McCain proves he's a dumbass

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-11 11:47pm

Vympel wrote:Now, these are not Su-35 standard aircraft (the Su-30MKK is no Su-30MKI) but they are still a huge threat to an F-15C, and the standard Su-27SKs can be upgraded to Su-27SKM standard, which are basically Su-30MKK level of capability.

Eh? I thought the Su-35 was dead, and that Sukhoi was instead marketing the Su-37 (for export, since the Russian air force wasn't interested in either aircraft)?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-11 11:51pm

Meest wrote:Why not just cut the order down, 277 might be the overkill. As Vympel said the total force the Chinese have aren't F-15 killers and can't compete with the F-22. Also how old are the older SU's the chinese have?

Dumb. You divide R&D costs for the whole project amongst the procured aircraft; this is why the B-2 Spirit was over 1.5 billion a pop, when it was supposed to be in the hundreds of millions.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-11 11:52pm

Ma Deuce wrote: Eh? I thought the Su-35 was dead, and that Sukhoi was instead marketing the Su-37 (for export, since the Russian air force wasn't interested in either aircraft)?

No, it's not dead. The Su-37 prototype, b/n 711, which was actually one of the 12 original Su-35 prototypes (701-712), was renamed back to Su-35- it subsequently crashed the year before last. The Su-35UB was offered to South Korea (lost to the F-15K), and the Su-35 is being offered to Brazil for their fighter competition, where it's the Air Force favorite.

There is a new Su-37 being built, but it's going to be a new aircraft to act as an interim from between the Su-30MK/Su-35 series currently being aggressively marketed, and the future PAK FA fighter. It's expected to appear in 2006. Expect considerable improvements in avionics/engines etc

The Su-30MK has had the most success so far: Su-30MK variants for India, China, Indonesia and Malaysia so far. Vietnam is another export possibility. India's one is practically an Su-35UB, however, with a few minor differences (some French/Israeli/Indian avionics).

(oh, and the Russian Knights aerobatic team has changed from Su-27UBs to Su-35s)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-04-11 11:58pm

Meest wrote:Why not just cut the order down, 277 might be the overkill. As Vympel said the total force the Chinese have aren't F-15 killers and can't compete with the F-22. Also how old are the older SU's the chinese have?

The order has already been cut down repeatedly from the original goal of about 700. Every time this is done every plane costs more because the R&D costs are dispersed through fewer planes and every component used to build them becomes more expensive, and maintaining production lines to produce spares parts becomes very difficult and expensive. 277 is not overkill, if it is anything its dipping dangerously close to the entire program becoming a maintenance and training nightmare that will leave the USAF with only a handful of operational squadrons to cover the whole world. As it is the USAF believes that 384 F/A-22's is the minimal needed to meet its commitments, and even that will only support ten operational squadrons.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-11 11:59pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:The order has already been cut down repeatedly from the original goal of about 700. Every time this is done every plane costs more because the R&D costs are dispersed through fewer planes and every component used to build them becomes more expensive, and maintaining production lines to produce spares parts becomes very difficult and expensive. 277 is not overkill, if it is anything its dipping dangerously close to the entire program becoming a maintenance and training nightmare that will leave the USAF with only a handful of operational squadrons to cover the whole world. As it is the USAF believes that 384 F/A-22's is the minimal needed to meet its commitments, and even that will only support ten operational squadrons.

Well, 384 is close to the number of F-15Cs they currently have, isn't it? Unless I'm reading globalsecurity.org wrong.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-04-12 12:07am

Vympel wrote: Well, 384 is close to the number of F-15Cs they currently have, isn't it? Unless I'm reading globalsecurity.org wrong.

I can't tell if Globalsecurity is listing the whole fleet or just single seat versions which would normally see combat. I suspect the latter given what I've read elsewhere. That 384 F/A-22 total is including aircraft for training, a big issue since its a brand new bird while we have plenty of F-15 pilots, and aircraft to make up for expected attrition losses.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-12 12:07am

Vympel wrote:Well, 384 is close to the number of F-15Cs they currently have, isn't it? Unless I'm reading globalsecurity.org wrong.

I wonder how many are actually operational? Personally, I think the best option would be to simply replace the F-15Cs with F-22s on a 1-for-1 basis...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-04-12 12:08am

Sea Skimmer wrote: I can't tell if Globalsecurity is listing the whole fleet or just single seat versions which would normally see combat. I suspect the latter given what I've read elsewhere. That 384 F/A-22 total is including aircraft for training, a big issue since its a brand new bird while we have plenty of F-15 pilots, and aircraft to make up for expected attrition losses.

Well stupid me, theres a notice on the bottom of the page which says

"Only combat-coded aircraft and not development/ test, attrition reserve, depot maintenance, or training aircraft."

So 384 aircraft total to replace an operational fleet of 342 is very reasonable.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-04-12 01:33am

Darth Wong wrote:McCain is probably trying to show up an administration that has made "no more men on the ground" some kind of sacred-cow policy touchstone.

