1 Next scheduled air show appearance is in Tehran.

2 Holy crap! The climb at 0:20!

3

Eeewwwww!!

How much CO₂ does that thing produce? I felt the earth getting warmer while I watched.

4 That climb is amazing. The way it hovers for a couple of seconds and then falls back down. And the plane is just a beauty.

5 More Raptor pr0n!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM5pCgy2jiY
(Question for people who might know...are there other aircraft that can lunch  missiles while rolling to the inverted? I've never seen that before)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDd8yHR6XZ0
(This one is all about the firepower.  Keep running your mouth and your centrifuges Mahmoud. Keep running them.)

6 Ah, to be 21 again and get PAID to fly that!

7

Choose the Raptor when you need to deliver important messages to people who just can't be reached any other way.

8 I'm not sure, Drew. But there's no doubt the F-22 is the most agile plane in service. Check out this fact I found:

"The F-22 will be more agile than today's fighters. For example, the F-15 and
F-16 can go out of control if the pilot tries to roll the aircraft when it is
flying at a nose-high angle. So the onboard computers impose increasingly
tighter limits on the rate of roll as the speed drops, and eventually prevent
those aircraft from rolling at all. But in tests of the YF-22, Lockheed pilots
pulled the nose up to 60 degrees and could still perform a 360-degree roll--a
very quick way of pointing the nose and missles at an enemy in combat."

- http://www.angelfire.com/tx/coolplanepage/raptor.html

9 I sure felt better each time he leveled off. Talk about flirting with a stall!

10

Choose the Raptor when you need to deliver important messages to people who just can't be reached any other way.

Hahaha!  Good one, eman.

 

Raptor.  When you care enough to send the very best.

 

Also, after ace's post I expected some viscous, white fluid to shoot out the from the nose of the jet after the climb... right before it leveled out and started snoring.

11

I am in awe of the engineering that designed and built that, as well has the skill and courage of the pilot.

 

12 You can stall any airplane, but what you can't do is stop the thing in mid air and perform a loop with a diameter of only a couple of hundred feet.  What they were showing was the vectored-thrust manueverability of this beast.  This is the thing which should give the russians and chinese pause.  Coupled with USAF edges in electronics, weapons, stealth, and training, this is war-winning stuff.  They have yet to shoot down and F-15 air-to-air.  That's a 35 yr old airplane. 

13 Talk about flirting with a stall!



I wouldn't loose any sleep over that. I doubt they are anywhere near
the edge of that birds performance envelope in these public demos.



I saw something on the Military or History Chanel this week and they
were talking about 22's taking out F-15's and 16's in fights up to 2 v.
10 with no 22's being killed. It's just an amazing plane.



Too bad they are so damn expensive and that's going to limit how many we buy.

14 What I find amusing, is that he did most of that show in only the firststage of the afterburner. At war emergancy power he'd be accelerating through those climbs.

15 You can stall any airplane

The deuce you say!

16 Didn't see a cobra.  Air shot advantage still belongs to the SU-30.

17 Holy Mary, Mother of God...

Now I understand how no other aircraft can lay a finger on this bird. I'm a decent pilot, but this -22 jock is doing things I can't even contemplate. You're talking about changing the way aircraft maneuvering is thought of.

The only thing that gives me a moment of pause is that this and the F-35, while astonishing, still could use a close air-support bird that is necessarily slow and built to take a beating. I am not altogether convinced that the F-35 will be the replacement for the A-10 that it's being touted as. I hope to be proven wrong on that.

Also, at the YouTube page, some well-meaning but narrow-minded soul mentioned that while astonishing, our enemies are incredibly low-tech... which AQ are. But they'd be high-tech if they could, and we still have plenty of enemies out there who have some interesting new weapons... hopefully, the EADS group is not thinking about selling the Eurofighter/Typhoon/Rafale to anyone untowards... there are plenty of Su-35s out there (the advanced Su-27 Flanker), and the Chinese J-10 was recently declassified. There will be plenty of adversaries out there for the Raptor and Lightning... which means that having astonishing air superiority aircraft to do air-to-air work becomes more and more critical.

