F-16 Replacement

[Cliff]

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

[viper__40]

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.

[Maeda Toshiie]

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).

[Cliff]

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

[carl]

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.

[Tukhachevskii]

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.

What do you get when you cross a YF-23 with an F-22 and a PAK?

Which reminds me...I wonder what the J-10 reminds me of?

Maybe it's time we planted spies in China?

[carl]

This is Bill Sweetman on what he thinks the new Chinese superfighter, the J-20 is meant to do.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...entId=blogDest

He figures it is a high altitude, long range supercruiser meant to pick off things we can't afford to lose, like AWACS, tankers and any little fighter that could not that happens to get in the way, from on high. I think this a bit worrisome.