@franknbeans4761 Actually, man, the yesterday incident, when the Iranian downed the most advanced stealth UAV, showed clearly that such UAVs simply can't be used in wars against a military power. If Iran managed to shoot your most advanced stealth UAV, what make you think these UAVs could work in a war against Russia or China?
@franknbeans4761 Well, the RAMs wouldn't be a problem. You don't need to make a very stealthy UCAV. They're smaller (so they have smaller RCSs anyway) and besides that, you have no pilot who's life you must protect. So there's not need to make them super-stealthy. So this is one of the areas where you could make savings when building this kind of aircraft.
@StiviGun1 But also, for the F-35, you technically could incorporate advanced avionics into any plane, but it is immensely difficult to do that & develop all of it. The F-35's AN/APG-81 radar is excellent & even won awards with it's immunity to jamming. Also, it's situational awareness with it's 6 sensors beat out any other aircraft. It's jammer will also be top of the line. I would say having all of this per aircraft make it very exceptional.
@franknbeans4761 What do you mean, man? The avionics incorporated ion the F-35 could've been very well incorporated on the Super Tomcat. In fact, the Super Tomcat would've had an AESA radar. But it had far better performances which the F-35 lacks. The recent Pentagon report on this plane clearly proves this. All the avionics the F-35 can be incorporated on any aircraft. What you're suggesting is that since they already have an aircraft with these avionics, they should keep it
@franknbeans4761 even though its performances are very poor... Regarding the costs, I highly doubt that another aircraft can be more expensive than the F-35, who's costs continue to rise. And its performances, to decrease... The F-35 is the biggest scam in the US' military industry history. If I were them, I would cancel both the F-35B and the F-35C. The last one, which is also the most expensive, must definitely be canceled.
@StiviGun1 Also, a second X-47B just had a test flight. It will eventually be yet another asset in the US naval arsenal. And a very valuable weapon for sea control. So while China has only 1-3 carriers (I doubt 6 will be made, but even if there were, it is still immensely inferior) the US will have 11, all with much better aircraft. And with the F-35, E-2, & X-47B; a single US carrier group could take on at least 2 Chinese carrier groups and win.
@franknbeans4761 The X-47B won't make any difference if the main naval fighter is just unsuited for its role... Regarding China and its carriers, you continue to focus on just one aspect and one capability at a time. China has more than just its carriers, it has ballistic missiles and subs, all these being very difficult to tackle when working together. And the US doesn't have superior naval fighters, China's J-15 will be superior to both the Super Hornet and the F-35 as far as
@franknbeans4761 performances are concerned. The J-15 will have higher speed, better maneuverability, larger weapons payload, so no, the US navy won't have better aircraft. And the X-47B won't change this in any way. The USN needs powerful naval fighters. If you can add stealth to them, that's even better, but you can't sacrifice performances for stealth and avionics, like they're doing with the F-35.
@StiviGun1 the J-15's radar wouldn't be able to detect the F-35. It is already outdated. It is going to face aircraft that are a full generation ahead of it. And will be forced to operate off of land. If you want to talk about land based planes fighting naval planes, then include all US military aircraft.
@franknbeans4761 The J-15 is not even fully developed yet, so you don;t know what radar it will have. The Chinese have made great progress in radar technology, so the chances are the J-15 will have a very advanced radar. So it won't be forced to operate off of land at all. Why would they build a naval fighter that will operate from land? That doesn't give them any of the advantages carriers offer, it would be completely illogical.
@StiviGun1 Regarding Chinese carriers in general, do you know how tremendous their problems have been and still are? They are even having trouble obtaining arrestor hooks.
They are barely having sea trials with their first carrier that took years to even leave harbor. And you think they will have 5-6 in 10-15 years?
Even if they made 3, that certainly isn't enough. And no matter what, they still have massively inferior escorts and their carrier design is inferior to begin with.
@StiviGun1 As for the UCAV solution, no not more F-35's; but like you said, more F-22's. Why spend much more time developing new, expensive, & complicated UCAV's when you could order more F-22's. It isn't to late to do so too, they are still producing more of them right now to finish filling orders & there is no reason they couldn't restart production in 3-4 years. Time will tell.
@franknbeans4761 Yeah, it would be very nice to restart the F-22 production. Ordering 785 of them as they initially, during Reagan's administration intended, would be superb. That would form an aerial fighting force no one would dare to challenge.
But regarding UCAV, they will never be as complex as the manned fighters and they will always cost less. The only problem with them is that they will be remotely operated and an enemy could interfere with the link between the command post and teh UAV.
@StiviGun1 I should say that the Vikramaditya will have terrible carrier handling. It has 2 deck-centre lifts which would seriously disrupt carrier operations. It also only has a ski jump & no catapults so they can't park aircraft on the jump & the lack of catapults severely limits their payloads. The Vikramaditya also has it's island awkwardly placed towards the center taking up a lot of space.
The ski jump limitations is the same for the Vikrant, Varyag, & Admiral Kuznetsov.
@franknbeans4761 Well, these carriers may not have the same capabilities as the US carriers, but they will increase the Indian, Russian and Chinese navies' capabilities nonetheless. But what I find amazing is how the American engineers can be so careful at details when they're designing certain systems, in this case carriers, and be so sloppy when they're designing other systems, like ballistic missile systems and anti-aircraft missile systems for the ground forces.
If this is already in testing then it will absolutely be available in the next 10 years. So the odds of China having to face that as well makes it very hard, at least considering it's current escort ships & their planned ones.
But even then, 3-6 small, inferior, aircraft carriers still couldn't match 11 supercarriers & 12 America Class ships.
@StiviGun1 But even if foreign navies get carriers & increase their capabilities, that still doesn't mean they can challenge the USN.
And what do you mean American engineers are careless with other systems? The RIM-161 is the longest ranged ABM/BMD system. Also, the THAAD is very good. And the new hypersonic system seems excellent. Do you mean with the Patriot? The original PAC-1 Patriot wasn't intended for ABM purposes. I would also say the PAC-3 missile is good.
@franknbeans4761 Explain why nobody could challenge the USN even though they do acquire carriers and increase their capabilities?
And when I talked about how the engineers are careless with other systems, I was referring to the systems they build for the US Army. Systems like Lance or Pershing were just embarrassing, really, in contrast to their Russian counterparts, like Tochka, Oka or the RSD-10 Pioneer.
@StiviGun1 Why on Earth would you compare the Pershing missile, a missile made in 1960, to the Tochka, a missile that came out 16 & 26 (depending on the variant) years after? That is not a fair comparison at all.
@franknbeans4761 Tochka came in in early '70s, not, "16&26" years later... So the comparison is very valid. The RSD-10, which was basically the Pershing II's contemporary counterpart, was far superior. So like I said, I never understood why the US never build similar, fully mobile systems. Could have been because of fear of the USSR??? I don't know, all I know is that it always came up with inferior missile systems. The only period where it had superior missiles was the '50s.
@StiviGun1 The Tochka entered service in 1976. The Pershing entered service in 1960. And the newer, more capable version of the Tochka entered service in 1986. That isn't a fair comparison.
Also, the RSD-10 is nothing like the Tochka, Pershing, or any of those missiles. The RSD-10 is an ICBM, not a theater ballistic missile.
@franknbeans4761 Well why hasn't the US built anothe, more capable, fully mobile ballistic missile system? Or simply put the Pershing on a better platform? The comparison is very fair. What comparison would be fair to you...?
Regarding the RSD-10, it was designed as a MRBM, only later, it evolved in an ICBM. And the only way the US countered this, was to sign some treaties...
@StiviGun1 As for theater ballistic missiles, the US deems it unnecessary. That is why the US has so many cruise missiles. They chose to use those over large theater missiles. Which is an alright decision. Especially considering the platforms are much more survivable & there are many more missiles.
@franknbeans4761 And what other cruise missile, besides, the Gryphon, did the US deploy, during the Cold War? The Gryphon was also a semi-mobile system, not as quickly deployable as the Russian mobile SRBMs and MRBMs. The US barely developed and deployed field missile systems. Now why was that? Were they too afraid of the soviets?
@StiviGun1 Well, the US used the Gryphon, yes, & the sea based Tomahawk.
But the US used the AGM-28 Hound Dog, the MGM-1 Matador, & the MGM-13 Mace. The US relied on it's strategic bombers & cruise missiles a bit more than the USSR did.
The Pershing & Lance were only theater ballistic missiles that played a small role.
@franknbeans4761 The AGM-28 was an air launched missile, not a land based mobile system. All the others that you've mentioned were developed during the '50s. They haven't been replaced with other, more capable systems. Why didn't the US build more such systems constantly, like the soviets did, that's what I'm asking? Sure, the US was relying on its air power, but ballistic missiles are very capable weapons, more dangerous than aircraft. Furthermore, there was a race between
@StiviGun1 Well either way, the RSD-10 is an ICBM. Not a theater missile like the Pershing & Lance.
And the US purposefully made more air launched cruise missiles. That is the point I was making. They didn't want to rely solely on ICBM's & wanted more air launched cruise missiles. Which is smart considering these cruise missiles can be easily modified to fight conventional wars. It clearly paid off much more for the US.
@franknbeans4761 Only SOME versions of the RSD-10 were considered ICBMs, but none of them was actually deployed. Its max range was about 4300 km, which makes it a MRMB.
And what were those more air launched cruise missiles? Because the USSR surpassed you in this capability too. Their KH-55 missile is better than anything you have, for instance. Furthermore, aircraft cannot replace field mobile missile systems. These systems can be emplaced much quicker and they don't need such a
@StiviGun1 Theater missiles for the most part are much closer to the combat area than ALCM's. But the Kh-55 entered service in 1984. It is much more comparable to the Tomahawk. So don't compare it to older missiles.
@franknbeans4761 Theater missiles can respond much quicker than aircraft. That's why the soviets developed so many of them, even though they also had a very large air force.
Regarding the Kh-55, I wasn't comparing it with anything, I was just responding to you statement that you didn't develop field missile systems because you relied more on air launched weapons. The soviets surpassed you in this area too.
@franknbeans4761 BTW, what do you want to say with theater weapons being closer to combat areas than ALCMs? That's their advantage. They can be used for much quicker reactions. So this is another advantage over air launched cruise missiles and aircraft in general.
@StiviGun1 "BTW, what do you want to say with theater weapons being closer to combat areas than ALCMs? That's their advantage."
They are much closer to the battlefield, meaning UAV's could easily strike them or other small assets, whereas bombers can safely be half a world away.
Having an ALCM means not only having a massive standoff range with the missile already, but by having the launch platform be much more mobile, flexible, abundant, and versatile.
@franknbeans4761 During Cold War there were no such UAVs... But even in this day, UAVs are very easy prey to SAMs and fighters. Mobile theater weapons have the advantage of being deployed quickly, launch a weapons that's extremely hard, if not impossible to intercept and move quickly, before the enemy has time to react. Against an aircraft, it's far easier to react. Those huge bombers are easy to shoot down by fighters.
An air based platform for a missile would not be more
@franknbeans4761 And what bomber has the capability to attack a target from thousands of km? There's no such weapon in anyone's arsenal today. And a theater missile can have anywhere between 500-5500 km range. So no, it wouldn't be just a few km away from its target.
No, I don't think a fighter would be able to break through hundreds of km of defenses. That's why I said that theater mobile missile systems are needed. There are objectives fighters can't reach but which missiles can.
@franknbeans4761 An ICBM is a ballistic missile that has a range of over 5500 km... The others are IRBM, MRBM, or short range ballistic missiles, all can be used as theater missile systems. Go make more research.
@StiviGun1 "No, I don't think a fighter would be able to break through hundreds of km of defenses. That's why I said that theater mobile missile systems are needed. There are objectives fighters can't reach but which missiles can."
Jesus, the planes don't go and drop bombs, they launch a missile from far away that hits it's target. Come on. Wow. What I was saying is that the bomber is well inside it's own territory when it launches the missiles and would remain untouched by fighters.
@franknbeans4761 Well if it remains inside its territory, then what's the point of using an aircraft, which is more expensive than a truck with a launcher on it? After all, an aircraft's duty is to go over an enemy's territory, not to stay in its own territory. But maybe you can give me an example of a US bomber that can launch attacks from over the US territory because I've never heard of such a bomber.
@franknbeans4761 "abundant" because an aircraft is harder and more expensive to build and produce than a truck.
"meaning UAV's could easily strike them or other small assets, whereas bombers can safely be half a world away". Like I said, UAVs are easy to deal with. Furthermore, theater weapons have the advantage of a much quicker reaction, while bombers take some time before they reach their target, which they may not even be able to strike anyway.
@StiviGun1 " Furthermore, theater weapons have the advantage of a much quicker reaction, while bombers take some time before they reach their target, which they may not even be able to strike anyway."
Not when you always have some on station, the US even has this in the Pacific during peace time, it's easy.
@franknbeans4761 Not that easy as with theater mobile weapons. Furthermore, missiles can strike targets that are inaccessible to airplanes. Bombers have their role, but when it comes to hard reaching targets, theater weapons are the best option. That's why the soviets feared and built such weapons while having no problem against the US bombers.
@franknbeans4761 The Iskander is a TACTICAL ballistic missile. I was talking about missiles in the RSD-10 category. Such systems can be emplaced much quicker than you can make a bomber ready for flight and they can deliver strikes that are much harder to intercept than a bomber. A bomber is good when you want to attack specific targets while having the option of cancelling the mission. But not against very hard reaching targets. Missiles are much better suited for this.
@franknbeans4761 And what are those cruise missiles that are harder to track than ballistic missiles? Do you understand what "tracking a missile" means? Ballistic missiles are much harder to track because of their speeds and they're also even harder to intercept because of this. They're more dangerous than cruise missiles and that's why Russia always had something to object only against US ballistic missiles development and not cruise missiles development.
@StiviGun1 "Ballistic missiles are much harder to track because of their speeds and they're also even harder to intercept because of this."
The actual launch of one is very easy to detect. And it's massive flight altitude allows all powerful ground based radars to track them. Whereas cruise missiles consistently stay low, below the radar horizon.
@StiviGun1 "That's why the soviets feared and built such weapons while having no problem against the US bombers."
You read too many comic books. How would they have "no problem against US bombers" when in order to destroy the bombers, they need to fly past their capable ranges, break through thousands of km of enemy fighter territory, and then shoot them down?
@franknbeans4761 And why the hell would they need to fly over the enemy territory to destroy the bombers when it's the bombers which need to go close to the enemy territory in order to launch an attack...? There's no bomber that can launch attacks from such long ranges. Where did you get this?
@StiviGun1 "And why the hell would they need to fly over the enemy territory to destroy the bombers when it's the bombers which need to go close to the enemy territory in order to launch an attack"
Idiot, I already said, the AGM-86 alone has a range of 1,100-2,400 km. That means the bomber can be 1,100-2,400 km AWAY from the TARGET when launching the missiles. You cannot be so dumb.
@franknbeans4761 No, you're the idiot. 1100-2400 km range does not mean the bomber can launch attacks from the US territory... So there's no need for the enemy to fly over your territory to destroy your bombers, like you said... And from 1100-2400 km, it can be intercepted fairly easy by their fighters, which have long ranges. Therefore, missiles are much more dangerous than bombers.
@franknbeans4761 these 2 powers, and the ballistic missiles were a very important par of this race. It's not logical at all that the US didn't develop very capable mobile field missile systems.
@StiviGun1 "and be so sloppy when they're designing other systems, like ballistic missile systems and anti-aircraft missile systems for the ground forces"
That kinda just sounds really ignorant & biased. The THAAD, PAC-3, & ATACMS are great systems.
@franknbeans4761 THAAD is pretty good. The others, in respect to their Chinese and Russian counterparts, are not that good. The patriot is inferior to the S-400 and also, to the S-300 PMU2 Favorit version. ATACMS is far inferior to the Iskander. But I was more referring to the Cold War period. For instance, all the ballistic missiles designed for the ground forces were inferior to their soviet counterparts. This includes Pershing and Lance.
@franknbeans4761 The S-300 came out in the same time period as the Patriot man, what are you talking about? At first, it even had similar capabilities with the Patriot and hot launch systems. It surpassed the Patriot in time.
The S-400 cant be compared with the AEGIS because it's a land based system, not a naval one. Also, it was built from the S-300, it's not a completely new system. The US could do the same with the Patriot.
@StiviGun1 "The S-400 cant be compared with the AEGIS because it's a land based system, not a naval one."
The US was making major strides in ABM and BMD forces with the THAAD and AEGIS BMD while Russia was making the S-400. And they are both ballistic missile defense systems so they can be compared.
@StiviGun1 Also, I would say that having more F-35B's rather than AV-8's & F-18's will turn the America class into what seems like 12 light carriers. For sure at least 2. Especially since these will all have AESA radar & be stealthy. So even a mere force of 6 F-35B's could take on many air threats which would make the whole force more capable. My guess is that the 2 America class ships with no well decks might carry 20 F-35B's, depending on the mission though. Greatly enhancing the USN.
@franknbeans4761 Te America class will definitely increase the USN's capabilities, no doubt about it. But the F-35 is still not good for the naval fighter role. And the America class will only carry the B variant, which is intended to support the marines on their landing beaches, not for naval warfare. So in this regard, the America class won't bring so much improvement in the naval warfare department. The F-35B is absolutely not suited for this role.
@StiviGun1 Well, I would say that the F-35B will add new responsibilities or actually capabilities to the amphibious assault force. With the F-35B, they can act more so like light carriers. This is especially good for navies that rely on the Harrier as a naval fighter & not just for ground support. So in regards to defending landings & many other duties; the F-35B will be a big improvement.
@franknbeans4761 This is all theoretical. The performance problems they discovered recently, prove that this may not be the case in practice. The F-35C though, is definitely not good for the naval fighter role. I still remain faithful to my opinion that the Super Tomcat program must be restarted and the F-35C, cancelled.
@StiviGun1 You say that the F-35 isn't good as a naval fighter partially because of it's range, but it has much more range than the Hornet & Super Hornet. Are they not good too?
Also, when launched off of carriers, the Su-33 can only take off with a smaller amount of weight due to the ski jump. So it's combat radius is much smaller than the F-35's due to the ships.
If countries spend money to make catapults, they will utilize this. But without it, they will forever be limited.
@franknbeans4761 Yes man, that;s what I'm saying since we started this topic. Why do you think I said so many times that the Super Tomcat should've been developed in the late '80s/early '90s? The Super Hornet and in specially the Hornet are not at all good as naval fighters.
Regarding carriers with catapults, I know Russia plans to build such carriers. They will be larger than the Kuznetsov and also, nuclear powered. I don't know about China though.
@franknbeans4761 Ha ha ha... Your Hornet has been shot down in the 1st Gulf War by a MiG-25 with an outdated missile. And the MiG-25 was not even designed for dog-fighting. And how exactly have they proven to be good "for decades"? The Super Tomcat "never was" because of the stupidity of one politician who is also responsible for the 2003 Iraq campaign failure. And I don't have any "blind love" for the Super Tomcat. It simply would've been a much better fighter than these toys.
@franknbeans4761 The Super Hornet is certainly not the best the USN could've had. Ask any expert and they will tell you that the Super Hornet would've been vastly superior. It just didn't happen because of Dick Cheney's personal hatred against the Grumman company. The Super Hornet is not good AS A NAVAL FIGHTER. That's the part that you just can't get. Hell, the USAF didn't want the F-18. But somehow, they still found a way to put this thing into service and then brainwash people like you with
@franknbeans4761 cool propaganda videos. Just like Lockheed Martin is doing with the F-35 now. And you fall for it without even giving it a second thought... People like you are actually ruining the US military.
@StiviGun1 "People like you are actually ruining the US military."
What can beat it? And your only remarks on the F-35 are it's program is too long, it has problems, and they spent too much money on it. That leaves nothing convinced.
Your definition of a good naval fighter is something with 2 engines (F-18 has), great range (F-18 has), good payload (F-18 has), and good avionics (F-18 has). I don't see what your point is.
Other than the Super Tomcat, what should of been bought?
@franknbeans4761 Well, what else can I say, if for you, dragging the program for as long as they can just to get more money out of the government, means nothing? You would actually allow a company doing this just so they wouldn't go bankrupt... That's how perverted your logic is.
Regarding the naval fighter, no, the F-18 doesn't have any of the things you've mentioned. It has a very short range, very low speed and not enough payload capacity.
@StiviGun1 "dragging the program for as long as they can just to get more money out of the government"
It is too late to cancel it, too much has been devoted to it by not only the US but the world too.
And the US isn't trying to make large amounts of air superiority, neither is Russia.
Alexei Fedorov has said that any decision on applying fifth generation technologies to produce a smaller fighter (in the F-35 range) must wait until after the heavy fighter, based on the T-50, is completed.
@franknbeans4761 It's not too late at all, that's just bullshit. Lockheed Martin must eb asked to give the money back and the contract should be given to another company, which, I assure you, will be far more responsible. In specially after LM's example.
The US isn't trying to build large amounts of air superiority? Then what is is intending to do? Lose its aid dominance...?
Regadring Russia, you don't know what they're gonna do. Their official statements don't show they true
@StiviGun1 "The US isn't trying to build large amounts of air superiority? Then what is is intending to do? Lose its aid dominance...?"
What? When did I say that? The introduction of the F-22 is certainly enough air power for now. I said China won't have an entire force of only J-20's because you need strike planes, tankers, cargo planes, AWACS, and most importantly MULTI-ROLE aircraft.
Multi-role aircraft still conduct air superiority missions, are you kidding?
@franknbeans4761 I never said China will have an entire air force based on J-20. I specifically said they will have a large number of 4.5 gen fighters.
How can you say 187 F-22s are enough after you watched that 9 min video that specifically said 187 are not nearly enough? They certainly won't be enough in 2020.
Multi-role aircraft can conduct SOME air superiority missions, but saying you can rely on them for this, is just naive. You need specialized fighters for this.
@StiviGun1 "I never said China will have an entire air force based on J-20. I specifically said they will have a large number of 4.5 gen fighters."
4.5 gen fighters can't compete with 5th generation fighters.
"How can you say 187 F-22s are enough after you watched that 9 min video that specifically said 187 are not nearly enough?"
Read my comments. And 2,400 F-35's along with eventually at least 500+ F/A-XX's will be sufficient when dealing with a future Chinese force of 4.5 gen's.
@franknbeans4761 "4.5 gen fighters can't compete with 5th generation fighters." They can perform other missions. But the J-20 will definitely be able to compete with the stealth planes fleet you plan for the next 20 years.
"Read my comments. And 2,400 F-35's along with eventually at least 500+ F/A-XX's will be sufficient when dealing with a future Chinese force of 4.5 gen's." The FA-XX is not certain to enter service and the J-20 will definitely be built in much larger numbers
@franknbeans4761 than you think. So your 2400 F-35s (number which many recommend to be reduced because of technical problems BTW, so you don;t know if 2400 of them will actually be built) won't have to fight 4.5 gen fighters only. In the next 20 years, you'll have to face a large number of stealthy fighters and the F-35 won't be sufficient for that.
@StiviGun1 "no, the F-18 doesn't have any of the things you've mentioned."
The Super Hornet's payload is 17,750 lbs. Just like the Su-34. It's range is 2,346 km clean with 2 AIM-9's. It can also be converted to a tanker with ease.
The Tomcat's range was much smaller.
The Super Hornet is an excellent aircraft and you haven't presented facts or statistics saying it isn't.
@franknbeans4761 The Su-34 can carry a much larger payload than the Super Hornet on much longer ranges. Its combat radius is 1100 km, much bigger than the Super Hornet's. And the Su-34 is not even a naval fighter, which really needs large payloads, high speed, big range. The Super Hornet has neither of these. This, by itself, shows the Super Hornet is not good enough.
BTW, the Tomcat's combat radius was bigger. The Super Tomcat's would've been even bigger.
@StiviGun1 "Yeah, but the Super Hornet's range with that payload is much smaller than the Su-34's."
Possibly. Not enough information is given on the Su-34. I would say that the Super Bug's maneuverability with armament and it's versatility might outweigh it.
@StiviGun1 "And the Su-34 is not even a naval fighter, which really needs large payloads, high speed, big range."
The Super Hornets range varies. It's 722 (?) km with a very heavy load, but 2,346 km with 2 AIM-9's. So I think we can both agree that it really varies significantly. And also, I highly doubt the Su-34 could perform the maneuvers we saw in that video with a heavy load. But I do not want to get side tracked. The odds of the US fighting a war with Russia are unbelievably slim.
@franknbeans4761 "So I think we can both agree that it really varies significantly." This is the same for the Su-34. With lighter payloads, it has longer ranges. However, a naval fighter needs huge range with very heavy payloads. 722 km with the payload you talked about is a too smaller range. It should have at least over 1000 km combat radius with that payload. At least.
@StiviGun1 "However, a naval fighter needs huge range with very heavy payloads. 722 km with the payload you talked about is a too smaller range."
Well, when you compare the carrier group as a whole and look at the range in terms of the Earth itself, the Super Hornet's ability to be a tanker make it more effective than any other naval force. Also, in terms of payload of other naval fighters, the Super Hornet is just as good as any other naval fighter.
@StiviGun1 In general, I thought it was odd we even compared the Super Hornet (a naval fighter) with the Su-34. The Strike Eagle is much more on terms with it.
The Su-33 is more of a comparison. But either way, no matter what, ski jumps limit your payload significantly. Where steam catapults greatly help.
@franknbeans4761 purchase anything else, besides the Super Tomcat. That fighter would've been more than enough. Hell, even the most advanced version, the ASF-14, which would've utilized stealth, would've also been cheaper to develop than the F-18E/F. So what else should've been bough? I don't know. Probably the A-12 Avenger, which again, was canceled in a very suspicious manner by Dick Cheney.
Which ones? You mean when the Super Hornet demonstrated it's supermaneuverability and the video was led by a pilot, not a company? Or a video that displayed the F-35's one of a kind DAS system and advanced, actually best in the world radar?
The proof that they are good certainly outweigh your claims.
@franknbeans4761 What is that video where the F-35 showed its DAS capability? Show it to me. I've seen several videos with this and yes, they all seem nothing but cool propaganda to fool people like you. Ask a real pilot what he thinks about this DAS capability. If you think a missile, which never has 100% success rate anyway, can fully replace maneuverability and physical performances of an aircraft, then you really have fallen to LM's propaganda.
@franknbeans4761 I've already seen the 1st and 3d videos. I'm just amazed how such propaganda videos can impress you. They basically don't show anything. Just theoretical capabilities. IN practice, it has been proven that the F-35 has problems with all these sensors. That's why the Pentagon recently recommended that the production should be slowed down and less units should be bought.
@StiviGun1 Propaganda? Problems? Give me some articles on it's "problems." And 10 countries seem to believe in it. And again, regardless of developmental problems, it's entering service in 2016 to 2018. So come on, it's problems will be fixed.
These "theoretical capabilities" are already well into testing and development and you have presented no evidence saying it won't work.
Thinking the F-35 won't be able to do that is as foolish as saying the PAK-FA and J-20 won't fix their problems.
@franknbeans4761 The global security org presented several articles on the F-35's recently discovered problems with its integrated helmet display, its engine and several other problems.
What I'm saying is that by the time the F-35 will have all these problems fixed, there will be other, more advanced fighters to compete with it that will make the F-35 obsolete.
@StiviGun1 I would say my comment listing actual numbers of Chinese aircraft and my last PM showed how vast the problems of the PLA really are.
So again, tell me how China will fix so many problems, replace so many systems, and do so much in just 10 years? Or even 20 years?
And just so you know, the US has many future bomber ideas. Did you not think so? If you are too lazy to look it up, then ask me to give you the information.
@franknbeans4761 Good one... I read about what US (and other countries) are developing every day. Yet, I haven't found anything about those future bomber programs that you talk about. The FB-22 will also never be developed, as you claimed.
Regarding your question on China, yes, I think they can do at least a large part of that. They will certainly be much stronger in 2020 than they are now while the US will not be stronger in 2020 than it is now.
@StiviGun1 "Yet, I haven't found anything about those future bomber programs that you talk about. The FB-22 will also never be developed, as you claimed."
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Next-Generation_Bomber
That took 2 seconds. And tell me, which bombers is China developing?
@StiviGun1 As for the H-8, thanks for the link. However, the article is kind of BS because it says little is known about the bomber and yet it is better than the B-2.
Either way, China will still be very behind for at least the next 10 years in terms of bomber technology. That is what I do know.
@StiviGun1 " If you think a missile, which never has 100% success rate anyway, can fully replace maneuverability and physical performances of an aircraft,"
I never said that, but that isn't what it is about. It's the fact that you can shoot at any angle and detect planes at any angle. Which other planes can't do.
But I am interested in what you have to say after watching the F-35 videos I posted.
@franknbeans4761 I've watched those videos. Nothing from what they present there has been proven in practice. On. the contrary.
It doesn't matter if the F-35 can detect a plane from any angles, if it can't shoot it down. The enemy plane, if it's very maneuverable, can' dodge the F-35's missiles and then shoot it down.
@StiviGun1 "It doesn't matter if the F-35 can detect a plane from any angles, if it can't shoot it down. The enemy plane, if it's very maneuverable, can' dodge the F-35's missiles and then shoot it down."
Wrong, the AIM-9X Block II is very agile, a missile is many times more maneuverable than a fighter. And that goes for all US planes. At least 3,000 AIM-9X's have been delivered so far.
@StiviGun1 Also, I know diesel-electric subs rely heavily on their diesel engines for fighting in deep ocean waters. But even then, no other country possess an aircraft that is comparable to the E-6 Mercury, so coordinating large amounts of submarines will be very difficult, even the Tu-142 can't do this very well, & most will probably get shot down by US aircraft, severely limiting coordination & tactics. But in general, I think the hydrocarbon sensor on the P-8 will help significantly.
@franknbeans4761 Well, what you know about the diesel-electric subs, in specially the new ones, is wrong. They don't rely on their diesel engines to operate in deep waters. They can operate on their electric motors at any depth and for extended periods of time. Time during which they can create havoc amongst enemy ships.
@StiviGun1 As for diesel-electric subs in general, they can operate far away from shore, but for endurance missions they have to be at the surface for those periods of time. They can stay submerged for weeks but in a large war, that might not be good enough.
@franknbeans4761 They don't have to be at the surface. I already explained you several times about their Air Independent Propulsion systems... They can stay underwater for their entire missions. Their only disadvantage is that while they operate on their fuel cells engines, their speed ie drastically reduced. But if you can't detect them, that won't matter anyway.
@StiviGun1 Submarines of all types will have to be near the surface in order to communicate with friendly forces and find the enemy fleet. No matter what kind of submarine it is, it will be vulnerable & definitely not perfect. A major US advantage is the use of the E-6 Mercury, which can accurately communicate with submarines when they are reasonably submerged.
@franknbeans4761 Well, I guess you're right about this one, but this is only valid for now. The capabilities the US has right now are also being developed by China and Russia as well. In 10 years, the US may not have this advantage anymore.
@StiviGun1 As for the E-6 Mercury, it is used for coordination for submarine forces in deep ocean & large scale operations. Planes like the P-3, P-8, & Tu-142 can do this but not as well at all. It significantly helps conducting operations, especially in large wars.
@franknbeans4761 They won't be used for power projection. Only to limit USN's freedom of movement in some critical areas. Nobody said these subs are great offensive weapons. But in defending a large portion of ocean, they're great. They will limit the USN's capability to move and maneuver by a lot. And this is very important for China if, one day, it decides that they don't want to see America's fleet near their waters anymore.
@StiviGun1 Well how are the diesel-submarines good for defending large portions of the ocean if they only have the endurance of 400-650 nm? Especially with the size of the Pacific.
I could see China potentially challenging US power in the immediate area outside of it's borders; but certainly not in the Pacific. Especially due to the US having many bases throughout the area & many allies to go with it.
@franknbeans4761 Well, the most important part of the Pacific IS the immediate areas outside of China's borders. if they can deny you access to your critical interests in that area, it will be good enough for them. That is, until they will develop nuclear powered subs and more carriers. In 20 years, China will become a blue water navy nation. IN 20 years, their navy will comprise from nuclear attack and ballistic subs and carriers.