I just hope that people are still thinking about how to do mud-moving... not to sound like a total A-10 apologist, but that's a mission one can't leave to helicopters alone.

tmi3rd

18 Did you notice the independant opperation of the control surfaces? It actually can stand on it's tail in a sort of hover. The weapons pylons in the bay actually "eject" the missile, bomb, or whatever is in there so it can deploy its armaments at any speed or angle. The sensors(passive for stealthy use) give full 360^o coverage. This plane is revolutionary in so many ways it must have potential enemies shitting their pants.

19 Type7-

My buddy who's an IP in the F-15 said to me that he was defeated specifically by the cobra maneuver against the F-22.

tmi3rd

20

Posted by: tmi3rd at September 29, 2007 07:57 PM (x+3Pr)

With the upgrade to the electronics suite that the A-10 is undergoing, it is my understanding that it will remain viable for some time to come.

21 Number of ejaculations:  still classified information.

22 Good to know, TB... on the USAF website, they're touting the F-35 as the A-10's replacement. That said, now that I think of it, the B-1 and B-70 were supposed to replace the B-52...

tmi3rd

23

Holy moley. I'm not normally a big fan of military pr0n, but that is one beautiful plane. The maneuvers were mind-boggling. An awesome display of technology.

(Not a big fan of military pr0n just because it ain't my bag, no political/philosophical reason to be agin it. Actually, if my tax dollars would pay for more Marines and F-22s, I'd be happy.)

24 That was amazing.  Wonder how it REALLY performs.  They aren't going to show us the really good stuff at a public air show.   

25 Someone alert Sir Isaac Newton, it appears his laws do not apply to this plane.

26 I am not an aeronautics expert, but I do know a thing or two about it. That right there is either voodoo magic, or non-copyrighted technology stolen from aliens in Roswell and Area-51. That maneuverability is breathtaking.

27 Tushar!

How are things Pops?

28

Congratulations Tushar!

Shouldn't you be changing diapers??

29 Next scheduled air show appearance is in Tehran.

Purple Avenger -- Nope.  That's the next place they won't see it.  They'll just know it's there when their ratty little F5 clones fall out of the air.

30

With Pitts like maneuverability it looks like a real winner
for air superiority and tactical small bombing runs (if it really has thrust to
weight > 1 it’s a cinch).

 

Having taken the skies, why does the AF keep pushing fighters
for CAS?

 

A quick look at the net shows that the F-22 has about a
2,000 lb bomb capacity while the hog has 16,000. Does the AF really expect
anyone to believe that they’ll put 8 of these magnificent tiffanies low and
slow and shot full of small arms holes for every flying tank of an A-10 they
retire (at, say, 100 times the cost)?

31

Congratulations Tushar! Shouldn't you be changing diapers??

Change diapers on what? I haven't seen
any proof of these "alleged" "babies" of "Tushar."  Without photos
there is simply no evidence of "tiny" "new" "brown" "people."

32 Guys,
this work is harder than anything I had ever done. I have got 5-7 minutes on teh intertubes, and then back to diaper duty.

PETN Sandwich, unfortunately the AF does not see the A-10s as part of their core mission. Pounding mud is too pedestrian for those uppity bastards. I would love it if the Army or Marines takes complete control of the A-10 fleet. They will be awesome in the CAS role when integrated with the Army or Marines. But the AF would rather see the A-10's mothballed than see the someone else make a success out of it.

33 dave,
I am too tired and busy to create an online photo account and upload photos. I will put up something soon. Gotta go, the babies have urgent business at two ends that needs to be taken care of. Mommy handles input, and dad handles output.

34 Tushar,

Thanks for the honest answer (saw a Pope reference here) on the A-10 & CAS.

35 Tushar:  Just email a pix to IB. They can post it or maybe even Ace. I'm sure you have at least one digital shot you can share . . .

36

Three things it has that the F-15 doesn't.  Vectored thrust, ability to cruise supersonic without afterburner (i.e. somewhat economically) and stealth.  The biggest factor is probably the last one.  The F-15 used to be known as "The Magnet" because it showed up on radar so good.

