5TH GENERATION FIGHTER JET SHOWDOWN...USA VS CHINA VS RUSSIA

[longrange3ball]

J-20 is still in the test phase. Based on the the design and the geometric shape of the aircraft, the plane will not be as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35. Same with the PAK FA Russian plane. The fact that it took those other two almost a decade to come up with something shows how far behind they still are as far as technology goes.

They've closed the gap, but the gap's still pretty far wide. If military intelligence showed that these two planes would out perform the F-22, we'd probably be buying more then the 189 the US have ordered, down for the 700+ originally planned.

 

[anotherboringusername]

Shows how much I keep up with jets, I didn't even know half of these planes in here existed. And there's less than a handful in this thread.

 

[elderwatsondiggs]

Wawaweewa, you are correct, an air defense system is incredibly treacherous to opposing aircraft. Even "stealth" aircraft can be shot down. But we never just send planes in naked. We send in cruise missiles to destroy the known SAM sites and then send out our Electronic warfare aircraft to provide a protective bubble for our fighters to operate in.We also have radar hunting aircraft that scan for radar emmisions, then they send a high speed anti radiation missile (HARM)  to destroy that radar This is an oversimplification of Air Superiority.

Fighter drones will be a reality for sure, but it will be a very long time before we go to a totally unmanned flying force.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

These are an enormous waste of money and will never see the level of action that is necessary to justify their costs.

The greatest threat to US/EURO fighter Jets are advanced and highly proliferated SAM systems such as the Russian S-400. The main objective than becomes not the elimination of other jets to control airspace but the Radar/SAM network. In that respect, fighter Jets are nearly useless and cost prohibitive. Once the RADAR//SAM network is debilitated, only then can fighter Jets initiate their mission. Fighter Jets do not take control of the airspace. They maintain control that has already been won. 

The fighter Jet is a dying breed. Especially with the advancement in pilot less aircraft that can pull more G's (and therefore execute more difficult maneuvers) and inherently carry a lower radar signature. 

In a major nation on nation conflict please believe their would most definitely be dog fights. The SAM threat is the reason the Navy invested in the EA-18G Prowler. SF units would be on the ground neutralizing SAM sites before the conflict even went hot. The S-400 was developed in the 1980s which means it was designed for aircraft of the time period. Fighter jets do in fact take control of the airspace hence the name Air Superiority fighter.

The Air Force will never rid its self of manned fighter aircraft. No unmanned aircraft will have the situational awareness and the ability to make split second decisions that a human can.

As for the choices in fighter aircraft I pick an American F-35A based of avionics alone. The package that comes with that blows even the F-22 out of the water. Also Russia will never be able to afford the PAK

When was the last major Nation on Nation conflict? There have been none since the A-bomb was used. There will be none. If a major powers airspace is taken over then that's a signal that defeat is coming. You do not want to back a major power with nuclear weapons into such a corner. 
We;ll have proxy or low intensity conflicts but not major power on power until the nuclear threat can be neutralized with 100% certainty. Not great or effective certain. 100%. No room for error. 

Fighter Jets do not take control of SAM/AA infested airspace. Also, in recent wars (post ww2) most aircraft have been destroyed while they were still on the ground. 

The Air Force will never rid its self of manned fighter aircraft. No unmanned aircraft will have the situational awareness and the ability to make split second decisions that a human can

I don't know where you're coming up with this. More and more of actually flying the aircraft and identifying targets is computer directed/controlled nowadays. 

No human can multi task like a computer.  Flying aircraft is all about multi tasking. Not to mention the limited G load that humans can take which forces the aircraft into a certain flight envelope. Also, take into account fatigue, disorientation, emotions, etc. 

That's like someone in the 50's saying that robots can't build complex goods. Well, they do.  

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by ElderWatsonDiggs

Wawaweewa, you are correct, an air defense system is incredibly treacherous to opposing aircraft. Even "stealth" aircraft can be shot down. But we never just send planes in naked. We send in cruise missiles to destroy the known SAM sites and then send out our Electronic warfare aircraft to provide a protective bubble for our fighters to operate in.We also have radar hunting aircraft that scan for radar emmisions, then they send a high speed anti radiation missile (HARM)  to destroy that radar This is an oversimplification of Air Superiority.

Fighter drones will be a reality for sure, but it will be a very long time before we go to a totally unmanned flying force.

