Superiority of American weapons and tactics

Discussion in 'Americas' started by average american, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
  2.  
  3. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

    Hmm, is that the reason why Malaysia chose Su-30MKMs over F-18 Super Hornets?
     
  4. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

    I can find a thousands sources for the sad state of USSR and Russian technology, can you show me any that shows Russian Technology is more advanced. Here is a list of the top ten techlogical countries, Russia dont even make the list. Top Ten Technology Oriented Countries
     
  5. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,408
    Likes Received:
    968
    Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

    Oh Lord!

    .......... ..........
     
  6. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
  7. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

    Given the size and scope of America’s military advantage, it is doubtful that any country will mount a full-spectrum challenge to U.S. military capabilities in the foreseeable future. The entry barriers are simply too high, especially for air, sea, and space systems. Virginia-class nuclear submarines cost $2.4 billion, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers go for $6 billion, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will cost at least $245 billion. The U.S. spends around $500 billion a year on its military, almost as much as the rest of the world combined. In fact, the U.S. spends more simply on the research, development, testing, and evaluation of new weapons — $71 billion in 2006 — than any other country spends on its entire armed forces. (By way of comparison, the top three spenders after the U.S. are Russia, whose defense budget in 2003 was estimated at $65 billion; China, at $56 billion; France, at $45 billion; and Japan and the United Kingdom, at $42 billion. These are only estimates; the figures for Russia and China may be considerably higher.)

    It is not only U.S. hardware that’s hard to replicate; so is the all-volunteer force that makes it work. Operating high-tech military equipment requires long-service professionals, not short-term conscripts. Countries as diverse as Vietnam, China, Germany, and Russia are emulating the Anglo-American model by downsizing their forces and relying less on draftees; many other nations have abolished the draft altogether. The U.S. military’s edge lies not simply in recruiting high-quality personnel but in its methods for training and organizing them. Initiatives undertaken in earlier decades, such as setting up realistic training centers to simulate combat conditions and forcing the services to work more closely together (the Goldwater-Nichols Act), continue to bear fruit. Few other armed forces have made comparable reforms.
     
  8. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    Posts will moved
     
  9. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
  10. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    The best I can tell from the latest news the Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA is now going to be built in Russia, and HAL in India is going to add some bells and whisles. Also it seems that the new engine for the Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA has run into problems and will be built with engines currently in production. In additon the news indicates the cost has increase and production is being delayed at least two years and most current estimates are for more delays in the future.
     
  11. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

    That is not a correct statement.

    Weapons and tactics is based on the expected environment that the battle are to fought on.



    Weapons have to be capable of various local parameters that encompasse terrain variations, climatic range, maintenance infrastructure, resupply profile, capacity to undergo rough handling, not too sophisticated where types like Joe the Plumber cannot handle and so on.

    Tactics is based on the experience and the psyche of the troops.

    For instance, the US tends to be gung ho, shoot first and ask questions later, but in India it is the other way around. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.

    This can be observed by the fact that though Pakistan has done all it can to send infiltrators to unhinge India from Kashmir, they have always failed and are still failing. And Kashmir is calm and peaceful in comparison to Afghanistan. It is all dependent on the psyche that prompts the tactics and the tactical doctrine.

    All said and done, the Russian equipment is rugged, but cosmetically not attractive. AK 47 is an example which is a popular weapon with most countries and even terrorists!

    US equipment is cosmetically attractive, comfortable for use (i.e. tanks, fighter aircraft, naval ships, helicopters etc), sophisticated but delicate.

    Which is better?

    Depends on the requirement and procurement terms to include usage terms.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2012
  12. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,624
    Likes Received:
    11,703
    i still remember USA multi million $ space pen was suprior to Russian pencil for use in space.
    I think it is matter of preference of buyer and how he makes he preference.
    Customer is king and what ever he likes he will buy it.
     
  13. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    That never happend, urban legend like the numbers of Indias as NASA employees or scientist in the USA. NASA Space Pen - Did NASA Spend Billions on a Zero-Gravity Space Pen? - Urban Legends

    38% of doctors in USA are INDIANs.
    12% scientists in USA are INDIANs.
    36% of NASA scientists are INDIANs.
    34% of Microsoft employees are INDIANs.
    28% of IBM employees are INDIANs.
    17% of INTEL scientists are INDIANs.
    13% of XEROX employees are INDIANs.

