Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

[Innominate]

This has some more info

Five Ways The Air Force’s F-35A Fighter Is Becoming More Affordable To Operate

The Air Force's biggest program is making steady progress in meeting its sustainment objectives.

www.forbes.com

"In fact, the number of maintenance hours per flight hour on legacy fighters is a multiple of what F-35A is demonstrating today. The Air Force’s stated requirement for F-35A is no more than nine hours and the actual is five hours, making it the most easily maintained tactical aircraft in the Air Force fleet."

France isn't doing well with 55% of it fleet available.

Haute intensité : L'aviation de combat française présente des fragilités qui peinent à se réduire - Zone Militaire

Alors que l'éventualité d'un engagement de "haute intensité" n'est plus une vue de l'esprit, l'armée de l'Air & de l'Espace aura-t-elle les moyens de

www.opex360.com

Another point of attention is the availability of planes. If it tends to improve, it remains "perfectible" according to Mr. Ferrara. “Taking into account the issues related to the engine and the level of operational support [NSO], the operational technical availability [DTO] of the Rafale [air and navy] reached 55.8% in the first half of 2021, against 50.4% in 2020 ", which remains" to be put into perspective "given that the" current rate appears very close to that observed in 2018 [55.7%],

Wow. 55% MCR for French french planes and India will only have 36... what's the point of even having the french plane when it won't be any use in a high intensity conflict with chicoms.

Pic-oil 55% availability for your plane... what da dealeo, homeboy?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Wow. 55% MCR for French french planes and India will only have 36... what's the point of even having the french plane when it won't be any use in a high intensity conflict with chicoms.

Pic-oil 55% availability for your plane... what da dealeo, homeboy?

 

[Innominate]

I agree with you thumbs down on 55% MCR for your plane.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

The JSF/F-35 is an example of the glittering virtualisation of the US armed forces. The Pentagon's export control and export services have established protocols to ensure that they have effective control of the aircraft on export, while US users are instructed not to "risk" the aircraft in real-world operational conditions where it might get dirty.

Even the Israelis, who have had the F-35 for three years, are extraordinarily discreet ('stealth') about its operational use, - in contrast to their habit of intensively using a new weapon in their arsenal with the hoped-for deterrent effect.

In the end, it is the director of the Air Power Australia website, Peter Goon, who best defines it, citing the most spectacularly sham and fake financial system of the 2000s:

This scheme has all the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. When the product doesn't work, recruit as many customers as you can, promote it as best you can, make as much money as you can while the market ignores its failures.

Another dimension of this virtualisation approach is the naval dimension. Until now, the U.S. Navy's presence on the world's seas has been marked by the large attack aircraft carriers (CVNs), of which it has ten in principle, on the main routes and at the central strategic points.

Recently, it has been observed that in important theatres, the flagship function has been entrusted to lower category aircraft carriers, either amphibious assault (LCD) or command (LCC). In recent weeks, the LCD USS 'Essex' performed this function in the Gulf, and the LCC USS 'Mount Whitney' in the Black Sea (and Mediterranean).

The fate of the CVNs is more difficult to determine, with the USS 'Harry Truman' expected to be decommissioned, and the brand new USS 'Gerald R. Ford' in endless trouble. Temporary lay-ups for maintenance, repair and modernisation are taking up more and more time and money.

Another kind of explanation for a certain fading of the big CVNs of the U.S. Navy is of course the fear of Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles in case of conflict, according to a Russian naval expert. They prefer to put their aircraft carriers at a distance from greater security. This in itself is a kind of admission of weakness, like a defeat if you like.

This process is essentially about the desire of military leaders and the national security community not to lose any of the major axes of what was once Americanist hegemony; if you like, it is about "keeping up appearances", with the colossal Pentagon budget, sewn up in every direction and in every way by waste, corruption and impotence, acting as an inescapable reference point for the quick-witted.

In this process and given the loss of real means and the weakening of operational capacities, the strategic situation is becoming increasingly tense and there is this search for completely artificial and simulacrum substitutes to continue to appear hegemonic.

One cannot end this review of the virtualisation of the US armed forces without mentioning the 'wokenisation' of the forces, which contributes to a sharp decline in their combat capabilities, cohesion, sense of mission and duty, etc. The process of virtualisation fits quite well with the current situation. The process of virtualisation corresponds quite well to wokenisation, which is another radical way of virtualising oneself; in both cases, there is radical deconstruction and destructuring ('deconstructuring'); all this, in the logic of our times gone mad.

In a way, we are witnessing a mutation of the US armed forces, their transmutation, both operational and psychological. It is an original show.

