Russia gains air superiority over usa on obama's watch!!!

[VaYank5150]

Maybe laser guided water balloons. LOL!

Anyone seen the OP since he created this assinine thread?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I would not go so far as to say that, the UK, the French and the Russians have been operating Carriers for over 45 years and one would assume that in that time they have developed the ability to carry out flight operations and carrier tactics . In fact the Steam Catapult that the US Navy has used on many different classes of Aircraft Carriers since the end of WW2 and has used for sometime is an invention first proposed by a UK Commander Colin Mitchell. While it's true that the our nations carrier tactics and operations would be somewhat alien to all those nations, the operation of aircraft from carriers and the ability to force project from that carriers is not something that is a foreign concept to those nations. I can't believe you folks have me defending the Russian Navy here lol . I would say the only nation this might apply to across the board would have to be China or perhaps nations that have no experience in Carrier operations.

I beg to differ Navy1960...the last time the Brits used any sort of carrier tactics or warfare was the Falklands war...proir to that WW2. The French? The Japanese haven't had carriers since WW2 and they are far ahead of anyone in this group. The Indian Navy while appearing formidable on paper is in fact in it's infancy as a projector of power...same with the Russian Navy as they lost their edge until the oil money started flowing into their treasury. It's all well and good to get your carrier underway and get some pilots some flight time and a few night landings in your home waters...it's a whole other thing to operate in a hi optempo combat environment and have everything function like clockwork. I was alongside our carriers pumping JP-5 to them while they were conducting combat flight ops during the first days of the Iraq War. No other country can match us....no one can match our Navy's professionalism on the flight deck.

Don't laugh off the rest of the world. The winner of the last war typically perfects its tactics while the losers don't have the money invested in maintaining the dated infrastructure and HAVE to look forward to the next.

I really don't think drones are the answer against a first or for that matter second rate military opponent.

Also over reliance on satellite tech is assuming another nation isn't going to "run their satellites into ours" or hasn't armed anything they sent up more than we have.

The nuclear tip torpedo is terrifying. Even more so is an "unconventional" nuclear tip low speed "hovering" torpedo/mine. Big aircraft carriers are big expensive targets. Everyone in the Chinese military must be thinking of creative ways of taking them out.

And don't dismiss them creative ways. Taranto and Pearl Harbor both took some ingenuity and superiority of understanding of what was then modern warfare by non-americans.

C'mon now...you know as well as I do what our standard operating procedure is with a carrier battle group. They have screens, at least 2 attack subs under them and control of the air out to a thousand miles. Acoustic or influence mines aren't a deep sea weapon. Carriers and there escorts can stay at sea indefinately....thanks to UNREP.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I beg to differ Navy1960...the last time the Brits used any sort of carrier tactics or warfare was the Falklands war...proir to that WW2. The French? The Japanese haven't had carriers since WW2 and they are far ahead of anyone in this group. The Indian Navy while appearing formidable on paper is in fact in it's infancy as a projector of power...same with the Russian Navy as they lost their edge until the oil money started flowing into their treasury. It's all well and good to get your carrier underway and get some pilots some flight time and a few night landings in your home waters...it's a whole other thing to operate in a hi optempo combat environment and have everything function like clockwork. I was alongside our carriers pumping JP-5 to them while they were conducting combat flight ops during the first days of the Iraq War. No other country can match us....no one can match our Navy's professionalism on the flight deck.

Don't laugh off the rest of the world. The winner of the last war typically perfects its tactics while the losers don't have the money invested in maintaining the dated infrastructure and HAVE to look forward to the next.

I really don't think drones are the answer against a first or for that matter second rate military opponent.

Also over reliance on satellite tech is assuming another nation isn't going to "run their satellites into ours" or hasn't armed anything they sent up more than we have.

The nuclear tip torpedo is terrifying. Even more so is an "unconventional" nuclear tip low speed "hovering" torpedo/mine. Big aircraft carriers are big expensive targets. Everyone in the Chinese military must be thinking of creative ways of taking them out.

And don't dismiss them creative ways. Taranto and Pearl Harbor both took some ingenuity and superiority of understanding of what was then modern warfare by non-americans.

C'mon now...you know as well as I do what our standard operating procedure is with a carrier battle group. They have screens, at least 2 attack subs under them and control of the air out to a thousand miles. Acoustic or influence mines aren't a deep sea weapon. Carriers and there escorts can stay at sea indefinately....thanks to UNREP.

I know we talked about this at length one day but since we HAVE on at least ONE occasion lost a carrier in a "war game" exercise I don't share your COMPLETE faith in the saftey of a CG from such a threat.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

No defense is 100% sound...that is why the Navy trains every single sailor in damage control....and I don't recall saying that we would never lose a carrier in war...however we are much more experienced than any other nation in carrier tactics and employment strategies. One mustn't think we just go bumbling about the seas like a lumbering behemoth with blinders on. There are a plethora of other assets employed that protect the battle group that aren't even discussed in the open. The British have one carrier...we have 12...the French can't find their ass with both hands...the Russians are still trying to figure out how to land a jet on a pitching, rolling deck without destroying the plane and killing the pilot, the Indians RARELY even get their carrier underway let alone conduct flight ops. The F-22 was killed so Obama could fund discretionary spending in the domestic budget...nothing more..nothing less.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Please explain how they can stay out "indefintly". I know a nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier can stay out a long time but the support vessles need fuel and if you can not get to a port to fuel or get fuel transports out to the CG then they will run out eventually. I think of the "what ifs" like what if our enemy has the same type of success the Nazi's had with their "Wolf Pack" attacks against our merchant fleet. I know that you know considerably more than I do about the specifics of naval warfare but I think we are missing how effective a good old (well the newsest) diesel subs are.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

No defense is 100% sound...that is why the Navy trains every single sailor in damage control....and I don't recall saying that we would never lose a carrier in war...however we are much more experienced than any other nation in carrier tactics and employment strategies. One mustn't think we just go bumbling about the seas like a lumbering behemoth with blinders on. There are a plethora of other assets employed that protect the battle group that aren't even discussed in the open. The British have one carrier...we have 12...the French can't find their ass with both hands...the Russians are still trying to figure out how to land a jet on a pitching, rolling deck without destroying the plane and killing the pilot, the Indians RARELY even get their carrier underway let alone conduct flight ops. The F-22 was killed so Obama could fund discretionary spending in the domestic budget...nothing more..nothing less.

Hey I agree that we are the best Navy in the WORLD by a factor of 10 if not 100 so you are preaching to the choir.


Now I ask you to be HONEST here and ADMIT that the F-22 was on its way out WAY BEFORE Obama came along.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Please explain how they can stay out "indefintly". I know a nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier can stay out a long time but the support vessles need fuel and if you can not get to a port to fuel or get fuel transports out to the CG then they will run out eventually. I think of the "what ifs" like what if our enemy has the same type of success the Nazi's had with their "Wolf Pack" attacks against our merchant fleet. I know that you know considerably more than I do about the specifics of naval warfare but I think we are missing how effective a good old (well the newsest) diesel subs are.

During combat ops all of a battle groups fuel, ammo and food is given to them at sea through UNREP. There is a chain of supply that spans the entire globe for our battle groups...I know...I work for that part of the government. The latest Vrginia class subs can detect and defeat even the stealthiest diesel subs but like I said no defense or strategy is fool proof.....Murphy's Law.

 

[uscitizen]

Don't laugh off the rest of the world. The winner of the last war typically perfects its tactics while the losers don't have the money invested in maintaining the dated infrastructure and HAVE to look forward to the next.

I really don't think drones are the answer against a first or for that matter second rate military opponent.

Also over reliance on satellite tech is assuming another nation isn't going to "run their satellites into ours" or hasn't armed anything they sent up more than we have.


