Results 1 to 20 of 113

Thread: F-16 Replacement

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    To be honest, the MiG-29 with its helmet mounted sight and the super-agile AA-11 with its off boresight seeker created a Sputnik shock in 1990 when Eastern German NVA equipment was studied. The West had dropped these technologies in the 70's after tests and was on a very different path (ASRAAM).

    The MiG-29 was inferior to F-18 and F-16 in simulated gunfights, but ceteris paribus they were superior in WVR missile fights. We were lucky to not lose many combat aircraft after Vietnam; no Western air force had to go to war against a near-peer during that time.

    The same applies to Su-27s; they were clearly superior to F-15's in the 80's and their huge range without any drop tanks was a huge operational advantage.


    The Russians only fell back again in the 90's when they weren't able to match avionics improvements and lacked funds for everything.



    Everything that was produced in the 80's (= most NATO combat aircraft) is technically inferior to the best the Russians have to offer, probably even to the best the Chinese have to offer.

    Western high end quality combat aircraft are limited to about a thousand aircraft, and even these about thousand aircraft have huge quality differences between batches (especially Eurofighter and F-22).
    The most capable F-16s and many of the most capable F-15s were exported beyond NATO's members.

  2. #2
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Very interesting discussion.

    Combat radius was what I actually meant to say when I asked my question but of course my brain didn't pull it up. Related to that, I have another question. Things get very very complicated when figuring radii. Is fuel fraction (clean) a more useful benchmark to use when figuring how far these airplanes can usefully go on missions? Is that data available for the F-35 versions and the F-22?

    Another question I have regards the F-22 altitude capability. I have read that it can fight from way high up there. Can the other planes under discussion fight from that high up and is that altitude capability of very great of very small use?

    One other thing I only learned about last year that may have some bearing. I don't think the vertical launch missile magazines of the carrier escorts can be replenished at sea. Once they're out, they have to drive back to the big base to get refilled. That would probably have significant bearing on planning I would imagine.

    The only other thing I would say is if planning on fighting somebody you figure is almost at good as you, you had better plan on some surprises. If we were to, God forbid, get into a full on tussle with China, I think it would be prudent to expect to lose a number of carriers. Could we carry on if that happened?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default More on range...

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Things get very very complicated when figuring radii. Is fuel fraction (clean) a more useful benchmark to use when figuring how far these airplanes can usefully go on missions?
    Yes and no... the big issue is that the different aircraft have different mission profiles, so while the fuel fraction is important (Su-27 carries a lot of fuel for instance) it is not the end-all be-all...

    As an example, your average modern airliner is very fuel efficient. This is because it flies at optimized (higher than legacy) altitudes and has very efficient high-bypass engines. Power changes are minimized and routings are as direct as possible... yielding better range.

    If I'm flying a mission in combat, however, I have to maneuver in relation to the threats, so I can't necessarily fly a fuel optimized profile (although I will try in between times when I'm fighting!).

    Combat radius is probably the best number to compare, as long as you look at the assumptions involved and check that they make sense. It usually takes into account the expected profile for a mission (hi-lo-hi etc).

    Another question I have regards the F-22 altitude capability. I have read that it can fight from way high up there. Can the other planes under discussion fight from that high up and is that altitude capability of very great of very small use?
    In general, higher altitude gives you better fuel efficiency and a longer range on your weapons. There's a dated (but still relevant) interview with Lockeed test pilot Paul Metz here that discusses this. F-15Cs can get up to similar altitudes, but can't turn as well as the F-22 up there. F-16s and F-18s have a hard time getting into the upper 40s when combat configured. According to one expert, the altitude advantage means that the F-22 is twice as effective - see here.

    One other thing I only learned about last year that may have some bearing. I don't think the vertical launch missile magazines of the carrier escorts can be replenished at sea. Once they're out, they have to drive back to the big base to get refilled. That would probably have significant bearing on planning I would imagine.
    Magazine space and reloading is definitely an issue for the Aegis ships. As I said, numbers matter at some point.

    The only other thing I would say is if planning on fighting somebody you figure is almost at good as you, you had better plan on some surprises. If we were to, God forbid, get into a full on tussle with China, I think it would be prudent to expect to lose a number of carriers. Could we carry on if that happened?
    We could and would carry on, but it would not be pretty. We have been lucky that our last few opponents have been either really dumb or really over-matched. With the exception of 9-11, we have not been hit hard in any one engagement. Hopefully we can continue this streak!

    V/R,

    Cliff

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default Replenish at sea...

    One other thing I only learned about last year that may have some bearing. I don't think the vertical launch missile magazines of the carrier escorts can be replenished at sea...
    The MK41 VLS comes with a modular crane option allowing reload at sea. Weight is the key though with the heavier weapons unable to replenish.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-20-2010 at 08:39 AM. Reason: Use quote marks

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Sorry to go a little off topic here: Considering PRC's current amphibious capabilities and building rate, a plausible invasion is unlikely from my POV for at least the next 10 years. What would an inconclusive air-sea battle with accompanying economic damage, serve for the PRC?

    On the other hand, the PRC looks like it is taking a hard stand over territorial disputes with its neighbours (Japan and other SEA countries).

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default China and Taiwan

    Quote Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie View Post
    Sorry to go a little off topic here: Considering PRC's current amphibious capabilities and building rate, a plausible invasion is unlikely from my POV for at least the next 10 years. What would an inconclusive air-sea battle with accompanying economic damage, serve for the PRC?

    On the other hand, the PRC looks like it is taking a hard stand over territorial disputes with its neighbours (Japan and other SEA countries).
    From a realist perspective, there's no reason to take on Taiwan. The main scenario I see as plausible is an economic collapse or social unrest in China due to an economic downturn, where the regime needs to focus attention on an outside scapegoat (IE the west). Even then I don't see this as leading to war- but the resulting tensions could potentially lead to war due to a miscalculation.

    More likely, IMHO, is a conflict between China and a regional rival that spins out of the leadership's control and results in a small conflict. This becomes more likely to become a larger conflict if the US cannot deter China. If regional powers like South Korea, Singapore, and Japan feel the US cannot deter China, they will be forced to improve their own militaries and possibly obtain nuclear weapons. A regional arms race makes conflict more likely when compared to the US. While we are something of a hegemon in the region militarily, most people (including to a large extent China) trust us to be impartial.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  7. #7
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default Chinese F-22?

    The Information Dissemination blog has photos and many links to other photos and blogs regarding what appears to be a new Chinese 4th/5th generation fighter that is about to enter flight test.

    http://www.informationdissemination....#disqus_thread

    Maybe it is all photo shopped, maybe not. The consensus of the various authors is that it is not.

    James Fallows wrote that the Chinese can get things into production and onto the streets very fast, faster than us. He gave an example of their having a knockoff of a new American electronic product on the street a day or two after the product launch of the American model. And the Chinese knockoff had more features. That may have some bearing on how fast they can get a new fighter into operation.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Similar Threads

  1. Afghanistan's Drug Problem
    By SWJED in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 237
    Last Post: 11-13-2013, 01:25 PM
  2. DO is dead, hail Enhanced Company Operations!
    By Fuchs in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 06:56 PM
  3. Gen Mattis to CENTCOM
    By Cliff in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 08:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •