Looking ahead to 2020, there are several nations which will be deploying powerful combinations of fighter aircraft designed for the air to air role. How would you rank these combinations in terms of there overall air to air combat capability? Are there any others I'm overlooking?
US: F22 & F35A
US: F22 & F15C
US: F15C & F35A
UK: Eurofighter Typhoon & F35B
China: J20 & J31
China: J20 & SU30MKK
China: J31 & SU30MKK
Russia: PAK FA & SU35
Another possibility:
India: Rafale & SU30MKI
Japan: F15J & F35A
Israel: F15I & F35A
>>30191648
This seems like the best to be honest, after the US combinations.
>>30191612
Don't forget
US: F/A-18E/F & F-35C
US: EA-18G & F-35C
The two above are also the RAAF's, just with the C swapped for an A.
>>30191612
>J20
>J31
>PAK-FA
>SU30
>SU35
>Deployed by 2020
Haha, no.
>>30193856
The J-20 is in production set for active duty sometime before 2018.
>>30191612
What if instead of developing new aircraft, countries had focused on just making better missiles instead?
>>30193876
doubt.jpg
>>30193901
He's probably right but it doesn't matter because the J-20 is shit anyway. It's stealth is useless because its smog trail will give it away.
>>30193893
What happens if countries developed aircraft that could launch missiles instead?
Think of the possibilities.
>>30193922
Smog trail is indistinguishable in the cancer smog that covers all the major cities.
![aoz8kgx8pzknypz7z38n[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/phtJz4y.jpg "aoz8kgx8pzknypz7z38n[1].jpg")
>>30193893
>>30193949
>
small budgets
>>30193988
What's that?
>>30191648
Yes
>>30191862
Man I can't wait to see the F-35 in other countries color schemes.
>>30191612
>SU30MKK
Why this instead of the J-11? They were bought over 10 years ago and they will become even more irrelevant when the J-11D enters service.
>>30191612
France: Rafale & Drone
>>30193935
Defensive deployment only it seems...
>>30197261
Fugg.. wrong post reply to. I meant:
>>30193947
>>30197169
Drone's not an operational system; it's a tech demo for the FCAS; a joint British and French UCAV intended for introduction in the 2030s.
>>30197331
>Drone's not an operational system
[a] drone, not the nEUROn drone.
>it's a tech demo for the FCAS
No, it's a tech demo for the tech, the joint FCAS was coined up far after the nEUROn started and is just one of potential systems to utilize things they've learned and developed in that project.
>2030s.
They are aiming to have initial operational capability by 2025, senpai
>>30193935
>not using missile to launch more missile
>>30191612
Modern tier
>f22, f35
last gen tier
>everything else
>>30197500
>f22, f35
How does that grounded and discontinued feels like?
>>30197832
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/with-sukhoi-fleet-grounded-india-without-a-third-of-its-fighter-jets-682996
>>30197832
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/su-27s-grounded-after-karelia-crash/461256.html
>>30197832
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-s-mig-29-fighter-jets-grounded-after-yet-another-crash/524992.html
>>30197832
http://www.janes.com/article/57464/russia-grounds-mig-31-fleet-following-crash
>>30191612
For Russia, you can add the MiG-31BM2.
And if the MoD wants some more Su-30SM's, they could perhaps further modernise the Su-30SME (upgraded SM for export) and turn it into a SM2.
>>30197832
F-22 problems are gone. The F-35's problems are getting solved and the problems that still remain, are less significant in severity and too will be dealt with in time as the airframe enters service (A and C. B is allready in service) and matures.
>>30191648
Poo missiles away?
>>30198974
Plus the big "current" issues should mostly go away with 3f and be historical once version 4+ releases.
>>30191632
They aren't even subtle about this shit.
>>30199028
And yet, the wiki will stay un updated and still be listing issues from 2008.
Its seriously a problem, the chicoms and the vatnik are successfully waging a edit war to keep every single negative ANYTHING up. Its like a hit piece at the moment.
Read the chat, its pathetic.
>>30191736
looks photoshopped as fuck tbhfam
also
>front control surface canards
>rear engines are obviously Saturn 117S ripped from an SU-27
stealthy as a gay pride parade
>>30193294
Curry detected.
>>30191862
>>30197162
i like the paint scheme, but dear jehova, that roundel is hideous
i'd love to see the F35 in these colours though, but im pretty sure that with just 37 on order, we'll just stick to the F16 instead
>>30199067
I remember when I once tried to edit a Wikipedia article; I was doing it completely in good faith with a source, but people just reverted it.