 

[Spitfire6]

I'm not the only one with doubts

actually goes against your accusations as their complaint is the Swiss picked F-35 without thinking about European politics, the silly Swiss actually chose on cost and capability instead of thoughts about cozying up with Europe. Its a lack of conspiracy and politics that lead to the F-35 choice, and they are now trying to fix that.

surely when nothing comes of this you will change your mind, or will the tinfoil hat tighten? I have my doubts about India's Rafales too, and there seems to be a lot of smoke that points to a fire. I know in your professional wisdom you are making sure to look at these things evenly. The cognitive dissonance of Rafale Fans in an Indian forum telling us about politics, scandal, and cost overruns with the F-35 is sometimes too much, then I realize it makes perfect sense to so many French posters since "a thief thinks everyone steals"

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

actually goes against your accusations as their complaint is the Swiss picked F-35 without thinking about European politics, the silly Swiss actually chose on cost and capability instead of thoughts about cozying up with Europe. Its a lack of conspiracy and politics that lead to the F-35 choice, and they are now trying to fix that.

surely when nothing comes of this you will change your mind, or will the tinfoil hat tighten? I have my doubts about India's Rafales too, and there seems to be a lot of smoke that points to a fire. I know in your professional wisdom you are making sure to look at these things evenly. The cognitive dissonance of Rafale Fans in an Indian forum telling us about politics, scandal, and cost overruns with the F-35 is sometimes too much, then I realize it makes perfect sense to so many French posters since "a thief thinks everyone steals"

The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed​

F-35A Jet Price To Rise, But It’s Sustainment Costs That Could Bleed Air Force Budget Dry​

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

After 20 Years, The F-35 Stealth Fighter Is Still Stuck In Testing​

 

[Innominate]

BAAAAHAHAHAHA! Nothing more amusing than a rage post. Poor pic-oil it must really suck that your plane can't even get off the ground, huh? Remember on this topic not long ago we got into it when your french plane had a 48% MCR and you almost had a crap fit and posted that it's actually in the mid 60% range? What BS from you. You could only wish your french plane had a 64-65% MCR now, huh?

 

[Lolwa]

I have my doubts about India's Rafales too, and there seems to be a lot of smoke that points to a fire.

What exact doubts?? The Rafale was the best plane in MMRCA 1. There's no doubt about that, as much as you think otherwise.

 

[Optimist]

Those GOA number are wrong for several reasons. First they are using over $40k CPFH out to 2036, Not the current $36 or $30k for 2023 or the $25k for 2025. Second is the F-35a allowance is so much less than the b/c. Obviously they need to bring the money allowed, in line with the others. Lastly affordability constrains could be the pentagon, just asking congress for more money.

Lockheed nabs F-35 sustainment contract worth up to $6.6B

The cost per flying hour is set to decrease by 8 percent over the contract period, the Pentagon stated.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Spitfire6]

Literally no one can be convinced by anything using scripted exercises.

The Indo-US exercises had rules constraining the employment of each others' most advanced tactics and technologies. India had even used the monkey model of the Su-30, with the K designation, instead of the latest Su-30MKI, not even the slightly better MK was used. The other jets were older M2000 and Mig-29 that date back to the 80s, and were upgraded only a decade later. Their best radar ranges were around 50-60Km. Our most advanced jet in the fight was the Mig-21 Bison, and it was this jet that earned the most amount of praise. It was the only modern-BVR capable jet the IAF used in the exercise against the Americans. The most advanced jets in the fight were the F-15s of course.

And it was these ancient jets that India used to beat the F-15s. No one's gonna make any conclusions about the fight using such an exercise.

Right so we turn to combat, and see the F-15 is undefeated in the air. This should end the debate as unless Flankers suddenly amass over a hundred kills all of the sudden, the F-15 is still the machine to beat and sits atop the mountain, but now we can't even trust combat statistics. why? "monkey models"

Er... Monkey models are a real thing. It's not an excuse. The SU version of their jets were completely different from what were exported. The radars were different, most jets didn't have an EW suite, the IRST was a generation behind. The Syrian and Iraqi tanks and jets were a generation behind their parent versions. This isn't even some secret, it's open source news. The first time their most advanced aircraft tech was ever exported was to India, in 2002.

Export variants of Soviet military equipment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The existence of monkey models was revealed by a Soviet defector to the West. He pointed out that Western armour suffered because they were making their technologies suitable to beat export Soviet models.

Some text:
"The `monkey-model' is a weapon which has been simplified in every conceivable way and which is intended for production in wartime only.

For instance, the T-62 tank is one of the simplest fighting vehicles in the world. But as it was being designed, a still simpler version was also being developed, for wartime use. The `monkey-model' of the T-62 does not have a stabilised gun, carries simplified radio and optical equipment, the night-vision equipment uses an infra-red light source to illuminate targets (a method which is twenty years old), the gun is raised and turned manually, steel rather than wolfram or uranium is used for the armour-plating piercing caps of its shells."