And don't dismiss them creative ways. Taranto and Pearl Harbor both took some ingenuity and superiority of understanding of what was then modern warfare by non-americans.

C'mon now...you know as well as I do what our standard operating procedure is with a carrier battle group. They have screens, at least 2 attack subs under them and control of the air out to a thousand miles. Acoustic or influence mines aren't a deep sea weapon. Carriers and there escorts can stay at sea indefinately....thanks to UNREP.

I know we talked about this at length one day but since we HAVE on at least ONE occasion lost a carrier in a "war game" exercise I don't share your COMPLETE faith in the saftey of a CG from such a threat.

A carrier always has been a great big target to any ememy with much military hardware.

 

[Navy1960]

Hey Navy perhaps my question wasn't worded as well I it should have been. My question about range and capability of air to air missiles was to ask your opinion of how our BEST air to air compares to Russias BEST air to air. I think you mentioned that the only confirmed "kill" of a F-22 was by an F-16 varient with an OTH missile shot.

The point I am trying to get across is EVEN IF the Russians had an aircraft that was IN EVERY WAY as good or better than our F-22 would it have MISSILES that are as good or better than ours?

Clearly the Aim-7,Aim-9 and the Aim-120 are the best air to air missiles in any inventory and one of the primary reasons for that is not only experience with them, but also they are PROVEN winners. That said Russian Air to Air Missile technology has been developed for the most part with the aquisition of American technology. Their AA-12 from what I understand seems to be somwhat on par in terms of performance with it's American counterpart. The latest generation figthters Russian as well as American including the JSF have incorporated an HMS ( Helmet Mounted Sight) and it allows the aviator or pilot to direct their attention to the aircraft at hand and target another by looking at it. This is called off boresight which is really one of the prime movers when it is married to the radar system of the F-35. If you look at the F-35 on just a pure performance level, it's not all that impressive until you you add the radar and the HMS. Another addation is the Aim-132 ASRAAM which will more than likely be an addition to UK F-35's , the interesting thing about this Missile it was developed by the UK and Germany in response to rumors on the performace of the AA-11 Archer which like most Russian hardware turns out to be less than advertised.

HMS for the F-35 aviator

On the kill on the F-22 the Aircraft that did it was actually a EA-18 Navy bird which is a variant of the new F-18 E/F model and it did so with OTH Radar kill.

Look on a real level Russia offers the SU-27 and the MIG-29 and can barely produce enough SU-35's which is a 4++ generation fighter to fill it's needs at the moment. The SU-35 is from all evaluations a decent aircraft and can hold it's own generally with most NATO aircraft with the exception of the F-22 and the F-18 E/F and perhapds the 2 new ones I mentioned although as they are so new there is little data to support that. While the F-15 is an amazing aircraft it's a bit long in the tooth and needs to be replaced. The Silent Eagle however would be more akin to the Navy model of replacing F/A-18's with the E/F Super Hornet which is a totally different aircraft even though they may look the same. The F-22 will enjoy its top spot for some time to come and the only threat it will see perhaps in the near future will be from China which is having it's own problems and has had to rely on stealing a lot of the F-22 technology in order to get a 5th gen bird in the air.

I also thought you might be interested in this article....

Key technologies must be demonstrated before high-speed weapons can be considered viable for development, and 2010 could prove a crucial year. Four flights are set of the X-51 WaveRider scramjet engine testbed, plus a third attempt to fly the HyFly dual-combustion ramjet demonstrator. Both are precursors of possible Mach 6 cruise missiles.

Weapons developed from the X-51 and HyFly, as well as the unflown Rattlrs turbine-powered Mach 3 missile demonstrator and derivatives of existing subsonic systems, are candidates to replace the U.S. Navy’s long-serving Harpoon anti-ship missile, with an analysis of alternatives just getting under way aimed at starting a program in Fiscal 2014.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...25/AW_01_25_2010_p52-193683.xml&headline=High Speed An Option For Long-Range Strike

The point here is that innovation and technology are there to keep the Military at the front for many many years , but it does take leadership to make the hard choices needed to do so.