>>30199128
>but im pretty sure that with just 37 on order, we'll just stick to the F16 instead
>Dutch person detected.
Ja, nee. De F-16 is aan het einde van zijn leven. Alle Nederlandse F-16's zijn zo oud, dat de onderhoud ervan steeds duurder en duurder word en de hoeveelheid toestellen die paraat staan word ook minder vanwege de bezuinigingen op het kopen van onderdelen en dus worden bestaande vliegtuigen gekanibaliseerd.
>>30199075
The Su-27 is powered by AL-31F's (Various models), not by the AL-41F1S (117S).
>>30199067
>Its seriously a problem, the chicoms and the vatnik are successfully waging a edit war to keep every single negative ANYTHING up.
...But why? This is going to end up biting those vatniks (Bydlo) in the asses hard. Fuck them, they ruin the image of genuine pro-Russian people like me.
>>30199233
>...But why?
Wikipedia is the most trafficed information site in the world
If they can convince the plebs the bird is still experiencing TWENTY FOUR paragraphs worth of issues, maybe the russians and Chinese can limit its export for the time being.
Its generally not working, but it is annoying.
>>30199233
>Ja, nee.
ik doelde puur op het feit dat de F16 waarschijnlijk het displayvliegtuig blijft, aangezien we van die 37 F35's er niet nog eentje als showpaardje gaan achterhouden
maar wie weet, defensie heeft wel eens eerder rare plannen doorgevoerd
>>30191632
Do you guys think it will be comparable to the F-35 whilst costing a fraction of the price or will it be complete shit?
Seems like the slant-eyed fucks copied nearly everything, but seeing the problems the F-35 was plagued with could mean they'd have some major issues in remedying this from reverse-engineering only?
>>30199233
>>30199481
Zouden we beter af zijn geweest met iets anders dan de F-35 of mogelijkerwijs door later instappen voordeliger uitgeweest zijn?
Ik krijg de indruk dat Nederland, met al een bizar debiel en karig beleid voor defensie, teringveel betalen voor deze kist waar afwachten en later aanschaffen beter was geweest?! Klopt mijn idee dat de lobbygroepen gewoon keihard smeergeld hebben afgedragen en de belastingbetaler hier voor opgedraaid heeft of was dit niet te omzeilen?
>>30191648
>Fire Fox-Poo
I'm dumb, why would you need multiple fighters for the air to air role?
For instance, what does the F-35 bring to the table that the F-22 doesn't? Numbers?
>>30199692
The major issue is Slav and Chinese engines.
They SUUUUUCCCKKK at making powerful engines. That's probably a big reason why China went with 2 engines- they literally can't make a single engine that powerful and reliable.
Similarly the Russian engines need frequent overhauls and maintenance relative to American and euro engines. They basically over clock their engines to keep pace with our own, at the cost of regular overhauls (like 4 major overhauls) In contrast an American engine with 10,000 hours of life may only have a single overhaul.
Overhauls are not easy. They take the plane out of commision for a while.
Think of it like car maintenance. An overhaul would be:
>changing the brake pads
>changing the sway bars
>changing the spark plugs
>changing the air filters
>cleaning out carbon buildup
>replacing the radiator hoses and cleaning it out
>cleaning out the engine oil and replacing the filters
>replacing the tires
>replacing the belt
>checking for timing issues and fixing seams on the head gasket assembly
>replacing any air conditioning coolant (if you have those)
>detailing the finish
>repairing any frame stress and seams
You basically are trying to get it back into factory-fresh condition. American planes do that ONCE. Russians do it FOUR times or something like that. I can only imagine what Chinese engines go through.
>>30199799
Numbers as well as a better sensor suite. An F-22 is mega-overkill for most AA combat, it's basically an alien starfighter. But the tech is valuable and losing an F-22 would be hard to replace (if we did replace it at all), and the risk of lost tech could mean that the Chinese good get some of the sweet RAM and other fun stuff.
In short, an F-35 will probably BTFO any gen 4.5+ anyway! and it's cheaper and easier to replace.
It can also carry more ordinance if I recall.
Lastly there is no Navy variant F-22, but there IS a navy variant f-35
>>30191612
Syria: MIG-23 & Mi-8
>>30199475
>If they can convince the plebs the bird is still experiencing TWENTY FOUR paragraphs worth of issues, maybe the russians and Chinese can limit its export for the time being.