Exactly.

I doubt that he really wants to cut the F-22 (I really hate the name Raptor) but his statement is making political points both on the cost of the plane, the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, and support for our people who are currently in harms way.

While I agree that the federal government should cut many of it's social programs they would get a lot more grief from many more groups than just the hawks, military hardware wankers, and the people who build the things.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-12 09:56am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the F-22 at the end of its fifteen year development cycle and hasn't a squadron already been delivered for training purposes? Is not the first active squadron of F-22's ready to go online at the end of this year? What would be the purpose in cancelling such a heavily invested and well designed fighter that would ensure United States air superiority for decades to come?

We've already spent a ton of money on this program and cancellation at this point is ridiculous. Nor is cutting the number of planes ordered acceptable as that has already been done several times, and we need these sorts of aircraft in order to replace the aging F-15. If anything we should increase the funding of these programs as total air superiority has proven time and time again to be a crucial (if not decisive) factor in sucessful military campaigns.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-12 10:30am

The Kernel wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the F-22 at the end of its fifteen year development cycle and hasn't a squadron already been delivered for training purposes?

Those delivered aircraft have by no means achieved IOC.

Is not the first active squadron of F-22's ready to go online at the end of this year? What would be the purpose in cancelling such a heavily invested and well designed fighter that would ensure United States air superiority for decades to come?

Active by the end of this year? No way. The F/A-22 continues to fail at meeting it's goals in avionics stability, maintenance, and reliability requirements, at both development and "system maturity" level. To illustrate, if they were active, they'd require maintenance every half-an-hour. The avionics especially crash constantly- the current, quite lenient requirement of 5 hours isn't even being met (and that requirement was lowered from 20 hours).

I'm leery of this, personally. There's a rosy outlook that assumes that no matter what's wrong, the F/A-22 will eventually work as intended- that's not necessarily true. One need only look at the F-111D, which had the most advanced avionics in its time. When it worked, it worked well. Problem is they hardly ever worked properly and it was an incredibly poor performing aircraft, operational readiness wise.

We've already spent a ton of money on this program and cancellation at this point is ridiculous. Nor is cutting the number of planes ordered acceptable as that has already been done several times, and we need these sorts of aircraft in order to replace the aging F-15. If anything we should increase the funding of these programs as total air superiority has proven time and time again to be a crucial (if not decisive) factor in sucessful military campaigns.

Increasing funding for more F/A-22s simply isn't going to happen. The only remotely realistic option for increasing actual heavy fighter airframes is buying more, improved F-15s, before the production line at St Louis closes for good after the South Korean F-15Ks are finished (fat chance, I know).

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-12 10:48am

Vympel wrote: Active by the end of this year? No way. The F/A-22 continues to fail at meeting it's goals in avionics stability, maintenance, and reliability requirements, at both development and "system maturity" level. To illustrate, if they were active, they'd require maintenance every half-an-hour. The avionics especially crash constantly- the current, quite lenient requirement of 5 hours isn't even being met (and that requirement was lowered from 20 hours).

I'm leery of this, personally. There's a rosy outlook that assumes that no matter what's wrong, the F/A-22 will eventually work as intended- that's not necessarily true. One need only look at the F-111D, which had the most advanced avionics in its time. When it worked, it worked well. Problem is they hardly ever worked properly and it was an incredibly poor performing aircraft, operational readiness wise.

Why should bugs in the avionics systems be such a problem that would require an abandoning of the program? Granted, my knowledge of military aircraft is limited, but on civilian airplanes, avionics switching is easy enough, and that's assuming that they can't eventually solve these problems. You'll excuse me if I'm somewhat sceptical of bugs in the avionics being an uncorrectable problem, especially given the resources that have already been put into the F-22's development.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-12 11:35am

The Kernel wrote:
Why should bugs in the avionics systems be such a problem that would require an abandoning of the program? Granted, my knowledge of military aircraft is limited, but on civilian airplanes, avionics switching is easy enough, and that's assuming that they can't eventually solve these problems. You'll excuse me if I'm somewhat sceptical of bugs in the avionics being an uncorrectable problem, especially given the resources that have already been put into the F-22's development.

I didn't say the program should be abandoned. I was merely illustrating that the Raptor is nowhere near ready for primetime. I was also referring to poor maintenance and reliability, not just avionics. Seperate issues.

Additionally civilian aircraft avionics don't have shit on those of military aircraft, especially the Raptor, whoose entire avionics suite is brought together in a kind of 'sensor fusion'. It's never been tried, and the technology is just not mature.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-04-12 02:52pm

perhaps the US could simply purchase a couple of SUs from russia instead of going through the whole trouble to build a completely new one.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-04-12 06:38pm

Actually, 384 F-15Cs operational is a very good number for a 25-year old aircraft, considering only 409 were delivered to the USAF (according to the Wright-Patterson Museum).

