Yeager says F-22 and the F-35 are a waste of money

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Deterrence against who, exactly?.

Jihadist don't give a hoot about the F-22 and Russia doesn't either, but for different reasons.

And for anything in between the two, the CVNs and LHD are higher on the list of deterrence than the F-22s...

Deterrence against who?
Russia, China and (once upon a time) Iran, or any other peer or near peer country that happens to be at ods with the US Foreign Policy for the next twenty five years.
On the bit about the "Jihadist don't give a hoot about the F-22", well there´s a reason why the Pentagon fields around five hundred Reapers, Predators and Grey Eagles, it has something to do with fanatical bearded idiots with Kalashnikov´s and Technical´s, on the "and Russia doesn't either" bit, sorry you are entirely wrong. For the last two decades severall VVS high ranking chaps have publicly comented on the Raptor on top of that the development of the Sukhoi T-50 entirely dispels the idea that the VVS doesnt "give a hoot about the F-22", they do. With the amount of money they are throwing at Double Digit SAM´s and the T-50 they clearly "give a hoot"...

The F-22s were designed for a war and a world that no longer exists.

Warn the Russians and the Chinese, they didnt get the memo, or else the T-50 and the J-20 are being developed for what?

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 3,280

Sure they needed a deterrence; the question I am asking is:

If they had reduced the F-22 R&D budget by, say, 25%, would the resultant F-22 no longer work as deterrent?

Same goes for the F-35.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

OF COURSE the pilots would prefer the F-35 above and beyond the teens -- they are not stupid.

I was trying to show that when a knowledgeable ex-pilot sits down with F-35 pilots that have previous 4th gen experience, that there was nothing to tell him "that they wont tell the general public, for fear of reprisals from the Pentagon for not toeing the political line".

Sure they needed a deterrence; the question I am asking is:

If they had reduced the F-22 R&D budget by, say, 25%, would the resultant F-22 no longer work as deterrent?

Same goes for the F-35.

Certainly "less" of a deterrent.

The question would be, what would you remove from the dev budget? Whet system(s) or capability would you remove?

Keep in mind that the dev budget for the F-35 is only $60 billion (1996-2021).

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

Tomcat, the Syaaf kept on bombing Hasakah, US special forces nearby was relocated in another place, a cohomprensive agreement was mediates between the two parts by, guess who, the russians.

So, not a great micromanagement, it seems me.
Also because I didn't get at all the part about f-16 wouldn't get it: do you really think that the would have fired to an US plane whatsoever?

you are absolutly right to temper what I have said. I tried to outline basic concept here.
but two remark:
- isn't the relocation more a prudent move? Yed
- have Syrian AF overflown US SF? No
- Was RuAF unable to counter the Su shotdown by the F16? No they adapted their tactics.

Also, US administration rely heavily on Ru mediation for several reason. One being that they do not want to be dependant of Assad's agenda. They don't need it and are better without on the contrary to the Russians.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 176

Deterrence against who?
Russia, China and (once upon a time) Iran, or any other peer or near peer country that happens to be at ods with the US Foreign Policy for the next twenty five years.

You make it sounds like the US has a F-15 sized fleet of F-22 and readily available for deployment at all times. But no, they don't.

On the bit about the "Jihadist don't give a hoot about the F-22", well there´s a reason why the Pentagon fields around five hundred Reapers, Predators and Grey Eagles, it has something to do with fanatical bearded idiots with Kalashnikov´s and Technical´s,

Which still doesn't make much of a difference if you keep destabilizing countries on a whim and let Saudi Arabia fund them

on the "and Russia doesn't either" bit, sorry you are entirely wrong. For the last two decades severall VVS high ranking chaps have publicly comented on the Raptor on top of that the development of the Sukhoi T-50 entirely dispels the idea that the VVS doesnt "give a hoot about the F-22", they do. With the amount of money they are throwing at Double Digit SAM´s and the T-50 they clearly "give a hoot"...

This is exactly why they don't give a hoot. They have developed measures against it, and thats the beauty of technology; peer states have caught up with ways to detect and deal with stealth, reducing the impact of a plane like the F-22. That's also falls under deterrance, bub, as it is a two way street.

It might have been the "be all, end all" in the late 90's and early 2000's, but not anymore, and that's just the natural progression of weapons development in an permanent game of cat and mouse. Sadly for the F-22, the F-35's lobby and the political games in the US, has made sure it's deterrence value is lost faster than usual.

At the end of the day, I'd say the B-2 and the B-21 are bigger worries for the Russians than the F-22 will ever be again.

Warn the Russians and the Chinese, they didnt get the memo, or else the T-50 and the J-20 are being developed for what?

Deterrence against the US as a whole and other peer states. You make it sounds like the T-50 and J-20 existance is only to copy the US and the F-22, in a very narrow and self-centered point of view.

It is even more obvious both China and Russia have different thing in mind than the F-22, when both planes have a more wider roles and capabilities from the get-go than the Raptor.

Thing is, a lot of people are still stuck with the 90's F-22 propaganda push, that it could wipe out everything under the sun. It might been true 15 years ago, but nowadays is quickly becoming as impactful in the battlefield as an F-117 would be today...