Pfffffff, that is ridiculous. It doesnt work for the F-22A anyway because its banned for export by Congress. Its why Carlo Kopp is so frustrated and vents his anger onto the F-35 and "blames" it for ruining prospects of Australia ever getting F-22's.
>>30199481
Ah op zo'n manier.
>>30199754
Qua gevechtsvliegtuigen is er niet veel om te kiezen. De Eurofighter is hyperduur (duurder dan de F-35), hetzelde geld voor de Rafale in mindere mate en de Gripen is in feite een Scandinavische F-16. En kopen van nieuwe F-16's of F-18's is een dom idee want de productie-lijnen gaan in een aantal jaar toch dicht en vele landen zullen dezelfde vliegtuigen toch met pensioen sturen.
Als de regering eens defensie serieus zou gaan nemen, dan is het kopen van de F-35 geen enkel probleem.
>>30199692
I imagine it will be like every other chinese ripoff, looks the same but inferior in build quality/tech
>>30199692
To be clear the main aspect they are lacking in is the material science. They need to figure out how to build engines that can withstand heat and stress on the insane scale that our engines can. And that is both hard and expensive, hence why you only see jets coming from rich and advanced nations (or at least top of the line ones).
Fuel is a related issue. Jet fuel burns fucking hot, but produces a lot of energy to move. But again, that causes heat to the frame.
America and NATO as a whole have really mastered ceramics and other heat-resistant alloys and materials. China and Russia have largely lagged behind.
You could go back to WW2 America and hand them all the tooling for an F-22, bring on the original construction teams and workers, and give them an exact step-by-step instructional manual on how to build it and they literally couldn't. They simply didn't have the materials necessary to build it, nor the knowledge of how to process the materials if you gave them all the raw components.
That's why it isn't a big deal that the Chinese have the basic drawing and engineering prints of some things- the aerodynamic stuff isn't necessarily the hard part, it's the "how it's made" part that is super duper important.
>>30199799
The F-22 isn't a multi-role. It's an Air Superiority fighter that can use its current radar as a ground targeting system. It has no other means of ground targeting except received coordinates and maybe buddy lasing. It's also limited to 1000lbs class munitions and is short a pair of external pylon points.
The F-35, on the other hand, can haul 2000 pounders internally, and the inboard pylons are rated for over 5000lbs each. It has both the EODAS and EOTS for ground target acquisition and engagement, plus the radar scanning, can lase ground targets for LGBs, and its comms suite can talk to pretty much anything, both voice and data. And, probably more importantly, the computer actively scans all the sensors' results to match and tag ground and air targets, as well as syncing with ground Situational Awareness systems like FBCB2/BFT and NETT Warrior, giving an unprecedented level of friendly fire protection.
>>30199833
>Russians do it FOUR times or something like that.
Flankers ship with four spare engines, and each engine needs two lifetime overhauls.
>>30199932
>To be clear the main aspect they are lacking in is the material science. They need to figure out how to build engines that can withstand heat and stress on the insane scale that our engines can. And that is both hard and expensive, hence why you only see jets coming from rich and advanced nations (or at least top of the line ones).
And by the time they figure that out we'll have been flying ADVENT dual-mode bypass engines for a decade.
>>30199754
>Zouden we beter af zijn geweest met iets anders dan de F-35 of mogelijkerwijs door later instappen voordeliger uitgeweest zijn?
ik zal niet beweren dat ik ook maar een greintje verstand heb van luchtruimsverdediging etc. in de 21ste eeuw, maar 37 stuks klinkt naar mijn idee als weinig, gezien we nu een kleine 60 F16's hebben, die we gaan vervangen met minder dan 40 F35's. Waarschijnlijk zullen de F16's nog wel even in dienst blijven, maar toch.
natuurlijk is de F35 veel moderner en zal relatief gezien ook onderhoudsvriendelijker zijn, maar stiekem denk ik dat een groter aantal, goedkopere en reeds bewezen toestellen รก la Grippen hadden kunnen aanschaffen.
maar als NATO lid dat al jaren onder de 2% norm lummelt en al een ondermaatse strijdmacht bezit is dit denk een ook een politiek gemotiveerde keuze om te laten zien dat we nog mee willen spelen. De hoge prijs die we betalen voor het vroege instappen heeft hier wellicht mee te maken, iets wat overigens gedeeltelijk goedgepraat kan worden met het idee dat de toestellen gedeeltelijk in Nederland gebouwd zullen worden(in ieder geval onderdelen dacht ik).
later instappen was wellicht voordeliger geweest, maar zoals >>30199233 aangeeft zijn de F16's hard aan vervanging toe.
het recente plan voor een defensieakkoord dat meerdere jaren geldt (volgens mij een kabinetsperiode) is naar mijn idee een stap in de juiste richting, maar er moet nog een hoop gebeuren voordat we de snoeipraktijken van de afgelopen jaren hebben verholpen.
