Depends on who your enemies are. Most of the world will be flying 3-4 gen. for another 20 years. The only 5th gen. in the near future are the PAK-FA, F-35, and potentially a Chinese J-XX. I'm not sure if radar will evolve quickly enough to keep up with the RCS reduction techniques, but at this point this doesn't seem to be the case.
The shooting down over Serbia did not prove the F-117 was irrelevant. It demonstrated that if you are stupidly over-confident, & rely entirely on the stealthiness of an aircraft, to the extent of following exactly the same route, night after night, you make it possible for your opponents to work out what you are doing & lay a trap for you. Once.
F-117 carried limited bombs with limited range. It is not easy to refuel stealth fighter in mid air or external fuel tanks without revealing it to airdefence systems.
Chinese has invested far more in S-300 and its clones than on Flankers. Similar case is with Russia now. It seems they are upto the job of staying current with Stealth technology. JSF/PAK-FA/J-XX are alteast 10 years away from operational deployment even in limited numbers. by that time goal posts would have moved far beyond than fixed shape aircraft. THe money invested in stealth aircraft is better invested in more standoff weopons/electronics.
and yet prior to entering the delivery corridor they were refueled up to 6 times in complex space. Whats the point of arguing the AD network of 1991 and 1999 against today? Its why the platform has also been replaced.
and it's not in the ORBAT as it's no longer survivable in complex contested space in todays threat environment against a sophisticated opponent - so whats your point. We could also say the same about B-17's
Nonsense, look at the tac planning that went into the F-117's when they went into Bagdhad - it's not A-B mission planning at all. TAC route planning is far more complex. This was not the Korean War.
I'm sure the chinese will appreciate your insight and wisdom into their future force planning.
The F-117 had a very specific role, and it did that role very well as long as it was properly supported.
You don't do inflight refueling inside the combat zone, at least not while there are any active air defenses.
What the heck are you talking about? The F-117's have consistently operated from fairly primitive air bases.
Yeah, because the Tactic Blue looks just like an F-22 or F-35.
niche targets in serbia. what were that in that needed F-117. It faced countries with no airforces or updated airdefence system. so there was no threat to its refuelling.
As i said the losing sides didnot have airforce to intercept targets thousands of kms away. for MIG-31/Su-27 it does not make a difference whether it is Gripen or F-35.
I am saying the cost of development of Stealth platforms is huge so they are unlikely to be modified or introduced new platforms for next 40 years. So all this RCS techniques are meaningless. better invest money in standoff weopons whether from bombers or Submarines or fighters with large wing spans.
yes they went of Baghdad dealing with crippled airdefence system.
No one has tally the cost of logistic transporting and running F-117 show.
Even MIG-29Bison uses different RAM paint than MIG-29K. u can do so much with techniques but basis shapes and its limitation remains the same. so all the money is going into standoff weopons. like Brahmos that can be used by tri-service and response is far rapid.
They have cost effective way of surrendering Taiwan by parking 1000 billistic missiles protected by S-300 ring. The whole planning seems to me to lure aircrafts into SAM trap.
Because the primitive MiG-31 radar will detect the F-35, right? Never mind tracking or targetting data.... it will know the F-35 is there right? >.<
They went in BEFORE the IADS was crippled.
I'm assuming you mean the MiG-21bis. As far as I know it does not use any RAM. Do you have a source to the contrary?
MIG-31 is being upgraded to deal with low RCS targets. i have underlined the part. It is not the MIG-31 alone but whole Airdefnce network that is upgraded to track UFO type objects. So i cannot forsee any future for Stealth aircraft just like SUV had limited Run for Automobile Industry.
you are assuming there was IADS in first place and it wasnt compromised in years and months ahead of time
It is IAF MIG-21Bison. It does carry RAM and so does newer MIG-29K.
Apparently you believe anything you read. That article is dead wrong.
The big plane is not easy on fuel, and will have drastically reduced range and payload than the land based version, they will never be able to carry enough bombs to be even relevant to long ranged air to ground missions, that is clear from the way Russian Navy operates them, flankers for air defence, submarines and bombers for attack.
But the super hornet is thrown off a cat. it can serve its purpose as a strike aircraft. Unless the PLA-N program includes a catapult take off system in which case a airframe strengthened for arrested recovery should be an advantage.
perhaps you need to look at the target and TAC profiles of the F-117 as opposed to the F-15's F-16's and Mirages. What is it that you don't understand specifically about TAC planning. it is getting tedious having chatter with someone who always drags in technical non sequitors as soon as they are shown to be systems knowledge poor.
and so by rote you are now saying that the Mig31 owned by Russia is on Swedens threat matrix. Thanks, I refer you to all the swedish and scandinavian posters who have been discussing this threat matrix in other threads.
ah yes, and thats why every manned and unmanned LO/VLO platform designed since 1959 has been technologicaly different in signal management concepts as well as shape management.