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 4,472

Also, US administration rely heavily on Ru mediation for several reason. One being that they do not want to be dependant of Assad's agenda. They don't need it and are better without on the contrary to the Russians.

So how are you guys going with Khadafi out?

Nic

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

What did Yeager say?

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

You make it sounds like the US has a F-15 sized fleet of F-22 and readily available for deployment at all times. But no, they don't.

Really? I "make it sounds like the US has a F-15 sized fleet of F-22 and readily available for deployment at all times"?! When did i do that?
And me thinking that the USAF fields roughly 120 combat coded Raptors, plus another roughly sixty block 10 units, wich are used for training. How many SU-27/SU-35´s fields the VVS today in active regiments?

This is exactly why they don't give a hoot. They have developed measures against it, and thats the beauty of technology; peer states have caught up with ways to detect and deal with stealth, reducing the impact of a plane like the F-22. That's also falls under deterrance, bub, as it is a two way street.

Either Russia doesnt "give a hoot" and ignores the Raptor or Russia "gives a hoot" and spends several billions US$ for two decades countering the dam thing, wich, by the words of an ungodly number of high ranking VVS officials and Industry chaps they did. End of story

It might have been the "be all, end all" in the late 90's and early 2000's, but not anymore,

OH! We have here an expert with access to classified information on the ATF, JSF, S400 and PAKFA programs! Why didnt you said so? Hell, most of us around here just read the specialiazed press for a few decades.
I am going to be blunt, you have the exact same information that i do. Your information on (lets say) the NEZ of a 9M96 versus a Raptor is zilch, nothing, nada, zero.

Sadly for the F-22, the F-35's lobby and the political games in the US, has made sure it's deterrence value is lost faster than usual.

The Raptor "IOC"ed in June 2006, the F-15A did the same in 1976, compare the entry service dates for their Russian equivalents, the PAK-FA and the SU-27.

At the end of the day, I'd say the B-2 and the B-21 are bigger worries for the Russians than the F-22 will ever be again.

The B2? The B-21?
There are twenty of them! With luck the USAF could put ten of the ******s flying at the same time. Right now, between the Raptor and DAVE there are around 350 airframes, untill the first B-21 gets to the sqn´s there will be around 1200/1400 F-22/35 airframes with the USAF.

Deterrence against the US as a whole and other peer states. You make it sounds like the T-50 and J-20 existance is only to copy the US and the F-22, in a very narrow and self-centered point of view.

"self-centered"? I am Portuguese, i dont have a dog in this fight.

It is even more obvious both China and Russia have different thing in mind than the F-22, when both planes have a more wider roles and capabilities from the get-go than the Raptor.

They will? Again that story about classified information.
Nevermind that the Russians have portrayed the PAK-FA has Raptor and Dave "killer" again, and again, and again, and again. How many Russian articles quoting the likes of Mikhail Pogosyan (or the last, lets say, three VVS bosses, good old Gen. Aleksandr Zelin by example) comparing the PAK-FA with the Raptor do you want? Google it, try "Pogosyan F-22"...

Thing is, a lot of people are still stuck with the 90's F-22 propaganda push, that it could wipe out everything under the sun. It might been true 15 years ago, but nowadays is quickly becoming as impactful in the battlefield as an F-117 would be today...

And where did i mentioned that the Raptor could "wipe out everything under the sun"?
Last time i´ve checked every time that one of our most ardent american friends around here started with that talk i´ve ended up stucking photos of several Luftwaffe Phoons carrying quite a number of raptor kill marks... Ask the likes of Hopsalot, Spud or BIO.
What i´ve said is that the Raptor was built has a deterrent versus peer and near peer adversaries, that it worked its obvious, or else the Russians and the Chinese wouldnt have been throwing billions upon billions trying to counter it for the last two decades.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

Deterrence against who?
Russia, China and (once upon a time) Iran, or any other peer or near peer country that happens to be at ods with the US Foreign Policy for the next twenty five years.
On the bit about the "Jihadist don't give a hoot about the F-22", well there´s a reason why the Pentagon fields around five hundred Reapers, Predators and Grey Eagles, it has something to do with fanatical bearded idiots with Kalashnikov´s and Technical´s, on the "and Russia doesn't either" bit, sorry you are entirely wrong. For the last two decades severall VVS high ranking chaps have publicly comented on the Raptor on top of that the development of the Sukhoi T-50 entirely dispels the idea that the VVS doesnt "give a hoot about the F-22", they do. With the amount of money they are throwing at Double Digit SAM´s and the T-50 they clearly "give a hoot"...

SAM are needed against cruise and billistic missile saturated attacks. Plus SAMs are faster and cheaper to upgrade and less manpower intensive in deployment.


Warn the Russians and the Chinese, they didnt get the memo, or else the T-50 and the J-20 are being developed for what?

T-50 has twice the supersonic range of Flanker and more than likely the sensors power and altitude will overwhelm anything just like MIG-31BM2.

