Stock up your air to air defense

[ozanzac 0]

Well, after a serious evaluation of all aircraft in a real (read: dream!) fly-off, it was established by my defense ministry that though the Raptor proved itself to be the fighter of choice for the Air Force, it was decided by the treasury that such an expensive aircraft was not warranted, after all, what use is an airplane if you have no money left to put fuel in its tanks!

The F-15©, though having a cheap initial cost, is also a very thirsty bird. The drain of fuel costs would inhibit the abilty to allow pilots sufficient time in their aircraft, and subsequently, a squadron of F-15's would likely be disbanded, mothballed, and if there was a buyer, sold within a couple of years, to allow for the other two squadrons to operate with better budgets. This is not favorable as one of the islands with an airfield and population would always be without an air-defense fighter squadron. Also, the government does not want to invest in technology designed in the late sixties to seventies. The govenrment is also looking for a fighter with multi-role capabilities, and the F-15 does not currently have this. We are looking for an aircraft with some A-G capabilities and would only buy one type (C or E), not both.

The X-31. Has much potential, but as weapons systems are not thouroughly developed, and it has extreme short range, is out of the question, as the Malden/Everon/Nogova and wastelands of Kolgujev need a potent fighter today, as the airframe hours on the current F-16A/B's are nearing the end of their life. And a replacement is required ASAP.

Therefore, the Typhoon is the winner in the governments eyes. Its economic performance is likely to pay off, as its initial cost, though high, would be less severe due to lower operating costs. Also, the pilots would get more than sufficient flying hours so that the entire force's pilots would be more than prepared should the need come to defend, or attack. As the A-G capability required by the government would be established in the Typhoon by the time of expected procurement of seventy aircraft from 2007. (66 aircraft divided into three squadrons and four trainers)

[Consigliere 0]

Imagine he helps keep rodents away, and at any rate, it is quite amusing watching him run about out of the woods into tall grass by the pond.

*sniff*

I hope you realise your privilege

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I would go for the Su-30MK :P

Yes, you are absolutely right. I should have mentioned that one too. No doubt!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

One thing I would like to add here. Sure the x-31 is an experimental plane. Not hard to guess cause all X is nothing else than the specifiction for an experiment, but so were the stealth bombers as well!

The x-31 has indeed the highest amount of maneuverability of all planes, also of those in planing. This plane has a clear constructional advantage and this will certainly be implemented into upcoming fighter planes. Anyhow, I havent heard anything about x-31 project being stoped. I can show you recent pictures and articles about it!

The Typhoon is faster than the Raptor and it has limited stealth capabilities too (but not invisible like the Raptor).

One thing you people seem to forget is once the Raptor is involved in combat it will loose stealth capabilities. This is due to the fact that guns and rockets are in stealth pockets which need to be opened to be able to fire. Once that happens the invisibility is gone.

Denoir, speed is very important. Not for range but for Air to Air combat. The old game of who gets behind who still exists. At least that is what they said on discovery channel yesterday!

[kegetys 2]

One thing you people seem to forget is once the Raptor is involved in combat it will loose stealth capabilities.

Not to mention that, like any other plane, when it would be using its radar to find targets it would not be very stealthy anymore either.

[Lt_Phoenix 0]

Hmmm... I'm not gonna vote for any of these.

I'll stick with the BAe Hawk.

It's small, cheap and can be used for several roles. Perfect for Malden I reckon

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Denoir, speed is very important. Not for range but for Air to Air combat. The old game of who gets behind who still exists. At least that is what they said on discovery channel yesterday!

In this particular situation, however, maneuverability is more important than speed. High speed = wide turns. Low speed = tight turns

[Consigliere 0]

One thing I would like to add here. Sure the x-31 is an experimental plane. Not hard to guess cause all X is nothing else than the specifiction for an experiment, but so were the stealth bombers as well!

The x-31 has indeed the highest amount of maneuverability of all planes, also of those in planing. This plane has a clear constructional advantage and this will certainly be implemented into upcoming fighter planes. Anyhow, I havent heard anything about x-31 project being stoped. I can show you recent pictures and articles about it!