>>30199968
Right I knew that Four number was coming from somewhere.
>>30199692
As above anon noted, a flanker needs 4 engines and 2 overhauls each.
Assuming they have a frame life of about 10,000 hours like ours (perhaps a generous assumption) that is 10,000/8 = 1250 hours per engine overhaul, not to mention frequent maintenance in between.
In contrast the American engines get 5,000 hours between overhauls.
You can do the mental math on reliability and availability when they are constantly being overhauled.
I imagine Chinese engines are somewhat similar to Russian engines, then again the Chinese have more money to blow on them.
>>30199833
>>30199932
Thanks for the explanation, so my hunch that the stolen "outward" design might be shitty, it will not enable the chink plane to be on-par with actual real deal due to Western advances which they simply cannot stea or effectively copy.
>>30199921
Zonder twijfel zou er verdomme meer geld naar defensie moeten, zeker als je kijkt hoe andere pret-projecten en geldverspilling onverminderd doorgaat.
Over de andere gevechtsvliegtuigen gesproken, was iets als F-15SE misschien niet beter geweest gezien het huidige budget of zou hier weer tegen de zelfde onderhouds-problemen aangelopen worden?
>>30200058
Whoops I made an error. Flankers come with 4 SPARE engines, and start with two.
That would be 6 engines at 2 overhauls per.
10000/12 overhauls = ~833 flight hours per overhaul.
That's even WORSE by a significant margin.
>>30200058
>As above anon noted, a flanker needs 4 engines and 2 overhauls each.
6 engines, it comes with a pair in the airframe and four spares.
>>30200058
>>30200130
And they have to ship the engines back to Russia for overhaul.
>>30200121
Unless their materials sciences and manufacturing makes an absolute incredible leap in the next decade they will be safely outpaced.
However that isn't to say that they would be easy targets.
If they can get it up in the air and still have similar kinematics and have a decent RAM its possible the Chinese knock-off could pose a threat to some of our planes, particularly 4.5+ ones like Super Hornets or Growlers or aerial refuelers, as well as boats.
The Chinese Air Force, like everything else, isn't really designed to deter the USAF. Basically no one can take on the USAF. Even the USNAF is too much. But the surface fleet of the USN can be deterred if you have a stealthy plane (or partially stealthy) with a good Anti-Ship Missile.
At the least it could buy them standoff range and be a threat to their smaller neighbors who don't buy F-35s or have the benefit of American security, like Vietnam.
The US Navy is China's greatest threat. All other threats come second.
>>30200141
Which adds to their unavailability times.
In contrast, I am willing to bet by 2025 any American ally could land a F-35 at one of our air strips and we could repair it in short order, or at least have technical consultants easily available. Presumably we would even pay for the repair because so many NATO allies coast on our largesse (like it or not this is true). The reverse would be true too, if an American F-35 had to emergency-land in an allied nation that owns F-35s there would be repair crews on hand to help (granted,new would probably have to pay for our own).
>>30200172
They only have to face part of the USNAF and maybe the Japanese.
>>30201228
With how much other Asian countries are pissed I wouldn't be surprised if we see a greater coalition going against China, like a local NATO. Maybe not to that much integration, but a basic framework for aiding one another as China fucks with Vietnamese rivers and builds islands and oil rigs in uncomfortable places.
>>30191862
Looked up the specs for the m-346 that Israel is buying.
It has a stall speed of 110 mph. I suspect they're going to be used to kill drones.
Bumping
>>30204892
Last one is wrong, the F-35C is both Hi and Lo since it is superior to the F/A-18E/F
Unless we are talking pure costs, I wouldn't be surprised if a new F/A-18E/F would be more expensive than an F-35C once the F-35s reach full production and the F-18s decrease.
Something i found. Even has some what-ifs.
>>30199833
This makes sense, because in the 90s like the vast majority of Mig-29s were in non flyable condition, I'm talking over 70%.
>>30204920
I think it's because the F/A-18E/F replaced the F-14, that's why it's on the Hi :/