What I;m saying is that if we face a major power with a great Fighter Jet than the fighter jet will be the least of our worries and will not be our best asset.
Taking out China's or Russia's SAM network will be nothing like taking out Iraq's or Afghanistan's ( lack of SAM network).  We haven't fought a legit SAM network since Vietnam and in that conflict we got hit pretty good in the air. We had air superiority but we still suffered pretty decent losses. 

Look at what happened in Yugoslavia. Yes, it wasn't a full on war but their Russian built/installed/operated SAM network had us legitimately worried. It dictated the pace of that conflict. 

We've been fighting 3rd rate military powers lately. Fighting a first rate power will not be pretty at all.  I hope for the sake of all parties involved, that we never do. At least not in our lifetimes.

 

 

[ar guy]

Originally Posted by ElderWatsonDiggs

Wawaweewa, you are correct, an air defense system is incredibly treacherous to opposing aircraft. Even "stealth" aircraft can be shot down. But we never just send planes in naked. We send in cruise missiles to destroy the known SAM sites and then send out our Electronic warfare aircraft to provide a protective bubble for our fighters to operate in.We also have radar hunting aircraft that scan for radar emmisions, then they send a high speed anti radiation missile (HARM)  to destroy that radar This is an oversimplification of Air Superiority.

Fighter drones will be a reality for sure, but it will be a very long time before we go to a totally unmanned flying force.

Thank you. Radar and SAM sites are actually rather easy to defeat so if your entire defense is based on that than

. In 1991 the most heavily guarded city in the world was Baghdad in terms of AA and SAM defense and the USAF and USN turned the city into minced meat in one night. A competent air force could have obviously helped out.

Oh yeah A-10s SUCK at CAS. Limited loiter with an even more limited supply of easily burned ammo, two or three passes and their dry. The A-10 is and will always will be a tank buster. Helo's are a only slightly better but are very susceptible to ground fire. Proper CAS in a nation on nation conflict would need to be escorted by a fighter such as the F-22 or F-35.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by ElderWatsonDiggs

Wawaweewa, you are correct, an air defense system is incredibly treacherous to opposing aircraft. Even "stealth" aircraft can be shot down. But we never just send planes in naked. We send in cruise missiles to destroy the known SAM sites and then send out our Electronic warfare aircraft to provide a protective bubble for our fighters to operate in.We also have radar hunting aircraft that scan for radar emmisions, then they send a high speed anti radiation missile (HARM)  to destroy that radar This is an oversimplification of Air Superiority.

Fighter drones will be a reality for sure, but it will be a very long time before we go to a totally unmanned flying force.

Thank you. Radar and SAM sites are actually rather easy to defeat so if your entire defense is based on that than

. In 1991 the most heavily guarded city in the world was Baghdad in terms of AA and SAM defense and the USAF and USN turned the city into minced meat in one night. A competent air force could have obviously helped out.

Oh yeah A-10s SUCK at CAS. Limited loiter with an even more limited supply of easily burned ammo, two or three passes and their dry. The A-10 is and will always will be a tank buster. Helo's are a only slightly better but are very susceptible to ground fire. Proper CAS in a nation on nation conflict would need to be escorted by a fighter such as the F-22 or F-35.

You're wrong. 
Baghdad was " heavily guarded" in terms of numbers but the Russians pulled their support before the war started. 

As with fighter Jets, SAM sites are only as good as their operators. The Russians pulled their "advisors" before armed conflict began. You can read up more on this. 

Also, the US had great info from the Israelis on the Iraqi network as a result of their raid on Osirak in 1981. The Israelis provided info in the form of radar sigs/range/organization/etc. Iraq alsoi used a  French built C&C system which meant that the US would know how it operated and therefore its weaknesses.

You can't compare 3rd rate powers air defense network to Russia's or China's. It's absurd.

If you want better examples look to Vietnam and Yugoslavia. 

This is the danger with fighting 3rd rate powers. The pop starts to beleive that we're invincible. 

It's like that bum Lesnar. He beat up on weaker opponents but once he fought comparable opponents, he got handled shortly thereafter.  

 

[milestailsprowe]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by milestailsprowe

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

These are an enormous waste of money and will never see the level of action that is necessary to justify their costs.