From the Dryden Flight Research Centre website :

Quote[/b] ]Two X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability (EFM) demonstrators flew at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, and at Palmdale, CA, to obtain data that may apply to the design of highly maneuverable next-generation fighters. The program ended in June 1995.

(Note the bold text)

In fact I was mistaken, the program ended much earlier than I thought. The X-31 is not a combat aircraft. It's not even an experimental combat aircraft. As I said, it's a concept demonstrator  

[Apollo 0]

I agree on Ozanzac's analysis that Nogova needs a multirole fighter on good budget and affordable running costs ,but then i might rather prefer the Jas37 Grippen above the Eurofighter ,although i'm very much a fan of the capabilety's of of the Eurofighter.The grippen however is ,although somewhat less effective in the same area's of the Eurofighter ,still a lot cheaper both in purchase cost and running costs IIRC.You could maybe buy 16 Eurofighter's and 96 Grippen's instead of 66 Eurofighter's ,sheer number's are a good substitute for superior quality.

But then again ,what do i know?What we need is an effective breakdown of prices both in purchase and in upkeep of all planes and compare such a chart with the capabilety's of those planes.But what we must consider most is that Malden is probably a piss-poor country that may be better of with a bunch of "upgraded" mig 21's because it's the only thing it can afford.  

Think of Malden as a island with at max a few thousand inhabitant's ,that can't bring in much $ in taxes.Maybe Malden should have a few oilrig's ,and a strong industry that uses foreign manpower to produce high end product's ,and it has it's own Shipping fleet ,and a Monarch that own's much of it and buy's the planes for his royal airforce.Makes it a lot more interresting for invasion anyway than a piss poor island ,i never really understood the motives for the Russian's to invade the island's we have in OFP anyway.

Makes me having idea's of changing the Standard ofp Maps so that they have lotsa industry's and ports and maybe have a oilrig moddeled ,but then i'm no addon maker.

[denoir 0]

Seriously, russian military hardware has always been good.

Well, Ground and Airforce at least.

Recently finnished a book on the Soviet Submarine fleet from the end of WW2 to the modern day. It is like a history of how NOT to manage your sub force. Mostly focused on the Nuclear fleet, (was K19 companion... nothing to do with the movie, but the sub itself. Included a bunch out of K19 Captain's memoirs as well.) and it's many, many accidents. In most years, they were averaging a mishap a month, most producing fatalities of one sort or another, many loosing the entire sub, and often most/all of the crew.  Got quite angry just reading it, as most of it was caused by the leadership. A few inept people in high places, and no one at any level wanted to "Rock the Boat" (no pun intended) for fear of punishment. Guess they figured loosing a multi-billion dollar boat now and again, and many sailors,  was cheaper than developing safe reactors, and installing them properly.  

Yeah, I have to agree with you on that one. The problem was that they had a very split-personality approach to submarine warfare. It got very political as the GRU and KGB were not too fond of the missile submarines and wanted a pure attack submarine force while the navy in general were more fond of the missile submarines as their performance was pretty much equal to the west. This conflict resulted in some very strange strategies and design decisions since the politburo sometimes listened to the Navy and sometimes to the GRU/KGB. It should be added that the GRU and the KGB didn't get too well along either.

For instance missile subs exchanged crews with a period of something like two months, as the KGB wasn't too fond of the idea of somebody else than them having direct control of a strategic nuclear arsenal. This resulted in poor crew training and morale. Another example is the development of the Lira-class (Alfa) submarine. They spent an unbelievable amount of money on the titanum hull (that can take a direct torpedo hit without breaking) but once the politicians realized what the overall cost would be they installed the most cheap internal systems available. The sonar system was laughable and the reactor sounded like a monster truck on steroids.

On the other hand they did and still do have some excellent submarines. The Akula class (Typhoon) missile sub carries 20 ICBMs with 10 nuclear warheads each. It's as silent as the US Ohio class, which means that when it doesn't want to be found, it won't. And with it's intercontinental strike capabilities, it's truly a doomsday machine. The scary thing about missile submarines is that they're almost impossible to detect. That means that they can get really close to their target. A typhoon could park a couple of hundred of kilometers outside the US and fire off it's 200 warheads at say the 100 largest US cities + 100 bases and nuclear depots. The flight time of the rockets would be a couple of minutes - not nearly enough time for anybody to react. And after the nuking, very little would be left of the US - and especially no command authority that could initiate a retaliation strike....

