and all the maneuvering and countermeasures in the world are of almost no use.[/QUOTE]
Effective is assuming the F-35 can out-run the Su-35, I'm fairly sure the F-35 would be seen before it could get that close to use a short-range missile. It isn't exactly as stealthy as the F-22. Afterall, its all about tactics and they're both good planes but there are better alternatives. The radar on the Su-35 is good.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37812837]Effective is assuming the F-35 can out-run the Su-35, I'm fairly sure the F-35 would be seen before it could get that close to use a short-range missile. It isn't exactly as stealthy as the F-22. Afterall, its all about tactics and they're both good planes but there are better alternatives. The radar on the Su-35 is good.[/QUOTE]
It is like nothing I say sinks in.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37812881]It is like nothing I say sinks in.[/QUOTE]
I agree to disagree. Also, comparing prototypes isn't a shady action, it clearly says its a prototype in the article.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37812892]I agree to disagree. Also, comparing prototypes isn't a shady action, it clearly says its a prototype in the article.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it just strikes me as silly to compare the current abilities of the aircraft at the time. They would never meet at such a stage. It makes way more sense to compare the abilities of the finished aircraft.
But yes, I will agree to disagree. That seems like the best conclusion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.