F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next. If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops. Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is. He's not trained well at all. His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles. Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz. When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks. The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated. I'll bet on the motivated troop every time.
again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is :)

and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
 
Last edited:

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next. If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops. Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is. He's not trained well at all. His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles. Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz. When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks. The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated. I'll bet on the motivated troop every time.
again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is :)

and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
I can see you are living up to your name. And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine. That's the problem with a bully. They will bull and think it's a good thing. And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong. Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out. And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs. You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
611
Reaction score
201
Points
178
In regards to dogfighting it is worth noting during the Vietnam War, B-52s shot down at least two, possibly three Mig-21s with their tail guns.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
In regards to dogfighting it is worth noting during the Vietnam War, B-52s shot down at least two, possibly three Mig-21s with their tail guns.
They never did keep good records of bombers shooting down fighters especially during WWII. Some bomber crews claimed that they shot down more enemy fighters than the friendlies fighters did.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next. If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops. Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is. He's not trained well at all. His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles. Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz. When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks. The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated. I'll bet on the motivated troop every time.
again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is :)

and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
I can see you are living up to your name. And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine. That's the problem with a bully. They will bull and think it's a good thing. And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong. Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out. And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs. You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
lol, preventing genocide is bullying?
what were you doing in Kosovo then?
except of bullying, of course :)
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc etc etc.
get out of there first before lecturing us...

I hope you see what is the problem with the US - you are so much a hypocrite that you don't even understand the scale of it...

unless your Fs can intercept intercontinental missiles with rate of close to 100% - they will hardly impress me...

p. s. and you don't provide Fs to them, the US wants to fight Russia with others' hands but without much money spent :lol:
 
Last edited:

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next. If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops. Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is. He's not trained well at all. His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles. Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz. When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks. The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated. I'll bet on the motivated troop every time.
again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is :)

and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
I can see you are living up to your name. And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine. That's the problem with a bully. They will bull and think it's a good thing. And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong. Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out. And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs. You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
lol, preventing genocide is bullying?
what were you doing in Kosovo then?
except of bullying, of course :)
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc etc etc.
get out of there first before lecturing us...

I hope you see what is the problem with the US - you are so much a hypocrite that you don't even understand the scale of it...

unless your Fs can intercept intercontinental missiles with rate of close to 100% - they will hardly impress me...
I sure am glad the Military is really in charge of the Nukes on both sides. I remember the first Teleconference that had the Politiburo, Soviet Military Top Generals, US Congress and the US Joint Chiefs on it and it was televised. Okay, not televised in your country but it was here. The Civies were shaking HUGE sabers on both sides, making all kinds of threats while both sides of Military was trying to calm the Politicos down. Just because a President or a Leader decides to press the button doesn't mean it's going to happen. He'd better have some pretty good intel first and have passed that down the chain.

There can be NO surprise nuclear missile launches anymore. The best case, there will be a 72 hour time to get everything ready just to launch a nuke missile. We have monitors in your country and you have them here. As for Bombers, it takes time to upload them and launch them. And the Subs, it takes time for them to get on station. And the Subs and Bombers won't attack (even on station) until the Nuclear Missiles launch. That goes for both sides. The price of actually going through with it is much higher for your country than mine. And that price for the US is unfathomable. It ain't a board game, it's ain't a video game.

And if Ukraine does decide to get serious about pushing Russia out of Ukraine, it will have the support of almost every country in the world. The US doesn't have to send in combat troops but it would send in support and equipment along with advisors. BTW, we already have advisors there. And it would take us just a few days to get that supply and equipment there as well. The Ukraine isn't asking for us to do their fighting. They know how to fight. They are asking for aid, supplies and the equipment needed to get their Country back.

Now, back to the F-35, you may end up facing them someday if you spend anymore time breaking the balls of the Balkan States. I imagine that some of them may end up in at least one of those states that have joined NATO.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next. If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops. Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is. He's not trained well at all. His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles. Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz. When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks. The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated. I'll bet on the motivated troop every time.
again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is :)

and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
I can see you are living up to your name. And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine. That's the problem with a bully. They will bull and think it's a good thing. And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong. Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out. And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs. You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
lol, preventing genocide is bullying?
what were you doing in Kosovo then?
except of bullying, of course :)
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc etc etc.
get out of there first before lecturing us...