I agree with whomever above said it was the tight turn that should scare the opposition, but I doubt it is going to get into many turning fights: the first time most enemy pilots will know it is there will be when their ride blows up under them.

37 Nice air-show bird. Real military aircraft have a tailhook and folding wings.

38 MCPO airdale.... You guys are gonna get an awesome carrier plane with the F- 35. Ya just gonna have to be satisfied with the Super Hornet for a while.  Be patient.

39 Another neat-o demonstration by the Raptor ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1H1vN2tnPM

Airdale ... that wouldn't be you, Justin - would it?

40 CAS is not merely non-glamorous, it is dangerous as well.  The A10 is a magnificant beast, but a dozen Predators is a better replacement - doesn't have the GAU-8, but you can't have everything. 

41

Amazing.

Unfortunately, one guy with explosives attached to a vest can do great damage too. F-22s can only do so much.

Asymmetrical warfare indeed.

42 I'll be in my bunk...

43 "Pitts like maneuverability"

That's what it reminded me of too. It's been several years since I last caught an airshow. Got to fix that.

44 Neither new fighter has anywhere near the payload we need. Mind you, they're both very impressive, but when payload limits your duration more than fuel, you've got a problem, ESPECIALLY when your force strategy is Quality over Quantity.

The F-14 and F-15 were not very efficient or stealthy, but they had God's Own Payload, from a fighter POV.

As an aside, I just checked some links - either my old paper sources on the F14 are wrong or Wiki is wrong about the F14s payload capacity.

And if your strategy is Quality over Quantity, then the AIM54 or something similar is almost mandatory.

Anyway, enough griping. The maneuverability is absolutely awesome, and the mainstreaming of stealth is a good thing.

Just change the rules and give the A10 to the Army, they'll come up with pilots. I know the plan is to go away from fixed-wing for ground support, but the A10 still has a lot of life in it.

45 blaster says,



"CAS is not merely non-glamorous, it is dangerous as well.  The A10 is a
magnificant beast, but a dozen Predators is a better replacement -
doesn't have the GAU-8, but you can't have everything."



I  threw down  down  eight  Hogs per F-22 at a better-buck ratio,
blaster says a dozen Predators to a Hog. I'll take it blaster covered
the bang-buck ratio.



Sure would be nice if every Platoon Leader has his own Predator...



...so I look at this and the obvious limit is that every squad should
be able to call in some serious cost effective bang... what ever
happened to DIVARTY?



Has DoD got any new guided artillery rounds. With low end drones
providing real time intel and targeting info during battle artillery
can deliver he goods to take out the mud huts the tangos hole up in.

46

Happy Birthday Air Force! 

I know the demo pilot (seriously) from when I was a squadron adjutant...I just bumped into him the other day at Trader Joe's.  Sorry ladies and gheys, he's taken, and apparently likes organic beef.  As far as the F22 inventory, the target has dropped from about 700 when it was first rolled out to about 180 today, even taking into account the 20,000 man reduction of Air Force personnel.  

Man, Ace of Spades is like a mirror into my existence today.   

47 Question for people who might know...are there other aircraft that can lunch  missiles while rolling to the inverted? I've never seen that before)

Posted by: Drew at September 29, 2007 07:16 PM (hlYel)

I think Paris Hilton did that in a video once.

48 You kids today with your monoplanes!  If it ain't got 2 wings, it ain't a plane.

The Spad - now that was a plane.

49

Mommy handles input, and dad handles output.

You're a good man Tushar.

50 Merovign-

The F-14/AIM-54 combination is what inspired the AIM-120... they're having better luck with both reliability and with accuracy with the AIM-120. Granted, rather than being able to nail targets at 100 mi, now you can only do 60, but still...

As far as payload goes- depends on the mission. I have a hard time believing that the Air Force will just retire every -15E and -16C in the inventory, along with the A-10. You can't equip every Guard interceptor unit in the country with the -22 and -35, and look at the B-52. The aircraft is older than its current crop of pilots.