@StiviGun1 But even though China has some ballistic submarines & is building more, the US still has many more nuclear weapons that can destroy Chinese bases now. And on top of it, China is barely starting to increase it's numbers of nuclear attack submarines while the US has massive amounts, the most in the world actually.
@franknbeans4761 Actually, the number of attack submarines in the USN has decreased. It had over 70 of such subs, now it has only 53 of them.
Regarding the nuclear weapons that you say US could destroy the Chinese bases, what are those nuclear weapons? Like I said, the US doesn't have enough nuclear warheads to face 2 nuclear powers in the same time.
@StiviGun1 And all this is speculation about China having a blue water navy. I would be more optimistic but I even have books dating back to the 1970's about China "about" to become a blue water navy. But even then, the US will also be growing much more in 20 years. You can't really compare to what China might have in 20 years to what the US has now.
@franknbeans4761 I ma comparing what the US will have in 20 years with what China will have in 20 years, because the idiot politicians that run America seem to believe that the US can stagnate at it current level of military power because they live in a phantasy world where US can't be attacked by anyone. And from what I see, the US really is stagnating from this point of view. It has no anti-ship missiles, the fighters it has are not good enough and its destroyers and cruisers
@franknbeans4761 are too old and not nearly in sufficient numbers to take on the tasks that lay ahead. The USN should have a much larger number of cruisers and destroyers that can carry a much larger number of missiles. Like I said, the US should restart the CG-21 and also the DD-21 programs and also keep its current destroyers and cruisers in order to maintain the numbers needed to face the future threats.
@franknbeans4761 BTW, China doesn't have a blue water navy now. But many analysts, including from Washington say it will have such a capability in 10 years max. Its DF-21D ballistic missile submarines will definitely be a great threat for all USN ships.
@franknbeans4761 With 3 carriers, it will be able to project power pretty easily in their region. In 10 years, they will certainly no longer be intimidated by the USN. Some analysts say that a war is inevitable between China and US in the next 10 years. I would really like to see who would win such a war.
@StiviGun1 In the next 10 years how on earth could China win a war with the US? Especially in terms of naval warfare? The US carriers are vastly more capable & more numerous than their Chinese counterparts. But what is very important is that the US knows how to use them. They operated large carriers in combat many times, especially in WWII. The Chinese are completely new at it.
@franknbeans4761 Yes, the US has carriers and more experience with them than any other country. But China is developing a very powerful anti-ship ballistic missile capability. By the end of the decade, they may develop much longer ranged and much more capable ASBMs than the DF-21D. I'm pretty certain that in 10 years, they will feel confident enough to take on the USN. I would expect a war if I were you.
@StiviGun1 I actually do expect a war with China to be honest. It sucks, but it seems like it is very possible.
But I would say that having China "maybe" have an anti-ship ballistic missile isn't really good enough. Especially since the DF-21D doesn't have MIRV's yet.
And even then, using nuclear weapons to destroy maybe even 3 carriers would cause a nuclear response by the US. So China shouldn't rely on that.
To be honest, countries have been using nuclear tipped torpedoes which are similar.
@franknbeans4761 The DF-21D doesn't have MIRV capability YET. But they will develop such missiles, since they put a lot of emphasis on ASBM capability. And the USN will have nothing to counter this, even in 2020.
As for nuclear weapons, again, show me what are those weapons the US could use against China and also remain with a sufficient number to also deter Russia>
@StiviGun1 Why would the US need to fight a nuclear war with China & Russia? What is the point? Both countries would be destroyed with literally hundreds of millions killed. It would be very pointless. With it's current weapons, the US could certainly destroy both countries, no one would win.
@franknbeans4761 specialized crew to to operate them. So in case some crises would've erupted in the Berlin, ballistic missiles could've been mobilized much quicker than planes. Ballistic missile are much better than aircraft from many points of view.
@StiviGun1 How are ballistic missiles better than cruise missiles when cruise missiles are much more difficult to detect/intercept than theater missiles? Also, look at the converted Ohio class sub, it is much more useful in real wars or future wars than ballistic missiles.
@franknbeans4761 Ballistic missile are much more dangerous than cruise missiles, because of their speed. Cruise missiles can be detected and since most of them are subsonic, it's not hard at all to shoot them down. Ballistic missile are much harder to intercept and shoot down.
Regarding the converted Ohio subs, they're not at all more useful than ballistic missiles. That's why the treaties only focused on ballistic missiles capabilities, not on cruise missiles. The soviets were
@franknbeans4761 actually the first ones that came up with the idea of converting ballistic missiles subs for launching large numbers of smaller cruise missiles. That was because they didn't want to scrap their subs so they found a new use for them.
@franknbeans4761 The US doesn't need to fight a nuclear war with these countries, it needs to have enough nuclear weapons to completely deter both of them. And with its current nuclear arsenal, the US simply can't. And China's arsenal is growing. In 10 years, the US definitely won't have the capability to deter both these countries. That's why I think the Peacekeeper and the Midgetman should've been deployed during the '90s.
@StiviGun1 Most of what you say about China is all estimation without proof. You say they will do this & that but with what, where, when, & with who?
China announced it will expand it's navy, make different MBT's like the Type-99 but not once did they say they will expand it's aircraft inventory. Ever.
@franknbeans4761 So what, if they didn't say it, that means they won't do it? The Pentagon is actually very concerned about China because they're not at all transparent about their military program, and you're telling me that you don't believe they will expand their air force just because they don't announce it...? Are you that naive?
@StiviGun1 I know the Pentagon is worried about China. They have every right to be. But do you know how big that would be to add 2,000 combat aircraft to their inventory? That is monumental.
They would also have to build thousands of training & support aircraft. There is no way it would happen in 10 years. And why would China announce all of it's other main plans in land warfare, naval warfare, & even other parts of air combat like the J-20, but not explain increasing it's air power by 200%?
@franknbeans4761 What exactly did China announce? And why would they announce such an important step? To put the US on guard? That would be stupid. So of course they wouldn't do this, even if they planned to do it. So assuming they wouldn't do it is naive. Like I said, when you're confronting an enemy, you have to assume the worst.
@StiviGun1 What makes you think China is adding 2,000 more fighters to their inventory in the next 10-15 years? Seriously.
China hasn't expressed interest in this at all. Hell, they are still using the J-7 and Q-5 in large amounts! Do you expect an air force to make such a massive transition so quickly?
The US fleet of 187 F-22's could take out 30% of China's air power at least, let alone all of the planes.
@franknbeans4761 So your basing your assumptions on what China wants to do on what they say they want to do..? This is a country that says almost nothing about its military development but you're basing your assumptions on what they express publicly they want to do. Very smart... So if an enemy claims verbally that he's your friend but, in fact, he's preparing to attack you, you would say that enemy is actually your friend because he expresses no intention of attacking you...
@StiviGun1 "So your basing your assumptions on what China wants to do on what they say they want to do..?"
Better than basing them off of literally nothing.
I am basing it off of China's aircraft history, present, and trends. Along with it's industrial capabilities. You on the other hand, are basing them off of nothing.
@franknbeans4761 Your basing your assumptions ONLY on history and present, not at all on trends. I'm the one basing my assumptions on trends. Like I said, you're not taking into consideration many factors and you believe they will remain the same in 10 years from now. You have no capacity to look into the future. People like you run America and that's why America has never reached its full military potential.
@StiviGun1 "Your basing your assumptions ONLY on history and present, not at all on trends."
Like I said, I base it on history, the present, and what they have planned and are capable of.
And just so you know, trends have to deal with history. So saying "I'm the one basing my assumptions on trends." Shows your lack of knowledge in general.
@franknbeans4761 You don't base your assumptions on what they have planned and are capable of at all because you're incapable of thinking into the future.
Trends, many times, don't deal with history. Things change, people change, they change their strategy and tactics. And this is what you're incapable of understanding.
@StiviGun1 "Trends, many times, don't deal with history. Things change, people change, they change their strategy and tactics. And this is what you're incapable of understanding."
Trends are history leading up to the present. Obviously things change, that is elementary, but saying in 10 years, like you said, they can surpass the US in power, is insane.
@franknbeans4761 I said in 10 years, it can create major problems for US in Pacific, not that it can surpass it entirely. In 10 years, the US may not be able to intervene in case China attacks Taiwan. And that will be a huge blow for the US, which will signal the beginning of the end for its military dominance.
@StiviGun1 "Like I said, you're not taking into consideration many factors and you believe they will remain the same in 10 years from now."
For the 100th time, of course they will change. But they won't go from a regional power, to overtaking the world's power, in 10 years. And they certainly won't add 2,000 combat planes to their arsenal too.
@franknbeans4761 They're not yet a regional power in its own right. But by 2020, they will be and they will be able to challenge the US in the Pacific.
Regarding the J-20, it will enter service in 2020 and by 2030, when their industrial capacity will be FAR HIGHER than it is today, they may be very well able to build them in very large numbers. Possibly over 2000 of them.
@StiviGun1 "Regarding the J-20, it will enter service in 2020 and by 2030, when their industrial capacity will be FAR HIGHER than it is today, they may be very well able to build them in very large numbers."
Uh, and by then, the F-35 will be 2,400 strong with 187 F-22's, and the X-47B, Phantom Ray, Avenger, and probably the F/A-XX will be active.
Along with the hypersonic strike vehicle and maybe much more. Do you think the US will not upgrade their forces too?????
@franknbeans4761 The F-35 is not good enough, the F-22 is build in far too smaller numbers, the X-47B and Phantom Ray, unless you build tens of thousands of them, won't help very much and Avenger is just a vulnerable drone. What force is that? No, the US is no upgrading. In fact, it's developing only useless weapons systems because the US sissy politicians don't want to look "menacing" for other countries. The US military capability is decreasing, not increasing.
