How much does an F-22 cost? A SU-37?

[Pastfinder]

MadRat,
Instant Thunder was a joke and was poorly designed by Col. John Warden. Granted, the basic structure of Instant Thunder was adopted by Lt. General Charles Horner, but the thought of winning the war with air power alone was and still is ludicrous. It is the pilot, and the training he/she receives that determines how successful a mission is. Try reading Benjamin Lambeth's book, The Transformation of American Air Power. You might learn something.

 

[Bluga]

<< 11) Does it have any stealth characteristics?
2) Does its maneuverability in any way improve its avionics?
3) Do those protruding engine nozzles increase its IR signature?
4) Does the ability to stop in midair make it more or less of a perfect target for an incoming missile?? >>



Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

Have you ever read its techinical specs?

 

[Bluga]

PAK FA

Russian military officials have indicated that Moscow has already decided on the shape of its next-generation fighter aircraft, and has rebounded the concept the PAK FA (Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii, Future Air Complex for Tactical Air Forces).

Previously referred to as the LFS (Logkiy Frontovoy Samolyot, Light Tactical Aircraft), the PAK FA is intended to sit between the USA's F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter designs, and should be available at a unit cost of around $30 million. The aircraft's main role will be to ensure air superiority over a future battle space, with ground-attack duties planned as an additional capability. The aircraft's normal take-off weight will be about 20 tones, placing it between the air force's current MiG-29 (NATO reporting name: 'Fulcrum') and Su-27 ('Flanker'), which weigh 15-16 tones and 23-24 tones, respectively.

More detailed air force requirements for the new design include an operational radius of 1,200km; this stems from a need to operate from a sparse network of airfields in the Russian north and Far East. Other identified capabilities for the planned short take-off and landing aircraft include supersonic-cruise, super-maneuverability and low visibility.

The fighter's entire avionics suite, including its armament control, data-exchange, electronic warfare, navigation and communication systems, will be combined into an integrated system with a common information field. Russia intends to equip the PAK FA with data links enabling the transfer of tactical information between aircraft and both land-based and space-borne assets.

To be capable of carrying all Russian air-to-air and tactical air- to-surface missiles, such as those offered with the MiG-29SMT upgrade, the fighter could also carry a movable, computer-controlled cannon, say service officials. The aircraft's armament control subsystem will consist of a combined radar with electronic scanning (first using a passive phased-array and then an active phased-array antenna), optronic sensors and a helmet-mounted target indication and data presentation system.

Neither of Russia's latest- generation fighter aircraft designs is expected to enter series production. The MiG 1-44 has so far conducted around two tests flights and Sukhoi's S-37 has flown around 90 times.

Both systems are now described as technology demonstrators for the PAK FA, with work concentrating largely on developing technologies such as aerodynamics, engines and flight-control systems. The future aircraft's fire-control radar, navigation and electronic warfare systems are to be developed separately, along with any new weapon systems.

Russia's design bureaus were presented with the preliminary requirements for such a fighter as early as 1998 and, according to Moscow's soon-to-be-approved armament program for 2001-2010, the completion date for state acceptance tests ahead of series production has been set for 2010. The Sukhoi design bureau will take the leading role in the aircraft's development, with Mikoyan and Yakovlev also participating in the effort, which is expected to stimulate the much needed rationalization of Russia's aviation industry.

 

[AndrewR]

The bottom line is the pilot. It is the pilot who controls the plane. Granted, superior design gives the pilot a huge advantage, but the pilot is what determines who lives and who dies.

Very true, though a moderate pilot in a good airframe has a decent chance at a successful engagement. Plus, there's always the chance of the "golden BB" which is enhanced with a more capable plane.

Sorry, AndrewR, if you cannot find the implied meaning of that last comment. Your article was basically supporting the lack of interest in western designs to entertain close-in fighting during an air campaign. With such high potential loss rates in air-superiority campaigns built around dogfighting it is no wonder they lack an interest.

You'll also notice that the article was written in 1996 and that as of last year the AIM-9X has entered operational testing down at China Lake. It should be operational this year or early next. I also read nowhere in that article that either the U.S. or the United Kingdom is uninterested in WVR combat, only that the missile designs of each have fallen behind in that writer's estimation. I see a firm interest in WVR because each country, at that time, was investigating updates to their short range AAMs. Both countries have no made progress in rectifying the problems existing at that time. Where is the lack of interest?

I smell BS so I'll excuse myself from the thread.

 

[MadRat]

<<I smell (like) BS so I'll excuse myself from the thread.>>

Okay, I added the (like) for you. Nonetheless what you were saying was not accurate. Its been my pleasure pointing it out.

Your "golden bb" example is from a term used from way back when, and it is used to describe ground-based automatic-firing antiaircraft artillery. Mounting a gun in the nose of a plane is a far cry from the original "golden bb". One of these days watch some of the film from the F100's in Vietnam and see the golden bb hell-showers for yourself. You'll appreciate standoff ordnance alot more.

Only a fool brings a knife to a street fight. Better to bring a gun if killing is going to be involved. Likewise, in this case the short range missiles WERE the gun in a dogfight, and your pea shooter was the knife. Today's battlefield has evolved to the point where the gun is standoff missiles and the knife is your short range missiles, while the pea shooter is just for kicks.

 

[MadRat]

<<Instant Thunder was a joke and was poorly designed by Col. John Warden.>>

Utter bull. The list of targets grew from 80 to hundreds only because of hedging by the groundpigs. Iraq noticed their logistics vulnerabilities and began to disperse the c3i. The war went from being over possibly in a week to several months of thumb twirling. We waited because some brass had his head under his tail believing that Iraq was going to charge through the frontlines. Horner is an a$$hole, always will be, and thats all I need to say about that.

 

[Pastfinder]

Sorry MadRat, but you can't win a war in 10 days with air power alone. Sure, we might have come close had we sent the B-52s to bomb Baghdad into the ground. And what would that have accomplished. No matter how hard you hit communication posts on the ground, messages still get through by shortwave personel radios, runners in small cars or on bicycles. Warden was an ass, he got fired when he was a Wing Commander. Horner was smart to get rid of the hothead's a$$

 

[CocaCola5]

Is it true a German Mig 29 beat both the F-15 and F-16 in some arial excercise(dogfight)?

 

[MadRat]

Warner a hothead...?!? Did you even know him?? Sheesh, its getting deep in here. And INSTANT THUNDER was not all-inclusive as you say. It was a systematic surgical plan to incapacitate the Iraqi leadership down to the brigade level. It was carefully laid out and would have worked. Iraq would have been devastated to the point where they either withdrawal or lose it all.

Instant Thunder was not the "end all" plan, but merely the Air Force's modus operandi for immediate action. The 80 targets were immediately vulnerable. The delay in the use of the plan gave Iraqi commanders time to disperse the targets into around 500 locations, six times the original number. Obviously the wait severely affected the goals of overall plan and thats how it merged into a grand battle plan called Operation Desert Storm.

 

[MadRat]

CocaCola5-

There is some articles on the Luftwaffes experience with both Soviet and western designs. The Germans really dog the Soviet equipment. It may have looked good on paper, but they didn't perform nearly as well or as often as the western equipment. The biggest single problem was probably the radars on them, way too limited in flexibility for modern aerial combat. Add in the extreme maintenance of the MiG-29 and you have unhappy ground crews. All in all, the Germans no longer rely on any ex-Soviet fighters.