I hope you see what is the problem with the US - you are so much a hypocrite that you don't even understand the scale of it...

unless your Fs can intercept intercontinental missiles with rate of close to 100% - they will hardly impress me...
I sure am glad the Military is really in charge of the Nukes on both sides. I remember the first Teleconference that had the Politiburo, Soviet Military Top Generals, US Congress and the US Joint Chiefs on it and it was televised. Okay, not televised in your country but it was here. The Civies were shaking HUGE sabers on both sides, making all kinds of threats while both sides of Military was trying to calm the Politicos down. Just because a President or a Leader decides to press the button doesn't mean it's going to happen. He'd better have some pretty good intel first and have passed that down the chain.

There can be NO surprise nuclear missile launches anymore. The best case, there will be a 72 hour time to get everything ready just to launch a nuke missile. We have monitors in your country and you have them here. As for Bombers, it takes time to upload them and launch them. And the Subs, it takes time for them to get on station. And the Subs and Bombers won't attack (even on station) until the Nuclear Missiles launch. That goes for both sides. The price of actually going through with it is much higher for your country than mine. And that price for the US is unfathomable. It ain't a board game, it's ain't a video game.

And if Ukraine does decide to get serious about pushing Russia out of Ukraine, it will have the support of almost every country in the world. The US doesn't have to send in combat troops but it would send in support and equipment along with advisors. BTW, we already have advisors there. And it would take us just a few days to get that supply and equipment there as well. The Ukraine isn't asking for us to do their fighting. They know how to fight. They are asking for aid, supplies and the equipment needed to get their Country back.

Now, back to the F-35, you may end up facing them someday if you spend anymore time breaking the balls of the Balkan States. I imagine that some of them may end up in at least one of those states that have joined NATO.
it is good you fear nuclear war, and rightly so, since the best way to it is present conviction of the US that you can win a war with Russia (which you won't), and it makes you initiate military adventures like a Nazi coup in Ukraine, which turns the country into a Nazi concentration camp, whose administration is also extremely and unaffordably hostile to Russia.

Ukraine had a chance to exist, it was via building a friendly, as minimum a neutral state to Russiia. Instead with a Nazi coup you turned it into your weapon against Russia and now are provoking war in Donbass, which can easilly lead to disappearing of Ukraine.

this is how things seem to be going, and nobody is to blame except stupidity and Nazism of Western Ukrainians and American agressiveness

and I am afraid you overestimate desire of Balkan, Baltic or any other European states to die fighting for your interests... :lol:
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
and if I remember correctly US military during Carribean crisis with USSR were insisting on using nukes, but Kennedy contained them...
too bad he was killed later, for no aparent reason :lol:
I am afraid US military now can play not less a destructive role, thinking that their toys like F-35 can make the day dealing with Russia...
 
Last edited:

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
multiple videos of Ukrainian heavy weapons moving to the border with Donbass republics are coming, a week ago Ukrainian government closed 4 opposition TV channels and started mass repressions against Ukrainian opposition - with public approval of the US.

it is obvious Washington pushes Ukraine to the war with Russia. while hoping for what, that Russia will not respond? :lol:

 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
and if I remember correctly US military during Carribean crisis with USSR were insisting on using nukes, but Kennedy contained them...
too bad he was killed later, for no aparent reason :lol:
I am afraid US military now can play not less a destructive role, thinking that their toys like F-35 can make the day dealing with Russia...
That was a completely different time. The Soviet Union would have been all but wiped out with little damage to the US. Things change with time.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
multiple videos of Ukrainian heavy weapons moving to the border with Donbass republics are coming, a week ago Ukrainian government closed 4 opposition TV channels and started mass repressions against Ukrainian opposition - with public approval of the US.

it is obvious Washington pushes Ukraine to the war with Russia. while hoping for what, that Russia will not respond? :lol:

Occupy Ukraine and then complain when they kick your butts out. Now, that makes sense, NOT.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
332
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).