The S-300 missile is used on both land and at sea. The system is on Kirov- and Slava-class ships. How come we in the US can't do that?
kempmt1 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Actually, man, the yesterday incident, when the Iranian downed the most advanced stealth UAV, showed clearly that such UAVs simply can't be used in wars against a military power. If Iran managed to shoot your most advanced stealth UAV, what make you think these UAVs could work in a war against Russia or China?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well, the RAMs wouldn't be a problem. You don't need to make a very stealthy UCAV. They're smaller (so they have smaller RCSs anyway) and besides that, you have no pilot who's life you must protect. So there's not need to make them super-stealthy. So this is one of the areas where you could make savings when building this kind of aircraft.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 But also, for the F-35, you technically could incorporate advanced avionics into any plane, but it is immensely difficult to do that & develop all of it. The F-35's AN/APG-81 radar is excellent & even won awards with it's immunity to jamming. Also, it's situational awareness with it's 6 sensors beat out any other aircraft. It's jammer will also be top of the line. I would say having all of this per aircraft make it very exceptional.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 What do you mean, man? The avionics incorporated ion the F-35 could've been very well incorporated on the Super Tomcat. In fact, the Super Tomcat would've had an AESA radar. But it had far better performances which the F-35 lacks. The recent Pentagon report on this plane clearly proves this. All the avionics the F-35 can be incorporated on any aircraft. What you're suggesting is that since they already have an aircraft with these avionics, they should keep it
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 even though its performances are very poor... Regarding the costs, I highly doubt that another aircraft can be more expensive than the F-35, who's costs continue to rise. And its performances, to decrease... The F-35 is the biggest scam in the US' military industry history. If I were them, I would cancel both the F-35B and the F-35C. The last one, which is also the most expensive, must definitely be canceled.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Also, a second X-47B just had a test flight. It will eventually be yet another asset in the US naval arsenal. And a very valuable weapon for sea control. So while China has only 1-3 carriers (I doubt 6 will be made, but even if there were, it is still immensely inferior) the US will have 11, all with much better aircraft. And with the F-35, E-2, & X-47B; a single US carrier group could take on at least 2 Chinese carrier groups and win.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The X-47B won't make any difference if the main naval fighter is just unsuited for its role... Regarding China and its carriers, you continue to focus on just one aspect and one capability at a time. China has more than just its carriers, it has ballistic missiles and subs, all these being very difficult to tackle when working together. And the US doesn't have superior naval fighters, China's J-15 will be superior to both the Super Hornet and the F-35 as far as
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 performances are concerned. The J-15 will have higher speed, better maneuverability, larger weapons payload, so no, the US navy won't have better aircraft. And the X-47B won't change this in any way. The USN needs powerful naval fighters. If you can add stealth to them, that's even better, but you can't sacrifice performances for stealth and avionics, like they're doing with the F-35.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 the J-15's radar wouldn't be able to detect the F-35. It is already outdated. It is going to face aircraft that are a full generation ahead of it. And will be forced to operate off of land. If you want to talk about land based planes fighting naval planes, then include all US military aircraft.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The J-15 is not even fully developed yet, so you don;t know what radar it will have. The Chinese have made great progress in radar technology, so the chances are the J-15 will have a very advanced radar. So it won't be forced to operate off of land at all. Why would they build a naval fighter that will operate from land? That doesn't give them any of the advantages carriers offer, it would be completely illogical.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Regarding Chinese carriers in general, do you know how tremendous their problems have been and still are? They are even having trouble obtaining arrestor hooks.
They are barely having sea trials with their first carrier that took years to even leave harbor. And you think they will have 5-6 in 10-15 years?
Even if they made 3, that certainly isn't enough. And no matter what, they still have massively inferior escorts and their carrier design is inferior to begin with.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 So what would your solution be, then? More F-35s for roles the aircraft was not even designed for?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 As for the UCAV solution, no not more F-35's; but like you said, more F-22's. Why spend much more time developing new, expensive, & complicated UCAV's when you could order more F-22's. It isn't to late to do so too, they are still producing more of them right now to finish filling orders & there is no reason they couldn't restart production in 3-4 years. Time will tell.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Yeah, it would be very nice to restart the F-22 production. Ordering 785 of them as they initially, during Reagan's administration intended, would be superb. That would form an aerial fighting force no one would dare to challenge.
But regarding UCAV, they will never be as complex as the manned fighters and they will always cost less. The only problem with them is that they will be remotely operated and an enemy could interfere with the link between the command post and teh UAV.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 I should say that the Vikramaditya will have terrible carrier handling. It has 2 deck-centre lifts which would seriously disrupt carrier operations. It also only has a ski jump & no catapults so they can't park aircraft on the jump & the lack of catapults severely limits their payloads. The Vikramaditya also has it's island awkwardly placed towards the center taking up a lot of space.
The ski jump limitations is the same for the Vikrant, Varyag, & Admiral Kuznetsov.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well, these carriers may not have the same capabilities as the US carriers, but they will increase the Indian, Russian and Chinese navies' capabilities nonetheless. But what I find amazing is how the American engineers can be so careful at details when they're designing certain systems, in this case carriers, and be so sloppy when they're designing other systems, like ballistic missile systems and anti-aircraft missile systems for the ground forces.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Also, read this:
bbc. co. uk/news/world-us-canada-15790620
If this is already in testing then it will absolutely be available in the next 10 years. So the odds of China having to face that as well makes it very hard, at least considering it's current escort ships & their planned ones.
But even then, 3-6 small, inferior, aircraft carriers still couldn't match 11 supercarriers & 12 America Class ships.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well, the link doesn't work. What weapons systems is the article talking about?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 But even if foreign navies get carriers & increase their capabilities, that still doesn't mean they can challenge the USN.
And what do you mean American engineers are careless with other systems? The RIM-161 is the longest ranged ABM/BMD system. Also, the THAAD is very good. And the new hypersonic system seems excellent. Do you mean with the Patriot? The original PAC-1 Patriot wasn't intended for ABM purposes. I would also say the PAC-3 missile is good.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Explain why nobody could challenge the USN even though they do acquire carriers and increase their capabilities?
And when I talked about how the engineers are careless with other systems, I was referring to the systems they build for the US Army. Systems like Lance or Pershing were just embarrassing, really, in contrast to their Russian counterparts, like Tochka, Oka or the RSD-10 Pioneer.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Why on Earth would you compare the Pershing missile, a missile made in 1960, to the Tochka, a missile that came out 16 & 26 (depending on the variant) years after? That is not a fair comparison at all.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Tochka came in in early '70s, not, "16&26" years later... So the comparison is very valid. The RSD-10, which was basically the Pershing II's contemporary counterpart, was far superior. So like I said, I never understood why the US never build similar, fully mobile systems. Could have been because of fear of the USSR??? I don't know, all I know is that it always came up with inferior missile systems. The only period where it had superior missiles was the '50s.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 The Tochka entered service in 1976. The Pershing entered service in 1960. And the newer, more capable version of the Tochka entered service in 1986. That isn't a fair comparison.
Also, the RSD-10 is nothing like the Tochka, Pershing, or any of those missiles. The RSD-10 is an ICBM, not a theater ballistic missile.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well why hasn't the US built anothe, more capable, fully mobile ballistic missile system? Or simply put the Pershing on a better platform? The comparison is very fair. What comparison would be fair to you...?
Regarding the RSD-10, it was designed as a MRBM, only later, it evolved in an ICBM. And the only way the US countered this, was to sign some treaties...
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 As for theater ballistic missiles, the US deems it unnecessary. That is why the US has so many cruise missiles. They chose to use those over large theater missiles. Which is an alright decision. Especially considering the platforms are much more survivable & there are many more missiles.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 And what other cruise missile, besides, the Gryphon, did the US deploy, during the Cold War? The Gryphon was also a semi-mobile system, not as quickly deployable as the Russian mobile SRBMs and MRBMs. The US barely developed and deployed field missile systems. Now why was that? Were they too afraid of the soviets?
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Well, the US used the Gryphon, yes, & the sea based Tomahawk.
But the US used the AGM-28 Hound Dog, the MGM-1 Matador, & the MGM-13 Mace. The US relied on it's strategic bombers & cruise missiles a bit more than the USSR did.
The Pershing & Lance were only theater ballistic missiles that played a small role.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The AGM-28 was an air launched missile, not a land based mobile system. All the others that you've mentioned were developed during the '50s. They haven't been replaced with other, more capable systems. Why didn't the US build more such systems constantly, like the soviets did, that's what I'm asking? Sure, the US was relying on its air power, but ballistic missiles are very capable weapons, more dangerous than aircraft. Furthermore, there was a race between
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Well either way, the RSD-10 is an ICBM. Not a theater missile like the Pershing & Lance.
And the US purposefully made more air launched cruise missiles. That is the point I was making. They didn't want to rely solely on ICBM's & wanted more air launched cruise missiles. Which is smart considering these cruise missiles can be easily modified to fight conventional wars. It clearly paid off much more for the US.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Only SOME versions of the RSD-10 were considered ICBMs, but none of them was actually deployed. Its max range was about 4300 km, which makes it a MRMB.
And what were those more air launched cruise missiles? Because the USSR surpassed you in this capability too. Their KH-55 missile is better than anything you have, for instance. Furthermore, aircraft cannot replace field mobile missile systems. These systems can be emplaced much quicker and they don't need such a
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Theater missiles for the most part are much closer to the combat area than ALCM's. But the Kh-55 entered service in 1984. It is much more comparable to the Tomahawk. So don't compare it to older missiles.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Theater missiles can respond much quicker than aircraft. That's why the soviets developed so many of them, even though they also had a very large air force.
Regarding the Kh-55, I wasn't comparing it with anything, I was just responding to you statement that you didn't develop field missile systems because you relied more on air launched weapons. The soviets surpassed you in this area too.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 BTW, what do you want to say with theater weapons being closer to combat areas than ALCMs? That's their advantage. They can be used for much quicker reactions. So this is another advantage over air launched cruise missiles and aircraft in general.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "BTW, what do you want to say with theater weapons being closer to combat areas than ALCMs? That's their advantage."
They are much closer to the battlefield, meaning UAV's could easily strike them or other small assets, whereas bombers can safely be half a world away.
Having an ALCM means not only having a massive standoff range with the missile already, but by having the launch platform be much more mobile, flexible, abundant, and versatile.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 During Cold War there were no such UAVs... But even in this day, UAVs are very easy prey to SAMs and fighters. Mobile theater weapons have the advantage of being deployed quickly, launch a weapons that's extremely hard, if not impossible to intercept and move quickly, before the enemy has time to react. Against an aircraft, it's far easier to react. Those huge bombers are easy to shoot down by fighters.
An air based platform for a missile would not be more
StiviGun1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "Against an aircraft, it's far easier to react. Those huge bombers are easy to shoot down by fighters."
What about when it is thousands of kilometers away from it's target? Whereas a theater missile system is only several hundred at best.
Do you think a fighter would be able to break through hundreds of kilometers of defenses?
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 And what bomber has the capability to attack a target from thousands of km? There's no such weapon in anyone's arsenal today. And a theater missile can have anywhere between 500-5500 km range. So no, it wouldn't be just a few km away from its target.
No, I don't think a fighter would be able to break through hundreds of km of defenses. That's why I said that theater mobile missile systems are needed. There are objectives fighters can't reach but which missiles can.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "And a theater missile can have anywhere between 500-5500 km range. So no, it wouldn't be just a few km away from its target."
No, an ICBM can. Not a theater missile. I don't even know what to say because you have such a small amount of comprehension. Jesus.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 An ICBM is a ballistic missile that has a range of over 5500 km... The others are IRBM, MRBM, or short range ballistic missiles, all can be used as theater missile systems. Go make more research.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "No, I don't think a fighter would be able to break through hundreds of km of defenses. That's why I said that theater mobile missile systems are needed. There are objectives fighters can't reach but which missiles can."