I agree with you, though, the payload is a bit wanting in the new birds- stealth has proven itself in air defense suppression in a truly staggering way, and I don't know what, if any, vulnerabilities exist in an air-to-air role. The point, however, remains that we've seen the fighter community operating from pure air supremacy in the past two major conflicts we've fought- meaning that you spend most of  your real trigger time doing ground attack. The -22 and -35 will probably be very impressive in that right, but the -15, -16, -18, AV-8B, and A-10 will probably be very necessary well into the meat of the century. Until we encounter an air-to-air adversary that requires us to get back to the furball, it can be safely assumed that we will see impressive myopia from the powers that be.

These are the same morons who thought guided missiles took away the need for a gun in the F-4. These are also the same morons who were predicting the demise of the manned fighter in the 1960s.

tmi3rd

51 Holy shit.

Thrust vectoring is the frick'n bomb.

52

I got a chubby watching that.

Our tax dollars at work!

53 Don't get too happy guys... Russia has their own thrust vectoring MiG-29, and it is allegedly more maneuverable than the F22.  I work at LM, and I can say fairly confidently, though, that the F22 and F35 would eat the MiGs for lunch in a real combat situation.

54 That would be the MiG-35... my bad.  The MiG-29 had a modified version with VT I guess.

55

I realize I just watched that twice, but I don't believe it.

No, I don't think it was digitally modified.  I just don't believe what I saw happened.  You can't do that with metal and engines.

And I think I got something on my screen.

56 PEPN Sandwich, DIVARTY has a few neat precision munitions, not only from cannon but also that unitary MLRS rocket we sorta cribbed from Israel.  .   But aircraft that can loiter and see what the guy ont he ground can't call in is a real advantage.  MLRS is only as good as the people giving up targets... and that will always mean time.  A plane called to the area can react in a better way.  I think the F-35 might actually be ok in CAS.  I wish it had more than one engine.  We'll see.  But there is no reason not to give the A-10s to the Army anyway.  That's just a great plane with no true successor.

Dave8, the Russians have always inflated their spec claims quite a bit.  If they claim they have 20 of something, they probably have 6 that work.  If they claim their missile has 200 km range, it probably has 120.  Remember that huge bomb the Russians launched fromt heir state of the art "blackjack"?  Only half of the 14 built actually can fly.  The Russians used to really brag about their ekranoplans being 20 years ahead of US technology... except the every large version they built was a disaster that killed pilots while basically failing to emulate our "State of the art' Spruce Goose.  After the wall fell, it became pretty obvious that the Russians were only keeping pace with us on paper.   On the converse side, DOD is ridiculous in its understating its weapons' capabilities. 

In Aircraft, the Russians have little new.  Basically a revamped SU-27 is their best bird... something built on 1980s tech at the latest.  Look at that thing.  It's old.  Look at the F-22.  Look at the comparatively enormous control surfaces and the size of the engines.  Look at the Thrust nozzles.  The F-22's are massive and more fluid and therefore they appear to rely on much more advanced computers.

Yeah, if you trust the Russians and the DOD, then the F-22 is slightly inferior to the SU-35 version of the SU-27.  If you look at these planes and think about how they probably really work and how Russia would want to present itself, you would realize that the SU-35's specs were exaggerated specifically to go beyond the obviously sandbag info DOD credits the F-22 with.

Why would the SU-35 be a better remake than the Superhornet?

Anyway, we haven't even mentioned supercruise, stealth, pilot skill, or reliability.  But even with machine guns alone, I bet the F-22 would win.  It's simply the very best fighter the United States can build, with virtually no expense spared.  The SU-35 is far from that.

But if Syria wants to buy SU-35s oh thank goodness for that.  That's money that won't got into IEDs and AKs.  These planes are useless once a war starts.. since there is no way to repair them without supply that we would deny.

57

I give you the  Russian SU-37.

The plane in the video is about 8 years old, built on the SU-27 Flanker platform, and is the prototype for the hundreds of working copies sold with the designation SU-30 MKI to India, China SU-30MKK, and Vietnam SU-30, to name a few less than friendly clients.