    How many people of Indian origin work at NASA? - Sulekha coffeehouse Forums
     
  14. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

    Hmm, is that the reason Malaysia chose third-party avionics over Russian?
     
  15. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

    You mean GPS equipment and displays. :rolleyes:

    I am glad you did not say engines and airframe.

    We only need to see the third party equipment we decide to put on Rafale too, after all India configured the MKM.
     
    pmaitra likes this.
  16. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    What Is Worse Than Cheap Russian Crap
    by James Dunnigan
    March 27, 2012

    Three years ago Myanmar bought 20 MiG-29 fighters from Russia, for $35 million each. China offered the similar FC-1 for less than half the price. Yet Myanmar chose the more expensive aircraft. What was odd about this was that both aircraft have questionable reputations.
    This sale earned Russia some criticism because Myanmar (formerly Burma) is a military dictatorship with a very bad international reputation. But Russia is desperate to keep the MiG-29 from fading away. To that end, Russia also ordered 24 MiG-29Ks for its sole aircraft carrier, to replace the Su-33s that currently serve on the ship. However, most of the current news about the Mig-29 has been bad.

    Malaysia, for example, admitted that it got rid of its MiG-29 fighters because the aircraft were too expensive to maintain. It costs about $5 million a year, per aircraft, to keep them going. Most of the MiG-29s provided satisfactory service. Malaysia was a long time user of U.S. aircraft, so they were able to compare Russian and American warplanes. The Russian aircraft cost less than half as much as their American counterparts. The Malaysians find that an acceptable situation, even though they face better trained pilots flying F-16s in neighboring Singapore.

    The MiG-29 entered Russian service in 1983. Some 1,600 MiG-29s have been produced so far, with about 900 of them exported. The 22 ton aircraft is roughly comparable to the F-16 but it depends a lot on which version of either aircraft you are talking about. Russia is making a lot of money upgrading MiG-29s. Not just adding new electronics but also making the airframe more robust. The MiG-29 was originally rated at 2,500 total flight hours. At that time (early 80s), Russia expected MiG-29s to fly about a hundred or so hours a year. India, for example, flew them at nearly twice that rate, as did Malaysia. So now Russia offers to spiff up the airframe so that the aircraft can fly up to 4,000 hours, with more life extension upgrades promised. This wasn't easy, as the MiG-29 has a history of unreliability and premature breakdowns (both mechanical and electronic).

    Russia grounded its MiG-29s several times recently, in order to check for structural flaws. Compared to Western aircraft, like the F-16, the MiG-29 is available for action about two thirds as much. While extending the life of the MiG-29 into the 2030s is theoretically possible, actually doing so will be a real breakthrough in Russian aircraft capabilities. The Indians took up the Russians on their upgrade offer. But the Malaysians are going to go with the more highly regarded Su-30. Algeria, and several other nations, have turned down the MiG-29, which has acquired the reputation of being second rate and a loser. Russia, however, wants to preserve MiG as a brand so it is not solely dependent on Sukhoi for its jet fighters. At this point it looks like an uphill fight. MiG and Sukhoi are now both divisions of a state owned military aircraft company (United Aircraft). Technically, the MiG division is bankrupt. Sukhoi is profitable.

    Meanwhile there's the problem with China selling the FC-1/JF-17, which goes for $15 million or less. This is about what a second hand F-16 goes for. There are still hundreds of used F-16s available, for under $15 million each. The U.S. still has about 1,300 F-16s in service (about half with reserve units), over 4,200 were produced and America has hundreds in storage. The end of the Cold War in 1991 led to a sharp cut in U.S. Air Force fighter squadrons. Moreover, the new F-35 will be replacing all U.S. F-16s in the next decade. So the U.S. will continue to have plenty of little-used F-16s sitting around, and these remain a cheaper and more effective aircraft than the J-10 or FC-1. But if a country cannot buy F-16s (because of embargos or similar problems), J-10s or FC-1s would provide a respectable, if more expensive, substitute.

    F-16s are still produced for export and these cost as much as $70 million each (the F-16I for Israel). Some nations, like South Korea, build the F-16 under license. A used F-16C, built in the 1990s, would go for about $10 million on the open market. The 16 ton F-16 has an admirable combat record and is very popular with pilots. It has been successful at ground support as well. When equipped with 4-6 smart bombs it is a very effective bomber.