Jesus, the planes don't go and drop bombs, they launch a missile from far away that hits it's target. Come on. Wow. What I was saying is that the bomber is well inside it's own territory when it launches the missiles and would remain untouched by fighters.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well if it remains inside its territory, then what's the point of using an aircraft, which is more expensive than a truck with a launcher on it? After all, an aircraft's duty is to go over an enemy's territory, not to stay in its own territory. But maybe you can give me an example of a US bomber that can launch attacks from over the US territory because I've never heard of such a bomber.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "abundant" because an aircraft is harder and more expensive to build and produce than a truck.
"meaning UAV's could easily strike them or other small assets, whereas bombers can safely be half a world away". Like I said, UAVs are easy to deal with. Furthermore, theater weapons have the advantage of a much quicker reaction, while bombers take some time before they reach their target, which they may not even be able to strike anyway.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 " Furthermore, theater weapons have the advantage of a much quicker reaction, while bombers take some time before they reach their target, which they may not even be able to strike anyway."
Not when you always have some on station, the US even has this in the Pacific during peace time, it's easy.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Not that easy as with theater mobile weapons. Furthermore, missiles can strike targets that are inaccessible to airplanes. Bombers have their role, but when it comes to hard reaching targets, theater weapons are the best option. That's why the soviets feared and built such weapons while having no problem against the US bombers.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "Furthermore, missiles can strike targets that are inaccessible to airplanes."
All time low. The most advanced theater missile, the Iskander, has a range of 500 km. The AGM-86 has a range of 1,100 to 2,400 km.
So the Iskander (the best of it's kind) hits targets that are 500 km away, while a B-52 hits targets 2,400 km away. You were saying?
So a cruise missile has 5 times the range.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The Iskander is a TACTICAL ballistic missile. I was talking about missiles in the RSD-10 category. Such systems can be emplaced much quicker than you can make a bomber ready for flight and they can deliver strikes that are much harder to intercept than a bomber. A bomber is good when you want to attack specific targets while having the option of cancelling the mission. But not against very hard reaching targets. Missiles are much better suited for this.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "But not against very hard reaching targets. Missiles are much better suited for this."
How so? The AGM-86 has terrain mapping radar and many cruise missiles are hard to track than ballistic missiles.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 And what are those cruise missiles that are harder to track than ballistic missiles? Do you understand what "tracking a missile" means? Ballistic missiles are much harder to track because of their speeds and they're also even harder to intercept because of this. They're more dangerous than cruise missiles and that's why Russia always had something to object only against US ballistic missiles development and not cruise missiles development.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "Ballistic missiles are much harder to track because of their speeds and they're also even harder to intercept because of this."
The actual launch of one is very easy to detect. And it's massive flight altitude allows all powerful ground based radars to track them. Whereas cruise missiles consistently stay low, below the radar horizon.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 "That's why the soviets feared and built such weapons while having no problem against the US bombers."
You read too many comic books. How would they have "no problem against US bombers" when in order to destroy the bombers, they need to fly past their capable ranges, break through thousands of km of enemy fighter territory, and then shoot them down?
How have you not thought this through?
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 And why the hell would they need to fly over the enemy territory to destroy the bombers when it's the bombers which need to go close to the enemy territory in order to launch an attack...? There's no bomber that can launch attacks from such long ranges. Where did you get this?
StiviGun1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "And why the hell would they need to fly over the enemy territory to destroy the bombers when it's the bombers which need to go close to the enemy territory in order to launch an attack"
Idiot, I already said, the AGM-86 alone has a range of 1,100-2,400 km. That means the bomber can be 1,100-2,400 km AWAY from the TARGET when launching the missiles. You cannot be so dumb.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 No, you're the idiot. 1100-2400 km range does not mean the bomber can launch attacks from the US territory... So there's no need for the enemy to fly over your territory to destroy your bombers, like you said... And from 1100-2400 km, it can be intercepted fairly easy by their fighters, which have long ranges. Therefore, missiles are much more dangerous than bombers.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 these 2 powers, and the ballistic missiles were a very important par of this race. It's not logical at all that the US didn't develop very capable mobile field missile systems.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "and be so sloppy when they're designing other systems, like ballistic missile systems and anti-aircraft missile systems for the ground forces"
That kinda just sounds really ignorant & biased. The THAAD, PAC-3, & ATACMS are great systems.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 THAAD is pretty good. The others, in respect to their Chinese and Russian counterparts, are not that good. The patriot is inferior to the S-400 and also, to the S-300 PMU2 Favorit version. ATACMS is far inferior to the Iskander. But I was more referring to the Cold War period. For instance, all the ballistic missiles designed for the ground forces were inferior to their soviet counterparts. This includes Pershing and Lance.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Of course the Patriot is inferior to the S-400. The S-400 came out over 20 years after the Patriot.
In terms of time frame comparisons, compare the S-400 to the AEGIS BMD. At which the AEGIS BMD is much better.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The S-300 came out in the same time period as the Patriot man, what are you talking about? At first, it even had similar capabilities with the Patriot and hot launch systems. It surpassed the Patriot in time.
The S-400 cant be compared with the AEGIS because it's a land based system, not a naval one. Also, it was built from the S-300, it's not a completely new system. The US could do the same with the Patriot.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "The S-400 cant be compared with the AEGIS because it's a land based system, not a naval one."
The US was making major strides in ABM and BMD forces with the THAAD and AEGIS BMD while Russia was making the S-400. And they are both ballistic missile defense systems so they can be compared.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Also, I would say that having more F-35B's rather than AV-8's & F-18's will turn the America class into what seems like 12 light carriers. For sure at least 2. Especially since these will all have AESA radar & be stealthy. So even a mere force of 6 F-35B's could take on many air threats which would make the whole force more capable. My guess is that the 2 America class ships with no well decks might carry 20 F-35B's, depending on the mission though. Greatly enhancing the USN.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Te America class will definitely increase the USN's capabilities, no doubt about it. But the F-35 is still not good for the naval fighter role. And the America class will only carry the B variant, which is intended to support the marines on their landing beaches, not for naval warfare. So in this regard, the America class won't bring so much improvement in the naval warfare department. The F-35B is absolutely not suited for this role.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Well, I would say that the F-35B will add new responsibilities or actually capabilities to the amphibious assault force. With the F-35B, they can act more so like light carriers. This is especially good for navies that rely on the Harrier as a naval fighter & not just for ground support. So in regards to defending landings & many other duties; the F-35B will be a big improvement.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 This is all theoretical. The performance problems they discovered recently, prove that this may not be the case in practice. The F-35C though, is definitely not good for the naval fighter role. I still remain faithful to my opinion that the Super Tomcat program must be restarted and the F-35C, cancelled.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 You say that the F-35 isn't good as a naval fighter partially because of it's range, but it has much more range than the Hornet & Super Hornet. Are they not good too?
Also, when launched off of carriers, the Su-33 can only take off with a smaller amount of weight due to the ski jump. So it's combat radius is much smaller than the F-35's due to the ships.
If countries spend money to make catapults, they will utilize this. But without it, they will forever be limited.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Yes man, that;s what I'm saying since we started this topic. Why do you think I said so many times that the Super Tomcat should've been developed in the late '80s/early '90s? The Super Hornet and in specially the Hornet are not at all good as naval fighters.
Regarding carriers with catapults, I know Russia plans to build such carriers. They will be larger than the Kuznetsov and also, nuclear powered. I don't know about China though.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "The Super Hornet and in specially the Hornet are not at all good as naval fighters."
How are they not? They have proven to be great for decades. Your opinion is backed up by a blind love for the Super Tomcat, a plane that never was.
"Regarding carriers with catapults, I know Russia plans to build such carriers."
What carriers? When? Source? I never heard of this.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Ha ha ha... Your Hornet has been shot down in the 1st Gulf War by a MiG-25 with an outdated missile. And the MiG-25 was not even designed for dog-fighting. And how exactly have they proven to be good "for decades"? The Super Tomcat "never was" because of the stupidity of one politician who is also responsible for the 2003 Iraq campaign failure. And I don't have any "blind love" for the Super Tomcat. It simply would've been a much better fighter than these toys.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "Ha ha ha... Your Hornet has been shot down in the 1st Gulf War by a MiG-25 with an outdated missile."
Jesus, again how is the Super Hornet bad? The Super Hornet flew in 1995 for the first time, it never was in Gulf War 1.
And also, are you saying it is worse than a Mig-25? Really? And are you saying a Mig-25 is a better naval fighter?
It was shot down at the start of the war, do you want to compare the end losses?
Or how well Hornets fared in training against Malaysian Mig-29's?
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "And the MiG-25 was not even designed for dog-fighting."
The missile used was a R-40, with a range of 30-60 km. That isn't a dog fight.
Iraq got in one lucky shot then had their ass handed to them. So if you think using them as an example is good then I am speechless.
And just so you know, 8 countries use the Hornet and 2 use the Super Hornet.
But if you think that even the Super Hornet is bad after watching that video of it then you really don't know what you are talking about.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The Super Hornet is certainly not the best the USN could've had. Ask any expert and they will tell you that the Super Hornet would've been vastly superior. It just didn't happen because of Dick Cheney's personal hatred against the Grumman company. The Super Hornet is not good AS A NAVAL FIGHTER. That's the part that you just can't get. Hell, the USAF didn't want the F-18. But somehow, they still found a way to put this thing into service and then brainwash people like you with
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 cool propaganda videos. Just like Lockheed Martin is doing with the F-35 now. And you fall for it without even giving it a second thought... People like you are actually ruining the US military.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "People like you are actually ruining the US military."
What can beat it? And your only remarks on the F-35 are it's program is too long, it has problems, and they spent too much money on it. That leaves nothing convinced.
Your definition of a good naval fighter is something with 2 engines (F-18 has), great range (F-18 has), good payload (F-18 has), and good avionics (F-18 has). I don't see what your point is.
Other than the Super Tomcat, what should of been bought?
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well, what else can I say, if for you, dragging the program for as long as they can just to get more money out of the government, means nothing? You would actually allow a company doing this just so they wouldn't go bankrupt... That's how perverted your logic is.
Regarding the naval fighter, no, the F-18 doesn't have any of the things you've mentioned. It has a very short range, very low speed and not enough payload capacity.
There would've been no need to
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "dragging the program for as long as they can just to get more money out of the government"
It is too late to cancel it, too much has been devoted to it by not only the US but the world too.
And the US isn't trying to make large amounts of air superiority, neither is Russia.
Alexei Fedorov has said that any decision on applying fifth generation technologies to produce a smaller fighter (in the F-35 range) must wait until after the heavy fighter, based on the T-50, is completed.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 It's not too late at all, that's just bullshit. Lockheed Martin must eb asked to give the money back and the contract should be given to another company, which, I assure you, will be far more responsible. In specially after LM's example.
The US isn't trying to build large amounts of air superiority? Then what is is intending to do? Lose its aid dominance...?
Regadring Russia, you don't know what they're gonna do. Their official statements don't show they true
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "The US isn't trying to build large amounts of air superiority? Then what is is intending to do? Lose its aid dominance...?"