At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).

At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
add to this Mig-31 long range interceptors, Arctic region is their responcibility.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
multiple videos of Ukrainian heavy weapons moving to the border with Donbass republics are coming, a week ago Ukrainian government closed 4 opposition TV channels and started mass repressions against Ukrainian opposition - with public approval of the US.

it is obvious Washington pushes Ukraine to the war with Russia. while hoping for what, that Russia will not respond? :lol:

Occupy Ukraine and then complain when they kick your butts out. Now, that makes sense, NOT.
occupy? it's a wrong word, liberate is more appropriate, Russian troops will be met with flowers in half of Ukrainian territory, and another half is not really needed.. :)
 
Last edited:

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
332
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next. If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops. Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is. He's not trained well at all. His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles. Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz. When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks. The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated. I'll bet on the motivated troop every time.
again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is :)

and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
I can see you are living up to your name. And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine. That's the problem with a bully. They will bull and think it's a good thing. And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong. Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out. And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs. You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
You see, to say Russians "Leave Ukraine"(Donbass and Crimea) is the same thing as say to the USA - "Leave Hawaii, Texas and Alaska".

So, if Kievan Junta (backed by the USA) is going to attack Russian citizens and military forces the Russians will be faced with three fairly serious choices:
1) They may retreat from Donbass and Crimea. (Ok. It's impossible, because they believe that Crimes is a part of the Russian Federation, and also it means the lost of Black Sea fleets, and, highly likely, further direct military attack against Kaliningrad region and Kuril islands, say nothing about two million of Russian citizens living in Crimea);
2. They may fight a limited war. But it means another risks. First of all, Russia can crush Ukraine in any reasonable scenario of the conventional or unconventional war. It will cost them a price, but not much. But if NATO is ready to raise bets - it means a real possibility of uncontrolled escalation and uncontrolled start of the all-out nuclear war;
3. The third possibility might have appeared safer to the Russians. Rather then leave "their" lands or for the limited war to erupt into a general war at a time chosen by the Americans they may decide to hit the USA right away. They can argue that this will guarantee them the all-important first strike, at least if they hurry.
Most governments when asked to choose between war and peace are likely to choose peace, because it looks safer. These same governments if asked to choose between getting the first or the second strike will very likely choose the first strike. They will do so for the same reason they chose peace in the first choice; it is safer.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
332
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).

At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
add to this Mig-31 long range interceptors, Arctic region is their responcibility.
Yes. But it is not about how many Mig-31 (or F-22) will survive first days of the war, but about what is better - to have long-range AAMs or not to have.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).

At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
add to this Mig-31 long range interceptors, Arctic region is their responcibility.
Yes. But it is not about how many Mig-31 (or F-22) will survive first days of the war, but about what is better - to have long-range AAMs or not to have.
as I know Mig-31 is exactly equipped with long range misiles and has powerful radar.
 

Siberian

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
400
Reaction score
93
Points
143
Location
Moscow, Kremlin, Trump election headquaters
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next. If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops. Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is. He's not trained well at all. His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles. Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz. When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks. The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated. I'll bet on the motivated troop every time.
again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is :)

and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
I can see you are living up to your name. And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine. That's the problem with a bully. They will bull and think it's a good thing. And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong. Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out. And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs. You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
You see, to say Russians "Leave Ukraine"(Donbass and Crimea) is the same thing as say to the USA - "Leave Hawaii, Texas and Alaska".