The greatest threat to US/EURO fighter Jets are advanced and highly proliferated SAM systems such as the Russian S-400. The main objective than becomes not the elimination of other jets to control airspace but the Radar/SAM network. In that respect, fighter Jets are nearly useless and cost prohibitive. Once the RADAR//SAM network is debilitated, only then can fighter Jets initiate their mission.

The fighter Jet is a dying breed.

Yes but when the Sam sites are down Jets can lend GREAT support to ground units. Having them around is also a great show of power for military might

Fighter Jets do not provide much ground support. The A-10 is the best ground support aircraft the US has and it behaves nothing like a fighter Jet. The F-15 and F-18 are mutli-role fighters but they aren't superior to the A-10 in terms of ground support. In a purely ground support role they have a lot to be desired and are overpriced.
 Even Attack Helos are better in a ground support role (once AA is not a threat) as they can loiter over the combat zone for a prolonged period of time and usually carry much more precise ground support targeting systems/ armaments. 
Your last point is the most truthful. They're mostly for show now. 

Another point is that the pilot is more important than the aircraft so long as the aircraft are in the same ballpark. A great pilot in an F-15 or F-14 would constantly win against an average pilot in an F-22. 

Ok your right. A Helo can do more but for quick strike, show and fending off other air craft is what they are good for. The fighter jets can take down air combat

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by milestailsprowe

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by milestailsprowe


Yes but when the Sam sites are down Jets can lend GREAT support to ground units. Having them around is also a great show of power for military might

Fighter Jets do not provide much ground support. The A-10 is the best ground support aircraft the US has and it behaves nothing like a fighter Jet. The F-15 and F-18 are mutli-role fighters but they aren't superior to the A-10 in terms of ground support. In a purely ground support role they have a lot to be desired and are overpriced.
 Even Attack Helos are better in a ground support role (once AA is not a threat) as they can loiter over the combat zone for a prolonged period of time and usually carry much more precise ground support targeting systems/ armaments. 
Your last point is the most truthful. They're mostly for show now. 

Another point is that the pilot is more important than the aircraft so long as the aircraft are in the same ballpark. A great pilot in an F-15 or F-14 would constantly win against an average pilot in an F-22. 

Ok your right. A Helo can do more but for quick strike, show and fending off other air craft is what they are good for. The fighter jets can take down air combat

Serious dogfighting has been dead since WW2. Korea had some but for a limited time. 
War evolves with technology. Air to Air combat isn't the most important anymore. At least not until powers start directly fighting powers again. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Ever since I came upon this, I've found it pretty interesting:
[h1]

[h1]Millennium Challenge 2002[/h1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in mid-2002, likely the largest such exercise in history. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million, involved both live exercises and computer simulations. MC02 was meant to be a test of future military "transformation"—a transition toward new technologies that enable network-centric warfare and provide more powerful weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, referred to as "Blue", and an unknown adversary in the Middle East, "Red".
[h2][edit]Exercise action[/h2]
Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lt. General Paul K. Van Riper, used old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcyclemessengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.[sup][1][/sup]

At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[sup][2][/sup]After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action, leading to allegations that the exercise was scripted and "$250 million was wasted".[sup][3][/sup] Due to his concerns about the scripted nature of the new exercise, Van Riper resigned his position in the midst of the war game. Van Riper later expressed concern that the wargame's purpose had shifted to reinforce existing doctrine and notions of infallibility within the U.S. military rather than serve as a learning experience. He was quoted in the BBC–Discovery Channeldocumentary The Perfect War[sup][4][/sup] as saying that what he saw in MC02 echoed the same view promoted by the Department of Defense under Robert McNamara before and during theVietnam War, namely that the U.S. military could not and would not be defeated.

[/h1]

 

[adiosburritos]

wish mores threads on here were this insightful

 

[josebronx]

that chinese fighter jet looks bootleg

 

[clone]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by Based Mod

Originally Posted by tkthafm


Only important thing said in this thread. 

basically a who has the biggest D contest right?

Yup, very narrow window of effectiveness/worth in terms of cost/benefit. Just billions spent in the name of D waving. 
The worst are stories like this: http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-says-buy-36-us-fighter-jets-153041387.html Can't even provide electricity to your citizens but are worried about fighter jets 

Just look at the F-22. 65 billion+ on program costs. 143 million an aircraft. Like we don't need this money 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/politics/10jets.html

Why don't you actually do something about it. Like become a politician. It's pointless to keep posting your opinion on a shoe forum...