As far as the Raptor's problems, I'd still rather have a Raptor than a JSF. Living with people who have worked on the F-35 project, it's even more of an unnecessary technowank than the F-22. Both projects are a waste, though. The overall problem is the rush to produce new systems before thorough testing (such as the F/A-18E/F's wing-drop problem discovered 20% through flight testing). It is unusual that there's still so many problems with the aircraft, given that three-hour flights in 1999 routinely returned "code 1" (i.e. no problems), which was more reliable than the -15 or -16 testing programs. What's really needed (IMO) is a more versatile, relatively light-weight fighter using proven technology and capable of both BVR and WVR combat; something similar to the original inspiration for the F-16.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-13 12:30am

perhaps the US could simply purchase a couple of SUs from russia instead of going through the whole trouble to build a completely new one.

I know you are joking, but the US Military will never, ever, ever, ever equip itself with Russian hardware. It would be too much of an embarrassment.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-13 01:42am

Ma Deuce wrote:I know you are joking, but the US Military will never, ever, ever, ever equip itself with Russian hardware. It would be too much of an embarrassment.

Unfortunately true. A fully "Americanized" (avionics, engines, and weapons) Su-27K/Su-33 would have kicked the shit out of the F/A-18E Sewer Horror- erm I mean Super Hornet, if it had been competing.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2004-04-13 02:41am

Vympel wrote:
Ma Deuce wrote:I know you are joking, but the US Military will never, ever, ever, ever equip itself with Russian hardware. It would be too much of an embarrassment.
Unfortunately true. A fully "Americanized" (avionics, engines, and weapons) Su-27K/Su-33 would have kicked the shit out of the F/A-18E Sewer Horror- erm I mean Super Hornet, if it had been competing.

Too bad there's too many SuperBug fanboys in Congress.

Omega-13 · Post by **Omega-13** » 2004-04-13 05:00am

Just speaking about people saying the F-22 would dominate the skys over China, didn't the chinese buy S-400's from Russia?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-13 06:25am

Omega-13 wrote:Just speaking about people saying the F-22 would dominate the skys over China, didn't the chinese buy S-400's from Russia?

No. They bought a handful of S-300PMU1 batteries, which are the export version of the indigenous Russian S-300PM system. Uses the 48N6E missile (150km range).

The S-400 is considerably more advanced, and is only just starting to enter service in Russia (replacing the S-300PM batteries around Moscow), having passed all relevant state acceptance trials and being accepted for serial production back in October 2003. It's capabilities against a stealth target like the F/A-22 are largely unknown, but it's easy to surmise it wouldn't have an easy time of engaging in comparison to say an F-15E (which would die quite promptly).

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-04-13 06:34am

Vympel wrote:
Unfortunately true. A fully "Americanized" (avionics, engines, and weapons) Su-27K/Su-33 would have kicked the shit out of the F/A-18E Sewer Horror- erm I mean Super Hornet, if it had been competing.

Such a massive redesign wouldn't be very cheep or quick though.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-13 06:52am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Such a massive redesign wouldn't be very cheep or quick though.

A couple of years, probably, but it'd have a leg up on Super Hornet if they both started the same time (the flight testing would be considerably reduced, considering the F/A-18E has hardly any relation to the F/A-18C). You would keep the FBW system, presumably.

m112880 · Post by **m112880** » 2004-04-13 09:34am

McCain is right. Right now the goverment is spending money on equipment that we dont need. The F-15 is still one of the best frighters in the world today why spend the money to replace it when we dont need to. Plus planes dont win wars, solders on the ground win wars. If the army and Marines dont have enough troops to go into a country and get the job done then its pointless for the airforce to have top of the line planes. Spend more money on the troops and your get more out of it.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-13 11:13am

m112880 wrote:McCain is right. Right now the goverment is spending money on equipment that we dont need. The F-15 is still one of the best frighters in the world today why spend the money to replace it when we dont need to.

Because the airframes are nearing the end of their operational lifespan and if they're not replaced soon they'll start falling out of the sky because the wings will be ripping off of them as they pull seven-gee turns at 600 miles an hour.

Plus planes dont win wars, solders on the ground win wars. If the army and Marines dont have enough troops to go into a country and get the job done then its pointless for the airforce to have top of the line planes. Spend more money on the troops and your get more out of it.

Airplanes support the troops, numbnuts. Having all the troops in the world won't make a lick of difference if the enemy can bomb their asses with impunity.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-13 11:38am

The USAF cannot expect to operate it's current F-15 fleet beyond 2014 without upgrading the AN/APG-63 radar, F100-PW-100 engines, and the structure of the aircraft themselves. Considering it's lacklustre performance when stacked against the current crop of fighters proliferating, there's simply no point. By 2014 it doesn't matter what upgrades they're pulling, the Eagle will suck hard.