So, if Kievan Junta (backed by the USA) is going to attack Russian citizens and military forces the Russians will be faced with three fairly serious choices:
1) They may retreat from Donbass and Crimea. (Ok. It's impossible, because they believe that Crimes is a part of the Russian Federation, and also it means the lost of Black Sea fleets, and, highly likely, further direct military attack against Kaliningrad region and Kuril islands, say nothing about two million of Russian citizens living in Crimea);
2. They may fight a limited war. But it means another risks. First of all, Russia can crush Ukraine in any reasonable scenario of the conventional or unconventional war. It will cost them a price, but not much. But if NATO is ready to raise bets - it means a real possibility of uncontrolled escalation and uncontrolled start of the all-out nuclear war;
3. The third possibility might have appeared safer to the Russians. Rather then leave "their" lands or for the limited war to erupt into a general war at a time chosen by the Americans they may decide to hit the USA right away. They can argue that this will guarantee them the all-important first strike, at least if they hurry.
Most governments when asked to choose between war and peace are likely to choose peace, because it looks safer. These same governments if asked to choose between getting the first or the second strike will very likely choose the first strike. They will do so for the same reason they chose peace in the first choice; it is safer.
if Russia all these 7 years was trying to push Donbass back into Ukraine as an autonomy (which would rebalance power more in favour of Russia-friendly Russian speakers in Ukraine, and this is the reason Kiev rejects this), with Crimea it is absolutely impossible, at all, like for the US to leave not even Alaska but some Illinoise...

no, first strike does not look either favourable ir acceptable, it is the US who is obsessed with this idea.
For Russia I'd say there are no other options but your 2nd scenario, if Kiev starts agression against Donbass.
 

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
332
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
I would not be so sure about impossibility of direct encounter.
Ukraine seems to be going to start advance against republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine, having been inspired by Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Of course, with full US approval and encouragement.

So, never say never, this ear msy lead to direct US-Russia war, I hope it will be wuthout use of nukes.
It might lead to a proxy war but not a direct war. We do need to build up Ukraine militarily. Make them able to run the Russians right out. Russia isn't that motivated for a direct confrontation with Ukraine. They have been doing a proxy war (and cheating at it) much like they did with Korea. And like they tried in Syria. With Russia tied up in Syria and worrying about Turkey, they still can put quite a bulk force on the Ukranian border. But if we heavily arm Ukraine, I don't think Russia has the stones to storm over the borders. And it wouldn't be the US that would directly lend a hand. There are plenty of Balkan Nations that would join in to keep Ukraine from falling. I also think we should do the same for Georgia.
well, you seem not to understand how thick Russian red line in Ukraine is for the US :)
there are 400 000 Russian citizens in these 2 republics and Ukraine is moving troops and heavy arms to the border right in this very moment, i. e. in coming weeks or even days Ukraine may start an offensive, which Russia cannot but stop whatever it takes.

And after Russian troops take Kiev - then we may return to this conversation, if direct war between USA and Russia is impossible :)
And the entire Baltic Region can't afford Russia to march on Kiev because they know they would be next. If it Russia does invade any further into Ukraine get ready for one hell of a battle with a lot of countries sending in support and troops. Russia needs to weigh the results before they go too crazy.

A lot of this will determine how well trained the Russian regular soldier is. He's not trained well at all. His Air Power is but much of his ground power is nearing shambles. Everyone thinks that every Russian Soldier is equiv to a Spitnaz. When in reality, the real low ranks are mistreated by the NCO ranks who are underpaid and require "Tribute" from the lower ranks. The Ukrainians are motivated, the Russians are less than motivated. I'll bet on the motivated troop every time.
again, you seem not to understand how thick this red line is :)

and US masters which give orders to Ukraine seem not to understand it too, otherwise they would not be provoking war there now.
I can see you are living up to your name. And you can't get any more provocative than invading part of Ukraine. That's the problem with a bully. They will bull and think it's a good thing. And when people start standing up to them then that's all so wrong. Russia needs to get the hell out of Ukraine and stay out. And you really don't want to find out if the F-16s and F-18s we provide to them do against your Migs and SUs. You don't have enough SU-35s to even make a dent on anything.
You see, to say Russians "Leave Ukraine"(Donbass and Crimea) is the same thing as say to the USA - "Leave Hawaii, Texas and Alaska".