    The Chinese made FC-1 is exported to Pakistan as the JF-17 and offered to several countries (Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Burma, Iran, and Sri Lanka) as inexpensive alternatives to American and Russian fighters. There were few takers. Hundreds of JF-17s are also going to be built in Pakistan, mainly using Chinese parts.

    When the first JF-17 fighter arrived in Pakistan six years ago, it ended over twenty years of development for what was first called the Super 7 fighter. The JF-17 was developed by China in cooperation with Pakistan, which originally only wanted to buy 150 of them. All this came about because Pakistan could not get modern fighters from anyone else, so they turned to China. At the time, China had nothing comparable to the early model F-16s Pakistan already had.

    The 13 ton JF-17 is considered the equal to earlier versions of the F-16 but only 80 percent as effective as more recent F16 models. The JF-17 design is based on a cancelled Russian project, the MiG-33. Originally, Pakistan wanted Western electronics in the JF-17 but because of the risk of Chinese technology theft, and pressure from the United States (who did not want China to steal more Western aviation electronics), the JF-17 uses Chinese and Pakistani electronics.

    The JF-17 can carry 3.6 tons of weapons and uses radar guided and heat seeking missiles. It has a max speed of nearly 2,000 kilometers an hour, an operating range of 1,300 kilometers, and a max altitude of nearly 18,000 meters (55,000 feet). China has not yet decided on whether it will use the FC-1/JF-17 itself. This is apparently because China believes its own J-10 (another local design) and J-11 (a license built Russian Su-27) are adequate for their needs. The J-10, like the JF-17, did not work out as well as was hoped but that's another matter.
     
  17. ersakthivel

    ersakthivel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    6,456
    Likes Received:
    6,647
    Location:
    Erode
    The F-22 didnot have IRST and even HMS esssential for close combat.It's faulty OBORG systems is suffocationg pilots and a few of them are refusing to fly it.One pilot died due to the OBORG problem.Still no solutions are in sight.And it's electronics is neither modularly upgradable, so there is no scope of adding IRST and HMS now as the makers will impose prohibhitive costs.

    It's avionics is now less sophisticated than F-5,upgradation of F-22 is deemed too cumbersome as it is not modular in design.But some people are claiming it has direct energy weapon on board. With missile approach warnings of about 100 kms almost all the advantages enjoyed by F-22 over 4.5th gen fighters have vanished into thin air.

    If 4.5th gen fighters get a missile warning of 100 kms infornt of them all they have to do is to turn another 30 kms backwards and come back to fight again.Because in tail chase mode even 200 kms BVR have just 50 kms range in even higher altitude.

    So if all 6 BVRs are expended F-22 has no great dog fighting ability to defend itself against numerically superior 4.5 th gen fighters for the same cost incurred.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2012
  18. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

    Lets see... France supplies the HUD, NAVFLIR, INS, cockpit displays and targeting pods. TWR and RWR supplied by South Africa.

    I am not surprised India suggested non-Russian kit. That is probably why a French plane won MMRCA and not Russian. :laugh:
     
  19. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

    Actually this was being discussed in the PAKFA thread. So, I had posted this after too,

    Here, I mention about the Russians buying French to fill the void. It is the same. The Russians had not developed equivalents back during the time configuration and specifications were specified.

    It is possible the stuff on the Super MKIs will mostly be Russian/Indian, not French.

    HUD, INS, Displays and Targeting Pods can be changed very quickly. So, can RWR. Also I suppose you mean a South African LWS and MAWS. Even these can be replaced.

    Btw, there is a chance HUD, Displays and Targeting pods will be Indian or Israeli on Rafale too. Heck, there is a chance the INS may be Russian this time because of a possible requirement for GLONASS.

    Btw, you completely deviated to the point I was making. Regardless of the itsy-bitsy parts from France, the MKM still beat the Super Hornet by a long shot. Even the Block 2 SH was supposed to be on par with MKM in capability and this advantage had nothing to do with French parts on the MKM.
     
    W.G.Ewald and pmaitra like this.
  20. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,125
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Armand2REP is trolling. :D
     
  21. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    One of the amazing things about the F22 is that pilot needed at least 50 hours of simulated flight time and 200 hours of actual flight time in order to be qualified to fly an F22. It takes a pilot 2 years to reach the same level of proficancy in an SU29.
     

Share This Page