India and China have been sold licences to build their own but are buying 450 and 300 each made in Russia and these Strike/Fighters cost a mere $10 million/copy.

The amazing maneuvers are achieved with 35% thrust vectors and forward canards.  They carry ordinance loads comparable to the F-111 are twice the size of the F-16, bigger than the F-15 and are the most nimble jet war planes on the planet.

They are also nuclear capable.

The stinger-like protrusion at the rear between the thrusters is a rearward looking radar which allows the plane to shoot backwards with it's thrust vector equipped missiles.

In a friendly COPE India exercise a couple of years ago they flew against the USAF, which was flying F-15s, and had a 9 to 1 kill ratio against the USAF.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TeMHLBJXCfI

58 Speller, and 9-1 kill ratio vs F15s doesn't even remotely translate to a >1 kill ratio against the F22 or F35 (hypothetically for the latter, since they aren't fighting yet).   The F35 has sensors that are unprecedented in their sophistication... while the Russian plane was flying around in nice, tight, thrust-vectored circles, the F35 would be shooting it down before it was even detected.

59

Well,  Dave, assuming there really is such a thing as stealth, which is a radar deflection capability, there is a countermeasure called FLIR.

Lets assume however, that your F-22 or F-35 gets the first stealthy BVR shot(s) in.  Now everyone knows where your plane is.  How much does an F-22 or F-35 cost and how many do you have?

The SU-30 only costs $10 million and there are oodles of them.  Now they're in visual range and your F-22/F-35 pilot is outnumbered by a more maneuverable plane that can even shoot backwards if it overflies your aircraft.

 

As Stalin liked to say,  "Quantity has a quality all it's own."

60 Most impressive.  The tight turns and loops are, well startling.  But one maneuver that seemed pretty freaky was the transition to level at the end of the first climb.  I always thought that kind of move was unhealthy for the pilot.

61 tmi, no need to be an A-10 apologist, us ground personnel love the damn things.

On the other hand, if the program was transferred to Army aviation, the added costs would be the very death of us.

62 Okay, ercoupe, I got it.  You're still an ugly little bastard.

63

According to crew chiefs at Langley, the F-15 Eagle drivers hate the F-22 because they never win.

F-22s versus F-15s and F-16s at Nellis had a victory ratio for the F-22 of 140-something to 1.  The 1 being a "loss" due to mechanical failure.  Pretty good airplane.

We still need the A-10 though -- an F-16 in a CAS role does not have the loiter time of the A-10, nor does the F-16 have the variety of weapons the A-10 does that can be employed against ground targets.

64 Speller,
I was trying to find one factually correct piece of data in your ode to the SU-37. I did not find much. Back home in India, we fly the SU-30MKI, the most advanced version of the Su-30/Su-37 family of aircraft in operation. Yes, the Rearward facing radar is great. F22 and F35 have that too, AFAIK.  SUs do have Thrust Vectors, but only on the Indian planes, not on Chinese planes. And they only vector up and down. They have the radar signature of an aircraft carrier, and they cost more than $10 million each.

India achieved a 9-1 kill ratio because of the specific way in which cope India was designed. India wanted experience against Paki F-16s and Chinese Su-27/30s. US wanted experience against Chinese Su-27/30s. So the American F-16s behaved like Pakistani F-16s, abd the F-15s behaved like Chinese Su-27/30s. Which means battlefield awareness technologies like JSTARS were switched off. BVR capability was switched off (or not used) too. India did not use the SU30MKIs. It used the older tech SU-30s, and some MiG21s, Mirages and Jaguars. Yes, we still fly those. Indian Pilots did perform better than what USAF expected, but the exercise was by no means a referendum on the capabilities of USAF or F-15/16 planes. Neither did it yield any data which could throw light on how F-22/35s will match-up against Russo, Sino or Indian SU30/37s.  Oh, and BTW, Indian SU-30MKIs are not an exclusively Russian technology plane. It contains a lot of French, Israeli and Indian technology. The Chinese have nothing that can rival a SU30MKI, leave alone a F22 or a F35.