And that's just one akula sub. If they used a few more they could nuke every member of the nuclear "club" and we would all be learning how to sing Russian drinking songs

[havocsquad 0]

Hey Kegetys, you seem to not understand much about the capabilities of LPI radars (Low Probability of Intercept).  The F/A-22 can keep it's bloody radar on all the time and your Radar warning recieve won't know when or what direction from until you get blown out of the sky when the AMRAAM actives its seeker head.

Additionally, the bay doors on the F/A-22 only open for about 2 seconds, that is not long enough for most radar systems to get an effective lock by aircraft or SAM's unless it is a SAM with phased array radar with SA-11 or SA-10 SAM's under its command.

The only serious threat against the F/A-22 or the F/A-35 JSF is phased array radar systems on ships like the Slava CG and the Kirov CGN, for ground systems that would be the control radar for the SA-10b systems.  The Aegis system would also be a high threat to steath aircraft if it ever got into an enemy's hands, ship or techinical designs.

I totally agree, stealth does not = invincibility.  Go find some superhero powers before trying that.     But it gives an overwelming tactical and strategic advantage that is highly effective if used properly.

Keep in mind, during the Cold War the U.S.S.R hid very well the huge problems that it had with military equipment going bad.  Russia has the worst record of any country involving submarine accidents and sinkings because of it before the end of the cold war.  U.S. had its fair share of incidents, but they didn't occur as much as for the U.S.S.R.   Catching up at any cost to the West proved to be the biggest problem.

Hats off to the AK and the MiG, but overall the U.S.S.R at best could cause a stalmate and bargain for negoitation with their boomers if World War 3 happened in the 1980's.  Not to mention that NATO had higher trained lower level enlisted and NCO's than the former USSR had.  That put a huge burden on the number of officers and C&C needed to maintain a cohesive military going.  Screw up former USSR's logistics and C&C ability in a large offensive, you take the organization and coordination really quickly.

Plus, the Soviets would have been playing on NATO's turf, home field advantage works well in a defensive war.  Not to mention a heathly cruise missile inventory for the U.S. and the most feared mobile force in the world, multiple U.S. Carrier battlegroups.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

In fact I was mistaken, the program ended much earlier than I thought. The X-31 is not a combat aircraft. It's not even an experimental combat aircraft. As I said, it's a concept demonstrator  

Not quite true. At least not for germany. I dont know if you speak german but have a look at this ... no wait..before a little american source for you. Is BOEING,com reliable enough???BOEING.com

but now for the germans!

Site. which is the most popular magazine for professionals and defense related industries.

For the ones that do speak german read the following

Quote[/b] ]Der Erstflug der X-31 mit neuer Softwarefand am 23. Oktober (2002) auf der Naval Air Station Patuxent River im US-Bundesstaat Maryland statt. Das deutsch-amerikanische Experimentalflugzeug X-31 VECTOR (Vectoring ESTOL Control Tailless Operation Research) hatte die neue Flight Control Software 123A ein neues GPS-gestütztes Landesystem (Integrity Beacon Landing System, IBLS) und das Luftdatensystem FADS (Flush Air Data System) an Bord. Mit diesem erfolgreiche Flug wurde ein weiterer wichtiger Schritt getan hin zur ESTOL-Fähigkeit (Extremely Short Take off and Landing) des Flugzeuges. Seit Mai diesen Jahres wurden 24 Testflüge durchgeführt, die zusammen mehr als 17 Flugstunden dauerten. Dabei wurden Geschwindigkeiten von Mach 0.8 sowie Anstellwinkel von 45 Grad erreicht. Die Flüge führten die Testpiloten Rüdiger Knöpfel von der Wehrtechnischen Dienststelle (WTD) 61 und Vivan Ragusa von der U.S. Navy durch. -pp-

To explain it to you. In 2002 a new software has been implemented into the x-31 Vector. And tests are STILL being conducted. This plane is being modified and fed with the newest software (of which most was far from being possible in 1995) and companies are still involved in developing related components. It is an experimental plane, but developed uniquely for military purposes. Amen!  