What? When did I say that? The introduction of the F-22 is certainly enough air power for now. I said China won't have an entire force of only J-20's because you need strike planes, tankers, cargo planes, AWACS, and most importantly MULTI-ROLE aircraft.
Multi-role aircraft still conduct air superiority missions, are you kidding?
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 I never said China will have an entire air force based on J-20. I specifically said they will have a large number of 4.5 gen fighters.
How can you say 187 F-22s are enough after you watched that 9 min video that specifically said 187 are not nearly enough? They certainly won't be enough in 2020.
Multi-role aircraft can conduct SOME air superiority missions, but saying you can rely on them for this, is just naive. You need specialized fighters for this.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "I never said China will have an entire air force based on J-20. I specifically said they will have a large number of 4.5 gen fighters."
4.5 gen fighters can't compete with 5th generation fighters.
"How can you say 187 F-22s are enough after you watched that 9 min video that specifically said 187 are not nearly enough?"
Read my comments. And 2,400 F-35's along with eventually at least 500+ F/A-XX's will be sufficient when dealing with a future Chinese force of 4.5 gen's.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 "4.5 gen fighters can't compete with 5th generation fighters." They can perform other missions. But the J-20 will definitely be able to compete with the stealth planes fleet you plan for the next 20 years.
"Read my comments. And 2,400 F-35's along with eventually at least 500+ F/A-XX's will be sufficient when dealing with a future Chinese force of 4.5 gen's." The FA-XX is not certain to enter service and the J-20 will definitely be built in much larger numbers
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 "The FA-XX is not certain to enter service and the J-20 will definitely be built in much larger numbers"
It will most likely enter service. The USN needs a plane to replace the Super Hornet and they are already in very early stages for it's development.
As for the J-20 in large numbers, it depends. It depends what munitions it can take, how flexible it is, and how capable it is.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 than you think. So your 2400 F-35s (number which many recommend to be reduced because of technical problems BTW, so you don;t know if 2400 of them will actually be built) won't have to fight 4.5 gen fighters only. In the next 20 years, you'll have to face a large number of stealthy fighters and the F-35 won't be sufficient for that.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 And why would the F/A-XX be built in smaller numbers than I think, when it will replace 556 Super Hornets.
"In the next 20 years, you'll have to face a large number of stealthy fighters"
200 PAK-FA's? And an unknown number of stealth fighters?
While the US will have 187 upgraded F-22's (already very comparable), and 2,400 F-35's, and at least 556 F/A-XX's?
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 intentions. In China's case, this is even more valid.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "no, the F-18 doesn't have any of the things you've mentioned."
The Super Hornet's payload is 17,750 lbs. Just like the Su-34. It's range is 2,346 km clean with 2 AIM-9's. It can also be converted to a tanker with ease.
The Tomcat's range was much smaller.
The Super Hornet is an excellent aircraft and you haven't presented facts or statistics saying it isn't.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The Su-34 can carry a much larger payload than the Super Hornet on much longer ranges. Its combat radius is 1100 km, much bigger than the Super Hornet's. And the Su-34 is not even a naval fighter, which really needs large payloads, high speed, big range. The Super Hornet has neither of these. This, by itself, shows the Super Hornet is not good enough.
BTW, the Tomcat's combat radius was bigger. The Super Tomcat's would've been even bigger.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 "The Su-34 can carry a much larger payload than the Super Hornet on much longer ranges."
Su-34=17,630 pounds of ordinance. Super Hornet=17,750 pounds. You were saying?
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 Yeah, but the Super Hornet's range with that payload is much smaller than the Su-34's.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "Yeah, but the Super Hornet's range with that payload is much smaller than the Su-34's."
Possibly. Not enough information is given on the Su-34. I would say that the Super Bug's maneuverability with armament and it's versatility might outweigh it.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 "And the Su-34 is not even a naval fighter, which really needs large payloads, high speed, big range."
The Super Hornets range varies. It's 722 (?) km with a very heavy load, but 2,346 km with 2 AIM-9's. So I think we can both agree that it really varies significantly. And also, I highly doubt the Su-34 could perform the maneuvers we saw in that video with a heavy load. But I do not want to get side tracked. The odds of the US fighting a war with Russia are unbelievably slim.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@franknbeans4761 "So I think we can both agree that it really varies significantly." This is the same for the Su-34. With lighter payloads, it has longer ranges. However, a naval fighter needs huge range with very heavy payloads. 722 km with the payload you talked about is a too smaller range. It should have at least over 1000 km combat radius with that payload. At least.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 "However, a naval fighter needs huge range with very heavy payloads. 722 km with the payload you talked about is a too smaller range."
Well, when you compare the carrier group as a whole and look at the range in terms of the Earth itself, the Super Hornet's ability to be a tanker make it more effective than any other naval force. Also, in terms of payload of other naval fighters, the Super Hornet is just as good as any other naval fighter.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 In general, I thought it was odd we even compared the Super Hornet (a naval fighter) with the Su-34. The Strike Eagle is much more on terms with it.
The Su-33 is more of a comparison. But either way, no matter what, ski jumps limit your payload significantly. Where steam catapults greatly help.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 purchase anything else, besides the Super Tomcat. That fighter would've been more than enough. Hell, even the most advanced version, the ASF-14, which would've utilized stealth, would've also been cheaper to develop than the F-18E/F. So what else should've been bough? I don't know. Probably the A-12 Avenger, which again, was canceled in a very suspicious manner by Dick Cheney.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "cool propaganda videos."
Which ones? You mean when the Super Hornet demonstrated it's supermaneuverability and the video was led by a pilot, not a company? Or a video that displayed the F-35's one of a kind DAS system and advanced, actually best in the world radar?
The proof that they are good certainly outweigh your claims.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 What is that video where the F-35 showed its DAS capability? Show it to me. I've seen several videos with this and yes, they all seem nothing but cool propaganda to fool people like you. Ask a real pilot what he thinks about this DAS capability. If you think a missile, which never has 100% success rate anyway, can fully replace maneuverability and physical performances of an aircraft, then you really have fallen to LM's propaganda.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "What is that video where the F-35 showed its DAS capability?"
Watch these
watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY
watch?v=16iW9mKJSuc
watch?v=hzDke56vMiU
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 I've already seen the 1st and 3d videos. I'm just amazed how such propaganda videos can impress you. They basically don't show anything. Just theoretical capabilities. IN practice, it has been proven that the F-35 has problems with all these sensors. That's why the Pentagon recently recommended that the production should be slowed down and less units should be bought.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Propaganda? Problems? Give me some articles on it's "problems." And 10 countries seem to believe in it. And again, regardless of developmental problems, it's entering service in 2016 to 2018. So come on, it's problems will be fixed.
These "theoretical capabilities" are already well into testing and development and you have presented no evidence saying it won't work.
Thinking the F-35 won't be able to do that is as foolish as saying the PAK-FA and J-20 won't fix their problems.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The global security org presented several articles on the F-35's recently discovered problems with its integrated helmet display, its engine and several other problems.
What I'm saying is that by the time the F-35 will have all these problems fixed, there will be other, more advanced fighters to compete with it that will make the F-35 obsolete.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 I would say my comment listing actual numbers of Chinese aircraft and my last PM showed how vast the problems of the PLA really are.
So again, tell me how China will fix so many problems, replace so many systems, and do so much in just 10 years? Or even 20 years?
And just so you know, the US has many future bomber ideas. Did you not think so? If you are too lazy to look it up, then ask me to give you the information.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Good one... I read about what US (and other countries) are developing every day. Yet, I haven't found anything about those future bomber programs that you talk about. The FB-22 will also never be developed, as you claimed.
Regarding your question on China, yes, I think they can do at least a large part of that. They will certainly be much stronger in 2020 than they are now while the US will not be stronger in 2020 than it is now.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "Yet, I haven't found anything about those future bomber programs that you talk about. The FB-22 will also never be developed, as you claimed."
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Next-Generation_Bomber
That took 2 seconds. And tell me, which bombers is China developing?
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 I've read the article. Where the hell does it say the FB-22 will be built?
China is developing a stealth bomber.
Here's a link I found very easily about the future Chinese stealth bomber called the H-8:
defence aviation . com / 2007 / 11 / xian-h-8-chinese-stealth-bomber . h tml. If it doesn't work, I'll post it on your profile.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 As for the H-8, thanks for the link. However, the article is kind of BS because it says little is known about the bomber and yet it is better than the B-2.
Either way, China will still be very behind for at least the next 10 years in terms of bomber technology. That is what I do know.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 " If you think a missile, which never has 100% success rate anyway, can fully replace maneuverability and physical performances of an aircraft,"
I never said that, but that isn't what it is about. It's the fact that you can shoot at any angle and detect planes at any angle. Which other planes can't do.
But I am interested in what you have to say after watching the F-35 videos I posted.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 I've watched those videos. Nothing from what they present there has been proven in practice. On. the contrary.
It doesn't matter if the F-35 can detect a plane from any angles, if it can't shoot it down. The enemy plane, if it's very maneuverable, can' dodge the F-35's missiles and then shoot it down.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "It doesn't matter if the F-35 can detect a plane from any angles, if it can't shoot it down. The enemy plane, if it's very maneuverable, can' dodge the F-35's missiles and then shoot it down."
Wrong, the AIM-9X Block II is very agile, a missile is many times more maneuverable than a fighter. And that goes for all US planes. At least 3,000 AIM-9X's have been delivered so far.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 Also, I know diesel-electric subs rely heavily on their diesel engines for fighting in deep ocean waters. But even then, no other country possess an aircraft that is comparable to the E-6 Mercury, so coordinating large amounts of submarines will be very difficult, even the Tu-142 can't do this very well, & most will probably get shot down by US aircraft, severely limiting coordination & tactics. But in general, I think the hydrocarbon sensor on the P-8 will help significantly.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well, what you know about the diesel-electric subs, in specially the new ones, is wrong. They don't rely on their diesel engines to operate in deep waters. They can operate on their electric motors at any depth and for extended periods of time. Time during which they can create havoc amongst enemy ships.
About E-6, Mercury, what's its role?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 As for diesel-electric subs in general, they can operate far away from shore, but for endurance missions they have to be at the surface for those periods of time. They can stay submerged for weeks but in a large war, that might not be good enough.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 They don't have to be at the surface. I already explained you several times about their Air Independent Propulsion systems... They can stay underwater for their entire missions. Their only disadvantage is that while they operate on their fuel cells engines, their speed ie drastically reduced. But if you can't detect them, that won't matter anyway.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Submarines of all types will have to be near the surface in order to communicate with friendly forces and find the enemy fleet. No matter what kind of submarine it is, it will be vulnerable & definitely not perfect. A major US advantage is the use of the E-6 Mercury, which can accurately communicate with submarines when they are reasonably submerged.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well, I guess you're right about this one, but this is only valid for now. The capabilities the US has right now are also being developed by China and Russia as well. In 10 years, the US may not have this advantage anymore.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 As for the E-6 Mercury, it is used for coordination for submarine forces in deep ocean & large scale operations. Planes like the P-3, P-8, & Tu-142 can do this but not as well at all. It significantly helps conducting operations, especially in large wars.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 They won't be used for power projection. Only to limit USN's freedom of movement in some critical areas. Nobody said these subs are great offensive weapons. But in defending a large portion of ocean, they're great. They will limit the USN's capability to move and maneuver by a lot. And this is very important for China if, one day, it decides that they don't want to see America's fleet near their waters anymore.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Well how are the diesel-submarines good for defending large portions of the ocean if they only have the endurance of 400-650 nm? Especially with the size of the Pacific.