Would you like to discuss something else instead? I can talk about explosives. Don't know much about MOABs, JDAMS or JSOWs, but I know a lot about poo-bombs now.

65 I wonder what a UCAV with the flight characteristics similar to A-10 with a GAU-8 will be like. It will be much cheaper than an A-10, won't risk the pilot's life, will be lighter because it won;t need armor, and will rain death on the enemy with impunity.

66 Tushar *swoon*

67 Tushar, just to add on...

Speller talks about FLIR (forward looking infra-red, for the uninitiated), and neglects to note that the only folks who ever achieved a kill on an F-117 were a Bosnian SA-8 crew who locked up a shot as the bomb bay doors were open. The whole point of steath (and I have no idea where Speller came from; the English is surprisingly good for someone with so little faith in the people who routinely turn the aerospace industry on its ear) is not only reducing the radar signature (even achieved to a significant degree on the B-1), but the IR signature as well. And the -117, -22 and -35 have that IR signature reduction... as do the Eurofighter/Typhoon/Rafale... and presumably Sukhoi's and China's new aircraft as well.

You want a significant Russian innovation? No problem- the optical sight that was first mounted on the helmet of the MiG-29, allowing the IR seeker on the AA-11 Archer (known in Russia as the Vympel R-73) to track perpendicular to the path of the aircraft was nothing short of revolutionary. It followed in the footsteps of the chain gun in the AH-64 allowing the cannon to rotate to follow the line of sight of the gunner. Nonetheless, in a dogfight, that gives you that extra split-second to get an IR track and fire. So, the contractors (can't remember if it was Raytheon or Honeywell) nodded, apologized, and matched the performance of said helmet sight.

But I'll tell you what, Speller... you find yourself an Su-30/37- no, better yet, make that 4 Su-30/37- and go plant yourself off of the Gulf Coast near Tyndall AFB in Florida. You'll have playmates shortly, and let me know how the furball works out.

By the way, Tushar- on a related note- great post, and hug your children for me. They are truly blessed with a wonderful man as a father, and this blog is an enhanced place to be with your presence. Congratulations, and I hope you get some sleep again in the near future.

tmi3rd

68 Now to the CAS mission... one of the things that makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes about the Chair Force is that there's still a fair amount of heel-dragging when it comes to CAS. One of the birds I actually miss the most for CAS is the A-7... damn thing never broke, was remarkably maneuverable, and had a hell of a payload. My A-6 driver friends also lamented the fact that they wanted a cannon for strafing as well.

Many Army friends of mine have noted that the A-7 and A-4 were a great relief to see when they needed CAS, and that the mere presence of the A-10 was enough to make some bad guys decide it was time to bug out.

As far as the UAV thing goes- it's not a bad idea, but planting a GAU-8 on a UAV would do away with one of the key elements of UAVs- size. Predators are friggin' small aircraft. The GAU-8 is the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. You'd have to have an awfully impressive engine to get something like that off the ground.

I will continue to argue that you need flashy Stealth aircraft to clear the skies out, and I will concur that you need a good IR-suppression kit for the A-10 to counter small IR SAMs, but that a good low-tech, durable aircraft like the A-10 will be a crucial part of counterinsurgency and antiarmor missons for a long time to come. And lest our Marines think I'm not looking out for them, I don't know how many AV-8Bs you can buy for the price of one F-35. For me, again, payload remains a big issue.

Sgt Dan put it perfectly- ouch on the money factor (although, I'll tell you, Sarge, as military birds go, the A-10's cheaper to fly than just about anything short of the C-130). That would require a massive expansion of the Army, at least budgetarily, and the boys in Air Force blue would lose their shit over it.

But ultimately- once you get rid of the fixed-site antiaircraft weaponry, what added benefit is stealth if your detection is limited now to the naked eye?

tmi3rd

69

tmi3rd,

My English is good because I am Canadian, Albertan actually.