 

[Vast LWC]

Barry cancels the F-22. Russia builds a next generation aircraft that's as good or better.

Way to weaken a nation Barry.

Russia's first stealth fighter makes maiden flight - Yahoo! News

Seriously, you're implying that adding a 5th Generation fighter (that won't be in production for another 5 years) to their rust-bucket airforce, gives Russia air-superiority over the US?

Did you even read that article?

 

[rightwinger]

Barry cancels the F-22. Russia builds a next generation aircraft that's as good or better.

Way to weaken a nation Barry.

Russia's first stealth fighter makes maiden flight - Yahoo! News

Seriously, you're implying that adding a 5th Generation fighter (that won't be in production for another 5 years) to their rust-bucket airforce, gives Russia air-superiority over the US?

Did you even read that article?

You will notice that Philobeado dropped his turd of a thread and then ran away

 

[Navy1960]

Gave us all a chance to talk about the F-22 though which beautiful aircraft and UNMATCHED by the Russian T-50 that is basically a Su-35 with some stealth slapped on it that won't be built in numbers for several years and even then it's still outclassed by what will then be a 15 year old fighter. While the SU-35 is a decent aircraft, I have come to believe that the new F-16 Super Viper and the Silent Eagle will be more than a match for it. I am still a skeptic of the F-35 for the various reasons I posted here and I know that many disagree with me on that aircraft but many in the Navy don't. Would be nice to see a head to head on the F-35 vs. the two above . or for that matter an F-18 E/F with 5th gen features "super cruise" the Radar and some stealth or for that matter thrust vectoring.

 

[Vast LWC]

Gave us all a chance to talk about the F-22 though which beautiful aircraft and UNMATCHED by the Russian T-50 that is basically a Su-35 with some stealth slapped on it that won't be built in numbers for several years and even then it's still outclassed by what will then be a 15 year old fighter. While the SU-35 is a decent aircraft, I have come to believe that the new F-16 Super Viper and the Silent Eagle will be more than a match for it. I am still a skeptic of the F-35 for the various reasons I posted here and I know that many disagree with me on that aircraft but many in the Navy don't. Would be nice to see a head to head on the F-35 vs. the two above . or for that matter an F-18 E/F with 5th gen features "super cruise" the Radar and some stealth or for that matter thrust vectoring.

No doubt. Obviously, like me, you are also a fan of that "Dogfights" show, lol. I've only watched a couple of episodes, but I'm hooked.

 

[Navy1960]

Gave us all a chance to talk about the F-22 though which beautiful aircraft and UNMATCHED by the Russian T-50 that is basically a Su-35 with some stealth slapped on it that won't be built in numbers for several years and even then it's still outclassed by what will then be a 15 year old fighter. While the SU-35 is a decent aircraft, I have come to believe that the new F-16 Super Viper and the Silent Eagle will be more than a match for it. I am still a skeptic of the F-35 for the various reasons I posted here and I know that many disagree with me on that aircraft but many in the Navy don't. Would be nice to see a head to head on the F-35 vs. the two above . or for that matter an F-18 E/F with 5th gen features "super cruise" the Radar and some stealth or for that matter thrust vectoring.

No doubt. Obviously, like me, you are also a fan of that "Dogfights" show, lol. I've only watched a couple of episodes, but I'm hooked.

I've seen it yes, its a good show. I know I have talked about the F-16 Super Viper on here a lot and the Silent Eagle a lot so I though I would put a little info on them.

The F-16IN Super Viper is a unique new fighter sharing a heritage with the world’s only fifth generation fighters – the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor. Evolutionary integration of fifth generation technologies makes the F-16IN the most advanced fourth generation fighter in the world today. This ultimate fourth generation fighter is tailored exclusively to meet or exceed all of India’s Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirements.
Defence Aviation - F-16IN Super Viper

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn6nx_GGERQ]YouTube - Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle[/ame]

 

[Xenophon]

Uhhhhhh....I think you may be incorrect in this assessment. Air to ground support of our troops cannot happen without air superiority.