 

[0cks]

Look at the anger in Jamies face... who's shooting that war machine down?

 

[biggie62]

Funny is how the F-22 hasn't really seen major action yet in its life and they are wasting money by phasing it out with the F-35. I mean really?

 

[krazy88s]

I got schooled in this thread. I dont know a whole lot about jets. I just think they're good eye-candy

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by Clone

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by Based Mod


basically a who has the biggest D contest right?

Yup, very narrow window of effectiveness/worth in terms of cost/benefit. Just billions spent in the name of D waving. 
The worst are stories like this: http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-says-buy-36-us-fighter-jets-153041387.html Can't even provide electricity to your citizens but are worried about fighter jets 

Just look at the F-22. 65 billion+ on program costs. 143 million an aircraft. Like we don't need this money 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/politics/10jets.html

Why don't you actually do something about it. Like become a politician. It's pointless to keep posting your opinion on a shoe forum...

Now accepting campaign donations. PM for Paypal info. 

 

[keepzdasneakz]

4th Generation Fighter jet swag > *

All these new movies, I don't see anything but these new fighters getting busted up (i.e. Transformers, Iron man 2). Fact of the matter is, the F-14 Tomcat will be the dopest fighter of all time....OF ALL TIME! I even use it in Ace Combat over the F-22. 6 targets simultaneously from long range?! Just got be careful of the jet-wash...

 

[ar guy]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by ElderWatsonDiggs

Wawaweewa, you are correct, an air defense system is incredibly treacherous to opposing aircraft. Even "stealth" aircraft can be shot down. But we never just send planes in naked. We send in cruise missiles to destroy the known SAM sites and then send out our Electronic warfare aircraft to provide a protective bubble for our fighters to operate in.We also have radar hunting aircraft that scan for radar emmisions, then they send a high speed anti radiation missile (HARM)  to destroy that radar This is an oversimplification of Air Superiority.

Fighter drones will be a reality for sure, but it will be a very long time before we go to a totally unmanned flying force.

Thank you. Radar and SAM sites are actually rather easy to defeat so if your entire defense is based on that than

. In 1991 the most heavily guarded city in the world was Baghdad in terms of AA and SAM defense and the USAF and USN turned the city into minced meat in one night. A competent air force could have obviously helped out.

Oh yeah A-10s SUCK at CAS. Limited loiter with an even more limited supply of easily burned ammo, two or three passes and their dry. The A-10 is and will always will be a tank buster. Helo's are a only slightly better but are very susceptible to ground fire. Proper CAS in a nation on nation conflict would need to be escorted by a fighter such as the F-22 or F-35.

You're wrong. 
Baghdad was " heavily guarded" in terms of numbers but the Russians pulled their support before the war started. 

As with fighter Jets, SAM sites are only as good as their operators. The Russians pulled their "advisors" before armed conflict began. You can read up more on this. 

Also, the US had great info from the Israelis on the Iraqi network as a result of their raid on Osirak in 1981. The Israelis provided info in the form of radar sigs/range/organization/etc. Iraq alsoi used a  French built C&C system which meant that the US would know how it operated and therefore its weaknesses.

You can't compare 3rd rate powers air defense network to Russia's or China's. It's absurd.

If you want better examples look to Vietnam and Yugoslavia. 

This is the danger with fighting 3rd rate powers. The pop starts to beleive that we're invincible. 

It's like that bum Lesnar. He beat up on weaker opponents but once he fought comparable opponents, he got handled shortly thereafter.  

Ok, they had Russian advisors that left before the fighting. Like I said a competent air force would have took up a lot of that slack. Defense networks are vulnerable to things besides kinetic weapons.

You say dog fighting is dead. That exact type thinking got plenty of pilots killed in Vietnam. The F-4 Phantom was developed with out dog fighting in mind and it cost good men their lives.

You also conveniently didn't even mention close air support, if you don't know anything about it that's fine, as long s you don't act like you do.

Funny is how the F-22 hasn't really seen major action yet in its life and they are wasting money by phasing it out with the F-35. I mean really?

The F-22 isn't being replaced. The F-35 is meant to replace 4th generation fighters that we have such as the F-16 and A-10 for the USAF, F/A-18 (A, B, C and D models) for the USN and the Harrier for the USMC.