Want more proof. Here you got an example of 2003.

read this

Quote[/b] ]

Weltweit erste schubvektorgesteuerte, automatische Landungen im VECTOR-Programm

Die weltweit erste schubvektorgesteuerte, automatische Landung ist das herausragende Ereignis des dreijährigen Forschungsprogramms zwischen der U.S. Navy, dem Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung (BWB), EADS Militärflugzeuge und Boeing Aerospace von April 2000 bis April 2003 innerhalb der VECTOR ESTOL-Phase (Extremely Short Take-Off and Landing). Nach simulierten Landungen in Sicherheitshöhe über Grund führte das Ex- perimentalflugzeug X-31 mit dem deutschen Testpiloten Rüdiger Knöpfel im Cockpit dieses wegweisende Flugmanöver am 22. April auf der Naval Air Station Patuxent River im US-Bundesstaat Maryland durch.

Eine Woche später absolvierte Major Cody Allee vom U.S. Marine Corps den historischen Abschlussflug: eine automatische ▒ESTOL-Landung mit Aufsetzen auf der Landebahn▓ bei einem Anstellwinkel von 24╟ und einer Landegeschwindigkeit von 121 Knoten, was gegenüber der normalen Landegeschwindigkeit der X-31 von 175 Knoten eine Verringerung um 31 Prozent darstellt. Dabei wurde ein weiterer wesentlicher Vorteil von ESTOL deutlich. Während das Testflugzeug bei einer konventionellen Landung erst nach ca. 2 400 m zum Stehen kommt, benötigte Major Cody Allee nur 520 m. Für die Augenzeugen bot das Flugzeug während der Landung mit seiner deutlich nach oben weisenden Nase ein spektakuläres Bild. (SuT – 6/2003)

YOu better believe it cause one day that plane is gonna bite your wings off!!!

[Consigliere 0]

And pray tell, what's the point of this ultra manoeuverability when the emphasis in today's aerial combat is on BVR engagements? The only point of this ultra manoeuverability is when you're in turning dogfights...Not very useful these days with your AMRAAMS, R-77s, Meteors, AWACS...Of course you'll always need some form of short range weaponry just in case, but designing a whole new aircraft with the sole purpose of ultra manoeuverability is pointless...It'll be a long time before you see this aircraft in frontline service

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

There are many advantages. One very clear one is that you need only 500m to stop instead of 2500. Take off the same.

Anyhow, for the rest just read the article!!!  

[Tovarish 0]

And pray tell, what's the point of this ultra manoeuverability when the emphasis in today's aerial combat is on BVR engagements? The only point of this ultra manoeuverability is when you're in turning dogfights...Not very useful these days with your AMRAAMS, R-77s, Meteors, AWACS...Of course you'll always need some form of short range weaponry just in case, but designing a whole new aircraft with the sole purpose of ultra manoeuverability is pointless...It'll be a long time before you see this aircraft in frontline service  

Well, recently I've been playing F4.0 Sp3 and flying the MiG-29A...which has NO useful BVR weaponry in that sim - the R-27's are spoofed almost as soon as you launch them...and for a long time I kept getting blown away by the newer American fighters in that sim due to their Aim-120's before i got nearly close enough to exploit my advantage in maneuverability and R-73's...so I almost thought it was hopeless but finally I developed a tactic that worked - as soon as I see on my RWR that an F-16 is tracking me for example, I put him on my six, go to afterburners, hug the terrain, and call GCI for help. As soon as my RWR goes quiet (the cavalry has arrived and the bogey is now tracking them), I turn back towards him at full speed and before he knows it I'm WVR and setting him up for an Archer/guns shot. So as far as I can see, there is still a very valid reason for ultra-maneuverability. There is a reason so many new fighters are at least toying with the concept (Including the F-22)

[Baron von Beer 0]

Yeah, maneuverability is king once close in. Don't forget, most fighters usually only carry so many BVR capable AAMs. Then, it is time to bug out, or move in to the knife fight.