So, if Kievan Junta (backed by the USA) is going to attack Russian citizens and military forces the Russians will be faced with three fairly serious choices:
1) They may retreat from Donbass and Crimea. (Ok. It's impossible, because they believe that Crimes is a part of the Russian Federation, and also it means the lost of Black Sea fleets, and, highly likely, further direct military attack against Kaliningrad region and Kuril islands, say nothing about two million of Russian citizens living in Crimea);
2. They may fight a limited war. But it means another risks. First of all, Russia can crush Ukraine in any reasonable scenario of the conventional or unconventional war. It will cost them a price, but not much. But if NATO is ready to raise bets - it means a real possibility of uncontrolled escalation and uncontrolled start of the all-out nuclear war;
3. The third possibility might have appeared safer to the Russians. Rather then leave "their" lands or for the limited war to erupt into a general war at a time chosen by the Americans they may decide to hit the USA right away. They can argue that this will guarantee them the all-important first strike, at least if they hurry.
Most governments when asked to choose between war and peace are likely to choose peace, because it looks safer. These same governments if asked to choose between getting the first or the second strike will very likely choose the first strike. They will do so for the same reason they chose peace in the first choice; it is safer.
if Russia all these 7 years was trying to push Donbass back into Ukraine as an autonomy (which would rebalance power more in favour of Russia-friendly Russian speakers in Ukraine, and this is the reason Kiev rejects this), with Crimea it is absolutely impossible, at all, like for the US to leave not even Alaska but some Illinoise...

no, first strike does not look either favourable ir acceptable, it is the US who is obsessed with this idea.
For Russia I'd say there are no other options but your 2nd scenario, if Kiev starts agression against Donbass.
Really? Can you explain us an issue of this article, then?
------------------
The aviation battle application justification aviation to disrupt an integrated massive air strike in the enemy multi-sphere operation
V.I. STUCHINSKIY, Doctor of Military sciences, Associate Professor
MESC AF «N.E. Zhukovsky and Y.A. Gagarin Air Force Academy» (Voronezh)
M.V. KOROLKOV, Candidate of Military sciences, Associate Professor
MESC AF «N.E. Zhukovsky and Y.A. Gagarin Air Force Academy» (Voronezh)
The article substantiates the need for complex aviation destruction of critical objects in the
operational depth in order to disrupt the initial stage of an integrated massive air strike planned to be
carried out within the framework of the enemy's «multi-sphere operation». A possible space-time construction of an integrated massive air strike is presented.
Keywords: multi-sphere operation, integrated massive air strike, operational and tactical aviation, reconnaissance-strike system.
---------------------



It can be stated that under the current
conditions, the Russian Federation is able to move from a policy of deterring a potential
enemy with nuclear weapons to a policy of intimidating the infliction of unacceptable
complex destruction with all types of weapons as part of preventive actions in
the face of the threat of local war hanging over the Russian Federation.
-------------------------
May be, there is a sort of misunderstanding here?
 
Last edited:

Silver Cat

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
332
Points
140
Location
Absaroka
super lame duck :)

it costs a billion, maintainance costs another billion an hour, it requires a month of maintainance works after an hour of flight..

in a week of war allF-35 will stay on ground
It still has a 70% sortie rate, one of the best in USAF. It's replacement is for the same reason the B-21 is going to replace the B-1; Cost. To be specific, the RandD for the B-1 and the F-35 to "Invent" many systems that cost hundreds of billions by itself. That means the next gen will not have to spend that again.

This doesn't take away the capability of the F-35. It still means that if you go against it in combat you are going to die quickly. But the next gen will just do it cheaper and better. In a dogfight (guns only) the F-35A isn't a great threat but when he fires up his BVR the only bird that might defeat it is the F-22. That is the only deficit of the F-35A. It was originally supposed to be able to equal the F-16 in a Dogfight (guns only). And that was (and still is) a tall order. To date, only the Superbug can fly with the F-16 in a gun only fight and hold it's own out of all the production Fighters.