I could see China potentially challenging US power in the immediate area outside of it's borders; but certainly not in the Pacific. Especially due to the US having many bases throughout the area & many allies to go with it.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well, the most important part of the Pacific IS the immediate areas outside of China's borders. if they can deny you access to your critical interests in that area, it will be good enough for them. That is, until they will develop nuclear powered subs and more carriers. In 20 years, China will become a blue water navy nation. IN 20 years, their navy will comprise from nuclear attack and ballistic subs and carriers.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 But even though China has some ballistic submarines & is building more, the US still has many more nuclear weapons that can destroy Chinese bases now. And on top of it, China is barely starting to increase it's numbers of nuclear attack submarines while the US has massive amounts, the most in the world actually.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Actually, the number of attack submarines in the USN has decreased. It had over 70 of such subs, now it has only 53 of them.
Regarding the nuclear weapons that you say US could destroy the Chinese bases, what are those nuclear weapons? Like I said, the US doesn't have enough nuclear warheads to face 2 nuclear powers in the same time.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 And all this is speculation about China having a blue water navy. I would be more optimistic but I even have books dating back to the 1970's about China "about" to become a blue water navy. But even then, the US will also be growing much more in 20 years. You can't really compare to what China might have in 20 years to what the US has now.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 I ma comparing what the US will have in 20 years with what China will have in 20 years, because the idiot politicians that run America seem to believe that the US can stagnate at it current level of military power because they live in a phantasy world where US can't be attacked by anyone. And from what I see, the US really is stagnating from this point of view. It has no anti-ship missiles, the fighters it has are not good enough and its destroyers and cruisers
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 are too old and not nearly in sufficient numbers to take on the tasks that lay ahead. The USN should have a much larger number of cruisers and destroyers that can carry a much larger number of missiles. Like I said, the US should restart the CG-21 and also the DD-21 programs and also keep its current destroyers and cruisers in order to maintain the numbers needed to face the future threats.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 BTW, China doesn't have a blue water navy now. But many analysts, including from Washington say it will have such a capability in 10 years max. Its DF-21D ballistic missile submarines will definitely be a great threat for all USN ships.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 China doesn't have a Blue water navy now, but that term is much more dimensional than yes or no.
Even if it received 3 carriers & more capable escorts, it still couldn't project power very easily.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 With 3 carriers, it will be able to project power pretty easily in their region. In 10 years, they will certainly no longer be intimidated by the USN. Some analysts say that a war is inevitable between China and US in the next 10 years. I would really like to see who would win such a war.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 In the next 10 years how on earth could China win a war with the US? Especially in terms of naval warfare? The US carriers are vastly more capable & more numerous than their Chinese counterparts. But what is very important is that the US knows how to use them. They operated large carriers in combat many times, especially in WWII. The Chinese are completely new at it.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Yes, the US has carriers and more experience with them than any other country. But China is developing a very powerful anti-ship ballistic missile capability. By the end of the decade, they may develop much longer ranged and much more capable ASBMs than the DF-21D. I'm pretty certain that in 10 years, they will feel confident enough to take on the USN. I would expect a war if I were you.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 I actually do expect a war with China to be honest. It sucks, but it seems like it is very possible.
But I would say that having China "maybe" have an anti-ship ballistic missile isn't really good enough. Especially since the DF-21D doesn't have MIRV's yet.
And even then, using nuclear weapons to destroy maybe even 3 carriers would cause a nuclear response by the US. So China shouldn't rely on that.
To be honest, countries have been using nuclear tipped torpedoes which are similar.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The DF-21D doesn't have MIRV capability YET. But they will develop such missiles, since they put a lot of emphasis on ASBM capability. And the USN will have nothing to counter this, even in 2020.
As for nuclear weapons, again, show me what are those weapons the US could use against China and also remain with a sufficient number to also deter Russia>
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 I never said the US could take on Russia & China. And they shouldn't.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well, actually, that's the capability the US must have. That's the way it is. It's Russia and China's fault, not US'.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Why would the US need to fight a nuclear war with China & Russia? What is the point? Both countries would be destroyed with literally hundreds of millions killed. It would be very pointless. With it's current weapons, the US could certainly destroy both countries, no one would win.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 specialized crew to to operate them. So in case some crises would've erupted in the Berlin, ballistic missiles could've been mobilized much quicker than planes. Ballistic missile are much better than aircraft from many points of view.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 How are ballistic missiles better than cruise missiles when cruise missiles are much more difficult to detect/intercept than theater missiles? Also, look at the converted Ohio class sub, it is much more useful in real wars or future wars than ballistic missiles.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Ballistic missile are much more dangerous than cruise missiles, because of their speed. Cruise missiles can be detected and since most of them are subsonic, it's not hard at all to shoot them down. Ballistic missile are much harder to intercept and shoot down.
Regarding the converted Ohio subs, they're not at all more useful than ballistic missiles. That's why the treaties only focused on ballistic missiles capabilities, not on cruise missiles. The soviets were
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 actually the first ones that came up with the idea of converting ballistic missiles subs for launching large numbers of smaller cruise missiles. That was because they didn't want to scrap their subs so they found a new use for them.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The US doesn't need to fight a nuclear war with these countries, it needs to have enough nuclear weapons to completely deter both of them. And with its current nuclear arsenal, the US simply can't. And China's arsenal is growing. In 10 years, the US definitely won't have the capability to deter both these countries. That's why I think the Peacekeeper and the Midgetman should've been deployed during the '90s.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 Most of what you say about China is all estimation without proof. You say they will do this & that but with what, where, when, & with who?
China announced it will expand it's navy, make different MBT's like the Type-99 but not once did they say they will expand it's aircraft inventory. Ever.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 So what, if they didn't say it, that means they won't do it? The Pentagon is actually very concerned about China because they're not at all transparent about their military program, and you're telling me that you don't believe they will expand their air force just because they don't announce it...? Are you that naive?
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 I know the Pentagon is worried about China. They have every right to be. But do you know how big that would be to add 2,000 combat aircraft to their inventory? That is monumental.
They would also have to build thousands of training & support aircraft. There is no way it would happen in 10 years. And why would China announce all of it's other main plans in land warfare, naval warfare, & even other parts of air combat like the J-20, but not explain increasing it's air power by 200%?
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 What exactly did China announce? And why would they announce such an important step? To put the US on guard? That would be stupid. So of course they wouldn't do this, even if they planned to do it. So assuming they wouldn't do it is naive. Like I said, when you're confronting an enemy, you have to assume the worst.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 What makes you think China is adding 2,000 more fighters to their inventory in the next 10-15 years? Seriously.
China hasn't expressed interest in this at all. Hell, they are still using the J-7 and Q-5 in large amounts! Do you expect an air force to make such a massive transition so quickly?
The US fleet of 187 F-22's could take out 30% of China's air power at least, let alone all of the planes.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 So your basing your assumptions on what China wants to do on what they say they want to do..? This is a country that says almost nothing about its military development but you're basing your assumptions on what they express publicly they want to do. Very smart... So if an enemy claims verbally that he's your friend but, in fact, he's preparing to attack you, you would say that enemy is actually your friend because he expresses no intention of attacking you...
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "So your basing your assumptions on what China wants to do on what they say they want to do..?"
Better than basing them off of literally nothing.
I am basing it off of China's aircraft history, present, and trends. Along with it's industrial capabilities. You on the other hand, are basing them off of nothing.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Your basing your assumptions ONLY on history and present, not at all on trends. I'm the one basing my assumptions on trends. Like I said, you're not taking into consideration many factors and you believe they will remain the same in 10 years from now. You have no capacity to look into the future. People like you run America and that's why America has never reached its full military potential.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "Your basing your assumptions ONLY on history and present, not at all on trends."
Like I said, I base it on history, the present, and what they have planned and are capable of.
And just so you know, trends have to deal with history. So saying "I'm the one basing my assumptions on trends." Shows your lack of knowledge in general.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 You don't base your assumptions on what they have planned and are capable of at all because you're incapable of thinking into the future.
Trends, many times, don't deal with history. Things change, people change, they change their strategy and tactics. And this is what you're incapable of understanding.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "Trends, many times, don't deal with history. Things change, people change, they change their strategy and tactics. And this is what you're incapable of understanding."
Trends are history leading up to the present. Obviously things change, that is elementary, but saying in 10 years, like you said, they can surpass the US in power, is insane.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 I said in 10 years, it can create major problems for US in Pacific, not that it can surpass it entirely. In 10 years, the US may not be able to intervene in case China attacks Taiwan. And that will be a huge blow for the US, which will signal the beginning of the end for its military dominance.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 " I said in 10 years, it can create major problems for US in Pacific, not that it can surpass it entirely."
They could do that now if they had ambition, but no matter what it's chances of being successful are slim.
"the US may not be able to intervene in case China attacks Taiwan"
What leads you to believe that? The US is ordering more destroyers, more aircraft, more carriers, and more of everything.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1 "Like I said, you're not taking into consideration many factors and you believe they will remain the same in 10 years from now."
For the 100th time, of course they will change. But they won't go from a regional power, to overtaking the world's power, in 10 years. And they certainly won't add 2,000 combat planes to their arsenal too.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 They're not yet a regional power in its own right. But by 2020, they will be and they will be able to challenge the US in the Pacific.
Regarding the J-20, it will enter service in 2020 and by 2030, when their industrial capacity will be FAR HIGHER than it is today, they may be very well able to build them in very large numbers. Possibly over 2000 of them.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 "Regarding the J-20, it will enter service in 2020 and by 2030, when their industrial capacity will be FAR HIGHER than it is today, they may be very well able to build them in very large numbers."
Uh, and by then, the F-35 will be 2,400 strong with 187 F-22's, and the X-47B, Phantom Ray, Avenger, and probably the F/A-XX will be active.
Along with the hypersonic strike vehicle and maybe much more. Do you think the US will not upgrade their forces too?????
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The F-35 is not good enough, the F-22 is build in far too smaller numbers, the X-47B and Phantom Ray, unless you build tens of thousands of them, won't help very much and Avenger is just a vulnerable drone. What force is that? No, the US is no upgrading. In fact, it's developing only useless weapons systems because the US sissy politicians don't want to look "menacing" for other countries. The US military capability is decreasing, not increasing.
StiviGun1 1 month ago