kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,459
- 47,871
- 136
You act like the Navy itself is immune to nukes. If an entire carrier group is taken out by a nuke, that leaves a pretty big hole in the defense, no?
The presence of nukes does not immediately negate the value of fighters either. A squadron of fighters cruising at 50,000ft 100 miles away from ground zero is still a viable asset. There are simply too many 'what-ifs' involved in modern combat for a blanket statement like that to work.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,459
- 47,871
- 136
Depends on the situation. A Phoenix missile will reach out and touch at 100 miles. AMRAAMs are around 30 miles. The East has improved it's missile technology lately, so I'm not too familiar on what their specs are up to. Aren't we still using Sidewinders for point defense? Also, just because you launch a missile, it isn't guarenteed to hit automaticallys. There's ECM, flares, chaff, ground-clutter, etc to figure in.
I don't know much about aircraft at all, but I was under the assumption that dogfights would not be very common at all with today's technology.
How common would a dogfight be? What situation would call for it? If the AMRAAM range is 30 miles, then wouldn't a dogfight be pretty rare?
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
I used to have a little plastic F-15 on my dresser... those things are fvcking cool sh!t.
Not that it matters if they're obsolete, but I haven't a clue about aircraft, so I have no idea.
Not that it matters if they're obsolete, but I haven't a clue about aircraft, so I have no idea.
F-15 is much lighter, with more thrust per pound, and a higher ceiling. though SU-30 has a heavier armament.
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/compare.asp
Hard to compare anyways, the F-15 is an air superiority fighter, its job is to kill anything that flies (often before it even gets off the ground) The SU-30 is a long range interceptor, designed to stop incoming bombers, the US equivalent is the bulky F-14.
The SU-30 would have an edge if they were far apart, due to the F-15's lack of long range armament. But in a long range situation, US would launch F-14's. The F-15 is used in situations where its already in your face when you figure out its there.
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/compare.asp
Hard to compare anyways, the F-15 is an air superiority fighter, its job is to kill anything that flies (often before it even gets off the ground) The SU-30 is a long range interceptor, designed to stop incoming bombers, the US equivalent is the bulky F-14.
The SU-30 would have an edge if they were far apart, due to the F-15's lack of long range armament. But in a long range situation, US would launch F-14's. The F-15 is used in situations where its already in your face when you figure out its there.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,459
- 47,871
- 136
It's impossible to say, although I can imagine a pilot having to engage when he's out of missiles and relying on 20mm cannon fire to drop boogeys. Not the time to be 'driving a truck' when everyone else is piloting 'Cooper Minis.' Given that most aircraft carry a very limited number of medium/long range missiles, this isn't a farfetched scenario. Missile range is only half of the equation. Detection of the enemy in the first place is what will allow you to engage. Radar systems on our fighters will have to be more powerful than 'theirs' in order to spot them first, as well as be good enough to spot them at all (Russian aircraft in particular are begining to adopt stealth technolgy - updated or more precise radar will be necessary to give our pilots the advantage).
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Which is why I said when nukes are flying the fighter jets are useless. In a nuke war, pretty much everything is null and void. And what's the use of a squadron of advanced itnerceptors patrolling 100 miles away from ground zero of a nuke strike on Manhattan- if that's what you're implying ??? The point of our military is to protect the citizens, so if we're dead they're no longer relevent. It's like citing the importance of a group of security guards protecting an already assassinated president.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,459
- 47,871
- 136
The F-15 isn't as manueverable as the Flanker, lacks stealth, and isn't as heavily armed. Have you seen the footage on TV of the SU-30 doing "The Cobra" ? I guess it would really have to creep to get within striking distance, and hope the first shot did the job. I recall hearing about a SU-30 pilot offering to spar with anyone in any other aircraft at the Paris AirShow a few years back. No takers.
That's a cool website though! *bookmarks*
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,459
- 47,871
- 136
Counter-attacks, intercepting enemy aircraft on the way to distribute more carnage? Nuclear war does not mean the immediate destruction of every citizen and military asset. Any conflict on that scale will not be as simplified as you portray it. That is of course, if the conflict even involved nukes...
Well, IIRC, a joint Israeli-American exercise took place quite some time ago, and the Israelis won by a far margin.
It is to be noted though, that in a full scale war, the USAF will take out IAF without a doubt, mainly because of the great number of crafts that the US can put against it...
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,916
- 46,869
- 136
In a full scale nuclear exchange, a bunch of fighters would be fairly useless if they survived. You can count on every major population center and military installation being struck rather quickly. Not to mention the massive fallout after the detonation of possibly thousands of warheads. Whatever social services that survive would quickly be overwhelmed and society would break down in very short order. A very small fraction of the population would survive the aftermath.
Edit: Also, no bombers are kept on alert loaded with nuclear weapons anymore. It is quite likely the airbases would be hit before they had a chance to load and fly them out.
I think we are maybe missing the real point here. The US F-15 is not a bad plane, and its age is not an automatic problem. Just look at the report -- Mig-21s can hold their own. The bigger problem, as I understand it, is in the weapon loadout. US planes do not have long range interception missiles. The mythical Phoenix has a range of 100 miles, but it is a very old design, and only the F-14 can carry them.
Our next best weapon is the AMRAAM, which has a range of about 30 miles, but you would rarely want to launch at that range, because that gives the missile little fuel for its terminal engagement phase.
As far as I'm concerned, the US needs off-bore sight missiles (like the Israeli Phalcon (sp?)) and much longer range (ie, 50 mi) missiles. Then, I think we would do much better.
Our next best weapon is the AMRAAM, which has a range of about 30 miles, but you would rarely want to launch at that range, because that gives the missile little fuel for its terminal engagement phase.
As far as I'm concerned, the US needs off-bore sight missiles (like the Israeli Phalcon (sp?)) and much longer range (ie, 50 mi) missiles. Then, I think we would do much better.
I am of the opinion that our inventory is adequite for at least the near future. The advantages of the new designs are in stealth and manuverability. I believe we are close enough to developing pilotless aircraft that will excell in these areas that we should skip spending money on the proposed designs. Pilotless aircraft can be designed without regard to including a cockpit or canopy which are currently stealth compromises. Pilotless designs could also include manuver capabilities that exceed the physical limitations of humans. Actual "dog fighting" with guns blazing, is pretty much a thing of the past. Stealth offers operational and targeting invisability, and manuver offers missile avoidance capability. I believe this is the future of fighter/intercepter aircraft and the first country that develops and deploys it will have air superiority.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter