Best Dogfighter?

[Nathan]

I am sorry for causing a fuss.

[JonL]

Yak 3U, in the right hands - or are we only talking modern stuff here!

Last edited by JonL on Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[JDK]

I am sorry for causing a fuss.

No fuss, Nathan, despite the original question being a perennial (along the lines of "my team's better than your team") as ever, some interesting aspects of the nature of warfare are thrown up in this discussion.

You do actually have a valid point in that cost (and thus in certain aspects, complexity and numbers) should (well, it is) be a factor in any nation's weapon purchasing decisions, and actually this history of military aviation illustrates this - Two come immediately to mind: 'Quality numbers sacrificing complexity' would be the Russian Yak fighters of W.W.II (which most enthusiasts in the west remain painfully ignorant of) while 'Just numbers sacrificing performance (quality)' would be the Il-2 Stormovik, where weight of numbers made up for the aircraft's inability to avoid far worse than decimation.

Today the USA in in a rare position of no major numerically strong air combat threat now or on the current horizon (they exist, but not in the way they used to in immediacy or parity) and for various reasons - including the US' step-lock to the military industrial complex - it has become policy to buy expensive. Arms suppliers postwar have always been able to offer extra bling and grunt to relive the customer of more money and enable more sponsored technical development.

Also the western powers have a permanent aversion to effective simplicity: how much of that is genuine need for most capable as against needing to impress the other boys in the playground is arguable. A great 'plane tomorrow is not any good if you need an adequate one today (see the current USAF tanker tender debacle). Another interesting thing is how frequently the real war needs (when they eventuate) are outside the scope of the often massively inclusive requirements of the complex aircraft - occasionally a simpler, single-task dedicated aircraft sometimes gaining an edge in those scenarios.

To avoid answering the question:

The task of 'fighter' aircraft and crews is to achieve air superiority by any means possible, not to enter an arm-wrestling contest, so the issue has never been 'which aircraft/crew is better if all other things are equal' but to ensure that your side can apply and maintain overwhelming force and dictate the aerial battlefield - air superiority. So manipulating ALL the factors in your favour is a basic requirement, and never piss about with a 'fair' fight.

Oh, and only then can the real work (of applying airpower) can take place.

Despite the posturing and schoolboy kudos, fighters don't win wars - their role is to stop you losing.

Regards,

[aseanaero]

Well put JDK

Somewhere along the cost/capability/complexity curve is a 'good compromise'

The US will be a force to be reckoned with , F-22s in first to mess up the enemy on first contact , 'in quantity' F-35s and older F-15s/F-16s/F-18s to clean up the stragglers.

The F-22s an amazing aircraft but it's cost has already limited it's production and it can only carry so many missiles. If the F-22 was outnumbered 20:1 how would it go ? It can supercruise home but tactics would be devised to breach the gap also if you had a lot of opposing fighters.

I guess it's a bit like the Spitfire and Hurricane in WW2 , there were limited numbers of Spits but the bulk of the force was less capable Hurricanes.

[JDK]

Thank you!

I guess it's a bit like the Spitfire and Hurricane in WW2 , there were limited numbers of Spits but the bulk of the force was less capable Hurricanes.

There's a good point in there - the complexity of the Spitfire's more advanced construction meant that had the British only tried to produce Spitfires for the Battle of Britain in 1940 - there wouldn't have been enough. The well-used Hawker structure in the Hurricane enabled enough of that type to ensure adequate single seat fighters for that crucial battle.

Of course there are two caveats to this - the Spitfire continued to be developed long past the Hurricane was obsolete, and the critical shortage in 1940 was trained pilots, not aircraft. Without loans from the Royal Navy, transfers from Army Co op Squadrons and crucially the European occupied allies aircrew, such as the Czechs, Poles and so forth, there were enough pilots. Just.

Regards,

[aseanaero]

I spent 3 yrs as a 'weapons systems financial analyst' [I did the methodology/framework and then the experts filled in the data (pilots)] , bang for the buck, survivability and availability (not down for maintenance) is a big factor in the evaluations. Then it's a matter of what your budget is ... most countries couldn't afford the F-22 anyway.

[JDK]

...Then it's a matter of what your budget is ... most countries couldn't afford the F-22 anyway.

Yes, right down to 'do we actually need them'? I note New Zealand has *still* not been invaded despite the lack of a fighter force. Amazing.