No, bagdhad was crippled before non LO/VLO assets were deployed. How about reading up on the war before stating such nonsense. Welcome to combined and black arms. Everyone else read about it and learned post 1991. The russians and chinese deliberately changed and developed their own RMA accordingly. I guess they might be on to something....
doh! Saudi Arabia gave the US a bare bones base. ie they US deployed air supportable systems along with the Wing. (all in under a week) France, Israel, UK, Russia, China and a few others can do the same to relative scale.
whats this got to do with anything? The next mass delivered LO platform is the JSF. Ever looked at the populations of all the partners? The JSF is a lower sig manager than all the partners current fixed wing combat element platforms.
Excellent. Please provide a source on this. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that RAM coatings are not applied to the entire aircraft - so can you please provide pics of the Mig29 and Mig21 RAM coatings as I've seen both platforms up close and don't recall seeing any.
China is going to use Brahmos? Thats a first, I'm sure the Indians will be happy about that.
they operate only self defense versions, because they developed them when su-27 just came out and they were only capable of A2A missions. Their reduced range/payload was due more to ski jump and its limitations.
generally, flankers should be better in A2A combat, AShM, SEA missions and such
Having seen what they did to JH-7A in PLAAF, it's quite clear to me that an EW version of J-11 is in the works. flankers would be a lot more affective in buddy to buddy refueling due to its much larger fuel tank. And also, they can theoretically carry far more equipment for surveillance/C&C mission. Again, these are theoretic capabilities for flankers, Mig-29s simply can't do them.
they are going to put a catapult on there. PLA is going for both naval flanker and a 5th gen variant.
what difference does it make? considering the opposing forces.
Time of chosing entirely depends on making standoff weopons and platforms that are independent of foreign bases and have speed to execute time sensitive targets.
We are no longer in 1950s. Cost of developing new platforms is such that F-35/PAK-FA/J-XX would be the last high performance platforms that can be deployed in certain quantities. You cannot compete against COTS industry of the World.
Baghad IADS was not indigenous. It was compromised way before the War. You dont need to start war to consider other airdefence as crippled. Iran case is different as they have managed to integrate themselves.
Russia deployed Blackjack in Venzuella in less than week of preparation with 100 men. It is not big deal to deploy stuff once you airlift entire support infrastrucutre.
thats your assumptions. JSF is good platforms but not good enough for time period of introductions and money involved. Gripen is available and cheaper.
you will not see them as they arent on export or airshow aircraft.
China will either develop itself or license from Russia just like YJ-91. No doubt they are going in this direction. The recently signed ITAR agreement with Russia.
The problem is you start to believe Russian/India public statements. otherwise there wouldnt be Crynogenic engines in India or India Sub crew trained in Russia or exclusive rights to Glosnos Military signals.
Are you serious? Of course it makes a difference. Warfare is about mass, timing persistence, projection, political management and manouvre. The countries that pick and choose the prosecution of warfare at their own choosing have an advantage.
and in relation to this thread russia helping china build an aircraft carrier means what? Have a look at the status of the russian ship building industry - have a look at how long it takes to work up a carrier, work up a fleet and begin blue water training at fleet level. So whats your temporal point??
COTS has been in military platforms since I was employed as a consultant in 1999. COTS is not the panacea for all ills - its relative to the system.
and this has what to do with Russia and China and the aircraft carrier?
Oh, so now its not a big deal? What countries deploy intercontinental warfighting half assed? What is your point? The country that made the art of logistics stand out in 1861 has got nothing to do with a chinese aircraft carrier. It doesn't effect russian involvement either. The issue of logistics is a chinese issue for this thread.
oh for goodnes sake - the procurement teams who also include their own warfighters are the ones who made the decision - not you or me - and quite frankly they're a whole lot more involved that either you or I or any other internet jockey.
so what? who cares? we're talking about export assets - eg an aircraft carrier - and AFAIK the Gripen isn't going on any chinese aircraft carrier
meh? ITARs is a US Congressional restriction, when did Russia and China get involved with the US Congress and the US State Dept
this is really tiresome. a history of why the Brahmos was chosen and the MTCR implications has been clearly spelled out.
It's not a matter of conforming - its a matter of getting rid of trolls. There are any number of conversations happening in here where Mods have opposing views - the issue is the quality of debate. We don't expect people to be SME's (as even those with the approp experience are always learning) - but we do expect reasonable behaviour.
The flanker and the fulcrum are two different airframes, the fulcrum will be used for fleet air defence in the 600-800km radius. With a limited secondary role of anti surface vessel.
That will take care of a lot of issues and make sure that the Flanker as the choice of aircraft is utilized effectively, however also delay the program as the development of these systems will take time.
What is your proof of this? All because you've "read" it doesn't mean you can go posting such obvious falsehoods.
I think he's talking about the Kiev class.