Also, such capability is good for evasion of said missiles. Most AAMs carry a comparitively small warhead. So, they must detonate fairly close to their target to dammage/destroy them. The added agility may allow the target to put some space between themselves, and the incoming missle. Likewise, SAMs. Though larger warheads, the target could again put some distance between them and the incoming device, making the difference between a destroyed aircraft (And possible killed pilot) and a dammaged aircraft (and possibly survive, even if the aircraft still goes down). Planes aren't cheap, neither are pilots. Saving both is great, but saving only 1 is better than loosing both.

[Frisbee 0]

And pray tell, what's the point of this ultra manoeuverability when the emphasis in today's aerial combat is on BVR engagements? The only point of this ultra manoeuverability is when you're in turning dogfights...Not very useful these days with your AMRAAMS, R-77s, Meteors, AWACS...Of course you'll always need some form of short range weaponry just in case, but designing a whole new aircraft with the sole purpose of ultra manoeuverability is pointless...It'll be a long time before you see this aircraft in frontline service  

Really now,this was thought during the vietnam war as well.

F4's with no guns got their asses handed back to them by the NVA till they got their gunpods (and top gun).

Maneuvrability is always important,dogfighting won't just vanish (imho)

[Tovarish 0]

Really now,this was thought during the vietnam war as well.

F4's with no guns got their asses handed back to them by the NVA till they got their gunpods (and top gun).

Maneuvrability is always important,dogfighting won't just vanish (imho)

which reminds me....here's history repeating

[da_ofp_man 0]

Lol bit of pot and kettle here...the X-31 is experimental, sure, but so was the Su-37. There was only one (tail code 711), and it had since been converted to Su-35 standard (Which are now entering active service), and later sadly crashed during testing.

what?... hmm in mine military book it says that SU-37 is an separate class then SU-35 it haves better avionics, radar,and flight controll system etc.  

maybe... the book is from 1994

[Tovarish 0]

Dude, fix your quotes!

[da_ofp_man 0]

Dude, fix your quotes!

experienc some littel technical problems

[Consigliere 0]

And pray tell, what's the point of this ultra manoeuverability when the emphasis in today's aerial combat is on BVR engagements? The only point of this ultra manoeuverability is when you're in turning dogfights...Not very useful these days with your AMRAAMS, R-77s, Meteors, AWACS...Of course you'll always need some form of short range weaponry just in case, but designing a whole new aircraft with the sole purpose of ultra manoeuverability is pointless...It'll be a long time before you see this aircraft in frontline service  

Really now,this was thought during the vietnam war as well.

F4's with no guns got their asses handed back to them by the NVA till they got their gunpods (and top gun).

Maneuvrability is always important,dogfighting won't just vanish (imho)

Quote[/b] ][...]Of course you'll always need some form of short range weaponry just in case[...]

Also note that in Nam, there weren't any BVR weapons, and that most if not all of the US air losses were incurred by ground threats...SAMs, AAA, etc...So Nam is a pretty bad example to use

[Tovarish 0]

Also note that in Nam, there weren't any BVR weapons, and that most if not all of the US air losses were incurred by ground threats...SAMs, AAA, etc...So Nam is a pretty bad example to use  

Huh? ever heard of the AIM-7? It was touted back then as the death of the dogfight.

Most if not all losses caused by SAMs? The overall kill ratio was 3:1 for the US, but if you looked at the stats of MiG-21 vs F-4, the ratio was 2:1 for the MiG. and it only carried short ranged IR missiles.

[Consigliere 0]

Oops...OK then, maybe what I was trying to say was that the NVAAF were hardly aces.

[drewb99 0]

The USAF and USN coud've gotten away with a missile-only fighter if they'd employed them correctly, the tactics of the time said that you had to visually ID a target before engaging it. Obviously bad news for a BVR equipped fighter

With modern radar and IFF systems, though, they can get rid of the visual ID part and just take pot shots from a long range. Still not a great idea to not have a gun because you kill off any close range advantage, but with the kind of fighting we're seeing a lot of today you'd be able to get away with it for a while. Once we see some real high-end fighters going at each other though, they'll start strapping on surplus M61s real quick