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081


T-50 has twice the supersonic range of Flanker and more than likely the sensors power and altitude will overwhelm anything just like MIG-31BM2.

Please take your nationalistic comment else where JSR.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

when you don't have any technical rebuttal than comment become nationalistic.
Range is key criteria so that it can be parked outside most cruise and billistic strikes from multiple platofrms. its a highly technical field to design such thing at places outside the cost inflation of rest of population economics. it cant be built in private enterprizes nor foreign help or diversity. that works in olympics but not in this field.


http://sputniknews.com/military/20160813/1044240817/russia-defense-fighter-jet-military.html
Not only does the T-50 have superior maneuverability compared to the F-35, but it also travels at a 30% higher speed with a range over 2,000 miles farther.

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081

when you don't have any technical rebuttal than comment become nationalistic.
Range is key criteria so that it can be parked outside most cruise and billistic strikes from multiple platofrms. its a highly technical field to design such thing at places outside the cost inflation of rest of population economics. it cant be built in private enterprizes nor foreign help or diversity. that works in olympics but not in this field.

Normally , i couldnt careless about your trolling but F-35 range on internal fuel is 2220 km , if PAK-FA can travel 2000 miles longer that would bring its range to 5440 km ,not a chance.You outright lying

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

I did not produce that range figure. remember it has twice the supersonic range of Flanker. so subsonic range of 1.5 times of Flanker will bring it at about 5400km is very reasonable. just 25% aerodynamic efficiency over Flanker bring its range above 5000km.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

Normally , i couldnt careless about your trolling but F-35 range on internal fuel is 2220 km , if PAK-FA can travel 2000 miles longer that would bring its range to 5440 km ,not a chance.You outright lying

Typical BS from Sputnik and JSR, why so surprise ?:highly_amused:

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

I did not produce that range figure. remember it has twice the supersonic range of Flanker. so subsonic range of 1.5 times of Flanker will bring it at about 5400km is very reasonable.

TWICE THESUPERSONC RANGE IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OFFICIAL SOURCE ( AND SINCE ONE OF THEM SUPERCRUISE , THE OTHER DOESNOT, SO EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE IT DOESNT TRANSLATE TO 5400 KM RANGE )

just 25% aerodynamic efficiency over Flanker bring its range above 5000km.

25% AERODYNAMIC EFFICIENCY ISNOT THAT SIMPLE TO GET

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

I did not produce that range figure. remember it has twice the supersonic range of Flanker. so subsonic range of 1.5 times of Flanker will bring it at about 5400km is very reasonable. just 25% aerodynamic efficiency over Flanker bring its range above 5000km.
Here I have to disagree.. It may have twice the supersonic range of a Flanker but that would not automatically translate to an advantage in subsonic. We have to wait up the true figures..

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

Really? I "make it sounds like the US has a F-15 sized fleet of F-22 and readily available for deployment at all times"?! When did i do that?
And me thinking that the USAF fields roughly 120 combat coded Raptors, plus another roughly sixty block 10 units, wich are used for training. How many SU-27/SU-35´s does Russia have?

Around 45 Su-27SM
12 Su-27SM3
20 Su-30M2
50'ish Su-35s
70'ish Su-30SM

Around 4 air regiments of base Su-27S
Could be less.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

TWICE THESUPERSONC RANGE IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OFFICIAL SOURCE ( AND SINCE ONE OF THEM SUPERCRUISE , THE OTHER DOESNOT, SO EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE IT DOESNT TRANSLATE TO 5400 KM RANGE )

25% AERODYNAMIC EFFICIENCY ISNOT THAT SIMPLE TO GET


writing in caps will not make you more credible. just look at airline efficiency compared to 1970s. T-50 is built with most composites.


http://forces.tv/78833815

Bondarev added that the the PAK-FA's operational engine, dubbed 'Type 30', will go into production in 2018 after testing next year.

It's currently flying with two AL-41F1 engines which give it a top speed of 2,600 km/h (1,600 mph), and a range of 5,500 km (3,400 miles).


http://superjet100.info/en-wiki:dolotovsky
The perfect aerodynamics - interview with A.Dolotovsky

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

writing in caps will not make you more credible. just look at airline efficiency compared to 1970s. T-50 is built with most composites.

Iam asking for official information not some numbers from the tabloid where the editor dont even know the difference between miles and km. ( it quite sneaky of him to put his own interpretation number between the quote line)
Officially Sukhoi themselves haven't release info about PAK-FA range, according to india official, their HAL FGFA ( Which is basically PAK-FA) max range is 3500 km on subsonic

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

HAL FGFA cant be PAKFA. PAKFA is exclusively designed for Ruaf that's why no foreign pilot has tested it. they will make modifications to it for separate export model with different materails and ram paint for different rcs. the weight of inside electronics will also be different. no one has said anything about 3500km range.

Su-30MKI has 3000km range while Su-35 with more powerfull engines have 3600km range with 4AAMs for export. T-50 will outperform it by wide margin.

http://sohanews.sohacdn.com/k:2015/1-fmga-468-1439340408621/sieu-tiem-kich-t50-that-sung-su35-gianh-hop-dong-lon.jpg