[rreis]

...Then it's a matter of what your budget is ... most countries couldn't afford the F-22 anyway.

Yes, right down to 'do we actually need them'? I note New Zealand has *still* not been invaded despite the lack of a fighter force. Amazing.

uh? and Omaka is what?

[JDK]

uh? and Omaka is what?

A site of pilgrimage. See you there?

[rreis]

uh? and Omaka is what?

A site of pilgrimage. See you there?

oh, how I wish! maybe as a self-congratulatory gift if all things go well this year

(fingers crossed)

[The Inspector]

Well stated JDK! Pretty much what I was attempting to convey before my argument was dismissed by some who didn't see my unhappiness at being stuck with the bill as a taxpayer for what was sold to the Government as the greatest thing since sliced bread sort of like the Armys DIVAD of a few years ago, and turns out, at least in the non ultra secret, eyes only, 'we know, but you as the purchaser can't be told', public press that it comes in long on hype and sort of short on delivery of that hype and very long on cost (wait, is that the ghost of C-5A returning?). So I just stopped contributing to the thread -

[Nathan]

There is of course a point at which you don't have enough aircraft to cover the airspace required. Not sure what that breakdown would be though.

This is the problem I see and feel. Didn't the U.S. at one time have a messfull of air bases around the country? Seems a lot of these bases are shut down now. Less fields to operate from and less aircraft to patrol our skies. This is one reason why I am not a fan of the high tech new generation aircraft. Because there is only going to be a limited number of them and that leaves a lot of our skies unprotected. The world is always changing and someday we might be outnumbered and unable to protect ourselves. How about leave the F-22/15/35s as frontline fighters and keep F-4's, A-7's, etc to protect U.S. airspace. Thats what I would really like to see. Also wished that Civil A-4 squadron was established.

My feelings towards things...


Thanks,
Nate

[Ken]

Hey Randy,

Given that the F-22 is the best fighter out there, when it comes to preserving dollars, is there a scenario where we could keep the present number of F-22s and back-fill remaining units with new manufacture F-15s and F-16s? Seems like we've had all these years to find the weak points in both those jets. Would brand new ones that incorporate the best motors/radars/avionics and other airframe fixes be an acceptable budget compromise while maintaining a rational level of air superiority capability?

Ken

[Randy Haskin]

Would brand new ones that incorporate the best motors/radars/avionics and other airframe fixes be an acceptable budget compromise while maintaining a rational level of air superiority capability?

Certainly a valid question.

Unfortunately, "new build" F-15s and F-16s are significantly more expensive than they originally were when built. The F-15Es that are currently being built for overseas customers (The F-15K and F-15SG) cost over $60 million each. The latest F-16s (F-16Is) cost $70 million each. So, roughly double the cost when they were originally purchased by the US 10-20 years ago.

And that's without the significant improvements in avionics and airframe that would be required to being them up to the same capability as the Raptor.

Plus, such a solution doesn't even address that they're ultimately still 30-year old airframe designs that have the RCS of a B-52, and will be expected to survive in advanced threat environments. If you understand how radar works, one look at the F-15 (with those gigantic square intakes that allow an unrestricted look down them to the face of the engines, and the huge vertical tail surfaces, and all the parasite RCS doodads hanging off the airplane) and is obvious that significant redesign would be required to make it viable.

I do not personally think that's the best option, since by the time such changes were made, the cost of the aircraft would be approaching the fly-away cost of the Raptor anyway.

Well stated JDK! Pretty much what I was attempting to convey before my argument was dismissed by some who didn't see my unhappiness at being stuck with the bill as a taxpayer

Do you honestly, as a taxpayer, expect that classified capabilities will be revealed to you in order to gain your "happiness" as to what your taxes are being spent on? Even if they were revealed, would you understand what those capabilities meant with respect to the capabilities of threat/adversary systems?

I don't disagree that the US government spends money on some absolutely ridiculous, worthless things. You're right -- they do. And taxpayers to deserve accountability as to how that money is spent. The politicians who spend it deserve to be held accountable for bad decisions they've made.

Unfortunately, the Raptor -- despite what you seem to have heard -- is not one of those worthless things. In my experience, it not only lives up to the 'hype', but exceeds it by a country mile.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your bad feelings about it, though.

[The Inspector]

No, but now I AM curious as to just how tall is the ladder you use to climb onto your high horse?
You're easier to pump up than a Texas Harley rider, but not nearly as humorous-