Its not me making that assesment, its the Air Firce procurment that is doing so.

And BTW, you are also dead wrong about this.

Many air forces have been able to fly support missions even though the enemy held air superiority.

All you have to do is find gaps in the coverage or overwhelm a small portion and gain local superiority.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Uhhhhhh....I think you may be incorrect in this assessment. Air to ground support of our troops cannot happen without air superiority.

Its not me making that assesment, its the Air Firce procurment that is doing so.

And BTW, you are also dead wrong about this.

Many air forces have been able to fly support missions even though the enemy held air superiority.

All you have to do is find gaps in the coverage or overwhelm a small portion and gain local superiority.

and they suffered MASSIVE casualties....Air Force procurment doesn't make strategic decisions or set Air Force policy on the conduct of warfare.

There is no doubt air superiorority is of vital importance to winning any conflict.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

No defense is 100% sound...that is why the Navy trains every single sailor in damage control....and I don't recall saying that we would never lose a carrier in war...however we are much more experienced than any other nation in carrier tactics and employment strategies. One mustn't think we just go bumbling about the seas like a lumbering behemoth with blinders on. There are a plethora of other assets employed that protect the battle group that aren't even discussed in the open. The British have one carrier...we have 12...the French can't find their ass with both hands...the Russians are still trying to figure out how to land a jet on a pitching, rolling deck without destroying the plane and killing the pilot, the Indians RARELY even get their carrier underway let alone conduct flight ops. The F-22 was killed so Obama could fund discretionary spending in the domestic budget...nothing more..nothing less.

Hey I agree that we are the best Navy in the WORLD by a factor of 10 if not 100 so you are preaching to the choir.


Now I ask you to be HONEST here and ADMIT that the F-22 was on its way out WAY BEFORE Obama came along.

Actually...no it wasn't. The Armed services decided to go with a jet that could be used by all four branches that have fighters and attack aircraft....in the mold of the F-4 Phantom. The F-22 didn't fit that mold as the Navy was already testing a carrier based F-35 model with a VSTOL version for the Marines. The Air Force was deep into the F-22 already, then they were convinced to go with the F-35. When you buy more planes, you get them cheaper. That's the difference here.

 

[Navy1960]

For the U.S. Navy, the JSF will be used in a "first day" of war, as a survivable strike fighter aircraft to complement F/A-18E/F. The U.S. Air Force will employ it as a multirole aircraft, primary-air-to-ground, which will replace the F-16 and A-10 and to complement the F-22. The Marine Corps will use the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18A/C/D. The United Kingdom's Royal Navy and Royal Air Force multirole aircraft will replace the Sea Harrier and GR7.
JSF.mil > History > F-35 Acquisition

In short the F-35 is NOT an air superoirity fighter and without the F-22 or the F-18 E/F the F-35's mission is compromised. Aircraft are just like any other product in the defense industry, in that the more you purchase the cheaper they are. With aircraft especially new ones, there is a high cost associated with production initially because you have to pay for the design and testing of the the aircraft and thats reflected in the cost. If the Govt. decides after production has started to limit its purcahse then the cost will be higher in order for the producer to realize any return on their investment. If DoD was smart about the F-22 especially then they would allow for an export version which would increase production and reduce overall costs to everyone.

 

[Hugidwyn]

Americans of making the fifth generation fighter aircraft and having finance in ten times more than in Russia to manufacture promising aviation complex tactical aviation, still have a bad fighter. F-22 - the dead, because the project was effectively shut down because of its high cost. The Americans made a bet on a lighter and cheaper F-35, which loses on all counts Russian Su-35, but with the PAK FA (T-50), even F-22 can not compete.

 

[Chris]

We spend more on defense than all the other countries in the world combined.