F-22= Air Superiority
F-35= Multi-Role Fighter

Different plane for different roles.

 

[kash55]

That Russian one looks sick.

 

[gotone]

i flew an f-35, in bf2.

 

[smoke ya later]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by milestailsprowe

Originally Posted by wawaweewa


Fighter Jets do not provide much ground support. The A-10 is the best ground support aircraft the US has and it behaves nothing like a fighter Jet. The F-15 and F-18 are mutli-role fighters but they aren't superior to the A-10 in terms of ground support. In a purely ground support role they have a lot to be desired and are overpriced.
 Even Attack Helos are better in a ground support role (once AA is not a threat) as they can loiter over the combat zone for a prolonged period of time and usually carry much more precise ground support targeting systems/ armaments. 
Your last point is the most truthful. They're mostly for show now. 

Another point is that the pilot is more important than the aircraft so long as the aircraft are in the same ballpark. A great pilot in an F-15 or F-14 would constantly win against an average pilot in an F-22. 

Ok your right. A Helo can do more but for quick strike, show and fending off other air craft is what they are good for. The fighter jets can take down air combat

Serious dogfighting has been dead since WW2. Korea had some but for a limited time. 
War evolves with technology. Air to Air combat isn't the most important anymore. At least not until powers start directly fighting powers again. 

The first gulf war had a few dogfights. Iraqi Air Force had French Mirages

 

[jumpman247]

These are all nice, but I'm sure most of you experts know that lockheed and bae are moving towards unmanned fighters, this is what the military wants. They are cheaper to build (Maybe not to develop) no casualties involved, and no maneuverability issues.

No matter what people say about how you need a human to fight, and humans are the ultimate weapon we're getting away from that slowly but surely. I mean obviously will still need elite soldiers on the ground, and elite pilots in the air, but expect more drones.

 

[ac4three]

Seeing this makes me miss going to the airshow...

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Thank you. Radar and SAM sites are actually rather easy to defeat so if your entire defense is based on that than

. In 1991 the most heavily guarded city in the world was Baghdad in terms of AA and SAM defense and the USAF and USN turned the city into minced meat in one night. A competent air force could have obviously helped out.

Oh yeah A-10s SUCK at CAS. Limited loiter with an even more limited supply of easily burned ammo, two or three passes and their dry. The A-10 is and will always will be a tank buster. Helo's are a only slightly better but are very susceptible to ground fire. Proper CAS in a nation on nation conflict would need to be escorted by a fighter such as the F-22 or F-35.

You're wrong. 
Baghdad was " heavily guarded" in terms of numbers but the Russians pulled their support before the war started. 

As with fighter Jets, SAM sites are only as good as their operators. The Russians pulled their "advisors" before armed conflict began. You can read up more on this. 

Also, the US had great info from the Israelis on the Iraqi network as a result of their raid on Osirak in 1981. The Israelis provided info in the form of radar sigs/range/organization/etc. Iraq alsoi used a  French built C&C system which meant that the US would know how it operated and therefore its weaknesses.

You can't compare 3rd rate powers air defense network to Russia's or China's. It's absurd.

If you want better examples look to Vietnam and Yugoslavia. 

This is the danger with fighting 3rd rate powers. The pop starts to beleive that we're invincible. 

It's like that bum Lesnar. He beat up on weaker opponents but once he fought comparable opponents, he got handled shortly thereafter.  

Ok, they had Russian advisors that left before the fighting. Like I said a competent air force would have took up a lot of that slack. Defense networks are vulnerable to things besides kinetic weapons.

You say dog fighting is dead. That exact type thinking got plenty of pilots killed in Vietnam. The F-4 Phantom was developed with out dog fighting in mind and it cost good men their lives.

You also conveniently didn't even mention close air support, if you don't know anything about it that's fine, as long s you don't act like you do.

Dude, I don't mean to be rude but how hard is it to do some research? 
In Vietnam, the amount of Aircraft lost to enemy aircraft was relatively small. Most were downed by AAA and SAM's. 

What about CAS? The F-22 isn't built for CAS.  It isn't even a multi-role fighter. Once congress started complaining about the cost of the program, Boeing  The F-35 has cost virtually the same amount of money as the F-22 (high 60bn) but there are 3 variants. At least the ROI is better and it's equipped to deal with a broader spectrum of threats.