The problem with the F-35 isn't it's sortie generation it's the fact it was short changed to make the F-35B. USAF has it's own needs. And the new Fighter will meet those specific needs.
It reminds me of how Russian military say that Su-30 can beat all F-s with one finger except maybe F-22 and F-35, which have certain chances at long distances but will be done in dog fight in minutes...

i. e. until there's no real experience fighting capability is still unclear, but financial figures are already a fact...
People don't realize that

1) In fighter combat, dog fighting is strictly a last resort. Every pilot avoids it at all costs.
2) Success in dog fighting actually has little to do with what the aircraft can do but how skilled the pilot is.
Actually, if you are going against an F-15 with a Mig-35, go for short range and get the
Eagle into a gun fight. Same goes for the SU series. The last thing you want to do is play long range missile toss with the F-15. But if you are facing the F-16 or especially the F-18 don't get in a gun fight with them, you'll lose. Outside of something like the A-10 or the SU-25, all the fighters can choose to fight or not to fight.

Our F-15 Pilots used a technique when something got too close that could out turn and burn them. They time it right and hit the burners and went straight up. There isn't a missile that can follow that flight path. All the bogey knows is, the F-15 is 10 miles away and locking him up with his long ranged weapons using BVR. Of course the Baddie will experience sucking dirt fast and doing some fast and hard turning. That is if he's lucky enough to see the F-15 in time.

Light Weight Fighters can turn and burn better than heavy fighters. But the heavy fighter has the advantage in BVR. It really doesn't matter than much what fighter you are using (Gen 4 or 5). NEVER fight the bad guy at his own game. You fight your own fight. And if you can't, do something similar to the F-15 disengaging and do your own version UP!!!!!
Duel situation? One F-35A with four AIM-120D vs one Su-35 with four R-37M somewhere over neutral waters, both know where is his enemy? Ok. F-35 has almost no chances - Su-35 has longer and stronger arms.
There is still some question how well the improved Detection of the SU-35 fares against the F-35. But I would say that the F-35 should bet a slight nod in BVR. But you are back on the one one one. And that's not how it's going to go down. It will still be determined on who sees who first. And both will be datalinked to other Aircraft. I do see the SU-35 as the most formidable of all the Russian Fighters though. Even the F-22 may have some problems with it. And the most likely missile used by the SU will be the R-77M which is just as good as the Aim120D. If the F-35 screws up and plays the other guys game, the SU-35 shouldn't get the chance to use his R-73M which is short ranged. But it's not going to be a one on one encounter and there is going to be a lot of missiles flying by both sides. Long range tilts to the F-35 and short range goes to the SU-35 but you have to go through long range to get to short range.
Yes. But there are two problems - 1) most important theaters are controlled by multiple radars (and other sensors) , so there won't be a "stealth advantage". 2) The US Air Force don't have any long-range missiles, and the Russians - do.

One military scenario I saw was 5 against 5. The long range, zero F-35s were lost and 3 SU-35s were lost. Then short range, 2 F-35s were lost while the remaining SU-35s were lost. In reality, the 2 remaining SU-35s would have disengaged. Since then, information on the SU-35 has come out saying it would do a bit better. But I don't see the US and the Russian versions ever seeing combat against each other and you can't really consider less capable exports of both. BTW, Guns were never even considered. The F-35 would disengage long before it became a gun fight.
As I said - it depends on remaining infrastructure. Ok. Let's play another scenario:
Day 3 of WWIII, two groups of aircrafts meet each other somewhere over the North Pole.
Russians: ten Su-35SM (with R-37s and R-77Ms), one A-100, five Tu-95 (with H-55s and H-102s).
Americans: ten F-35A (with AIM-120Ds) , one E-3, five B-52H (with AGM-86s).

At the distance 300-400 km, the Russians launch their R-37s, kill Sentry and the Buffs.
Then - there is a group of fighters (with long and medium range missiles) with an AWACS against a groups of the blind (anyone who turns his radar on or come close to A-100 - became a target) fighters (with medium range missiles only). Do you believe, that they have any chance to kill the Bears?
add to this Mig-31 long range interceptors, Arctic region is their responcibility.
Yes. But it is not about how many Mig-31 (or F-22) will survive first days of the war, but about what is better - to have long-range AAMs or not to have.
as I know Mig-31 is exactly equipped with long range misiles and has powerful radar.
Yes. It's a special tool for shooting down big bombers. And it is much better than "universal stealth fighters" F-22 or F-35 for this objective.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top