The COPE India exercise that I referred to was a surprise to the USAF precisely because they underestimated the IAF.  The USAF expected the IAF to have less flexibility in their tactics and admitted that USAF training expected foreign pilots(non-NATO) to be other than what the really were.

 

Tushar,

The Chinese SU-30 MKKs also have Israeli avionics inputs.  Venezuela, Indonesia, and Malaysia are also recipients of the SU-30 MK.  Some have variable thrusters and some don't.   All are capable of the Cobra and Bell maneuver, just as the SU-27 is and the F-22 isn't, as far as the video here showed. 

None of these countries have transparent defence expenditures, like the U.S. does, and what they truly have in their inventories is anybodies guess, especially if your guess depends on the CIA.

Bottom line, complacency is a mistake.

I expect if another really big war comes, the kind where an air superiority fighter like the F-22 is needed, the U.S. will be shooting down enemy air forces with space based lasers, and the speed and agility of enemy aircraft, as well as the quality of enemy pilots, will be irrelevant.

 

Maybe that's why the F-22 is only being produced in single digit numbers annually.

 

70 >>The COPE India exercise that I referred to was a surprise to the USAF
precisely because they underestimated the IAF.  The USAF expected the
IAF to have less flexibility in their tactics and admitted that USAF
training expected foreign pilots(non-NATO) to be other than what the
really were.

Speller,
you are absolutely right about that. USAF underestimated the IAF. IAF guys are pretty good and they are slowly emerging as a good large Airforce. But that does not make the SU aircrafts any better than they really are. The SU-30 is good, no doubt about it. The best variant (MKI) is even better than the F-15, and that is saying something. But USAF F-15s do not go into battle alone. There is a whole array of situational awareness equipment (AWACS etc) that flies into battle with them, and gives them remote locating, tracking and even fire-control. Other guys are trying to build that, but are far behind US.

71 Thrust vectoring... humminahumminahummina.

72

"Having taken the skies, why does the AF keep pushing fighters for CAS?"

You're the pilot.  What do you want to fly - the zippy sports car or the milk truck?

73

Speller - all I know is that critics of the US military (and western militaries in general) have been predicting its demise against the cheaper, and quantitatively more numerous, Soviet style forces for decades.  And every time a western force comes up to Soviet style equipped force, the western force wins.

Something just to consider.

74

My guess is that any country even remotely considering going up against us in an air war are already shitting themselves over what the Israelis did with F-15's in Syria.  I doubt they can even get their heads around taking on the U.S. with F-22's. 

Good thing most of them are despot regimes and don't have to explain to their constituents about all the millions they spent on obsolete technology.

 

75 Speller-

I'm married to a Calgarian.

Anyway, I would reiterate that my F-15 jock friend said that he got whacked in that 1v6 engagement by the Cobra maneuver. One does not need forward-mounted canards to make the Cobra happen.

As far as the rest goes- I have a couple of buddies who fly the F-18 for the RCAF, and they concurred about being surprised by the IAF after hearing about COPE India- precisely because the NATO training that took place after the fall of the Berlin Wall involved retraining a lot of East German MiG-29 pilots not to be completely at the mercy of ground controllers.

As far as comparing birds go, I concur with Tushar- nobody's denigrating the Sukhoi birds... they're excellent. For that matter, most F-18 jocks I know will pointedly avoid a turning duel with a MiG-29 because the MiG has a tighter turning radius. As a result, your typical F-18 jock will use more vertical maneuvers to gain the upper hand.

The most likely outcome is that Western air forces will get their hands on advanced Russian fighters and learn to fight against them- which is what established Miramar, Red Flag, and Maple Flag as such crucial training grounds for Western pilots. Train to fight against enemy aircraft and enemy tactics, and be overprepared. And when it comes down to it, one of the key elements of US air supremacy has been preventing the bad guys from getting off the ground in the first place... which is why 1986 in the Bekaa Valley was the last time we saw any large air-to-air engagements.

Are you RCAF, Speller?

tmi3rd

76 From Strategy Page, a little linky.  It seems Russian arms sales are taking another hit after the Syrian air defence system failed to pick up the IAF raid last month.