The Iraqi T-72 tanks that the Americans fought in 1991 were so bad that even with direct hits on the Abrams, they couldn't penetrate the armour. The reason being the Soviets only exported steel-based APFSDS instead of tungsten, let alone DU. Even though the gun was decent enough, the ammo was too weak to be used in a modern war.

Soviet tech was only suitable for third world countries to fight each other. They had three tiers of weapons. The first was used by themselves. The second was exported to Warsaw Pact countries. The third was exported to everyone else. The best part is the first tier is still unknown. The West only has access to the second and third tiers even today. It's actually why the Russians are open to exporting the S-400 to the US, their own version is different from the export version.

A monkey model along the lines of the SU was proposed for the F-16 by Jimmy Carter as well, where the F100/110 was replaced by an outdated J79. Regan killed it.

I actually read Suvorov's book when I was 16. It doesn't stop the fact that its a poor excuse. I didn't say it was not real. I said its a bad excuse and I stand by it. You also assume that the "first tier" soviet equipment even matched the US in the first place. Its great that monkey model Mig-29s are inferior to first tier USSR MiG-29s but its also meaningless as you are simplycomparing Russia with Russia. Moreover the US has achieved access to these systems because Russia was for sale in the 1990s, and the Ukraine was a part of the USSR and the US has access to them, not to mention a bunch of other former soviet republics.

I will make 3 more points.

1. Russia is still behind, just like it was behind in the USSR days, and just like it was behind after losing a decade with Yeltsen, you keep thinking the Soviets had some real amazing stuff just hidden that no one knows about, and its not true and obviously so if you take out the red stars from your eyes. the F-22 is possible because of massive investment in advanced engine tech in the 1980s. This is engine tech the USSR was beginning to explore before the collapse. its been playing catch up ever since. hence Su-57M which will finally get something maybe as nearly good as F119, F414, and F135. maybe.

2. long ago, weapon systems were less reliant on electronics and precision and other sophisticated engineering back when airplanes were something akin to flying tractors but as things became more modern, Russia fell behind and we see this today. The T-62 he mentions, even the not monkey model never bothered with an automatic transmission. even when fitted with motors for turret it still traverses slowly, the conditions are cramped and the loader struggles to maintain a rate of fire with that of western tanks. The problems with the T-62 go beyond the downgraded monkey model sights so even the secret amazing 1st tier T-62 was inferior. Take the T-72, ok its a monkey model, but turns out the autoloader in all T-72s is slow and cumbersome no matter the level. its cramped and tiny too. its inferior to western tanks. in fact its built to be because old ivan wanted to overwhelm the West just like he did Jerry in World War II We have seen the "superior" Russian gear suffer completely even when used by Russians. "If it explodes it must be a monkey model" is a helluva way to die. it just turns out that a lot of this equipment whether its a T-80 in Grozny or Monkey model T-55 in the israeli desert just isn't that good. its not a matter of upgraded night vision turning the tide of battle.

3. Even if there is some amazing super sauce of a flanker its still a Flanker. tell the Rafale pilots in india with experience flying for and against flankers that there is some new super flanker out there, that is "10 percent better in every capacity", and they simply take what they already know and add 10 percent. its nothing revolutionary. in fact that is the point. Its a constant Flanker evolution from here to now, but its nothing that amazing compared to what is known. Thats the problem. this isn't sputnik or some secret "think in Russian" fighter. its A flanker. something comparable to an F-15 which the west is also very familiar with. Rafale is going to have better electronic capability than even tier 1 Russian gear. Sorry to have to tell you that, and the French posters here will back me on it. The things that matter in modern aviation are Russia's biggest problem areas.

The reason I even bring all this thread is you seemed to have elevated these Russian aircraft beyond all reason. an Su-57M if its lucky will be in the ball park with an F-22, and even then Russia is struggling and its still years away. F-22 will be in service TWENTY YEARS before Russia puts up a couple dozen of something that can be loosely described as a counter. And you think Su-57M is equivalent to NGAD? NGAD is beyond even F-22. You mention Su-75 being equal to F-35. Its a wooden mockup at an air show, much like so many other aircraft revealed by the Russians that come to nothing. in fact its worse in someways, Yak-141 and S-37 Berkut at least flew. Su-75 might in a few years.

also you can't export "prime technologies" that don't exist, so you are absolutely right there. That really helps. Some of these Russian technologies are so advanced not even Russia has them and won't for years yet, but you think the west will be "threatened" by such things, who wouldn't want to invest in Russia's latest boondoggle?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

BAAAAHAHAHAHA! Nothing more amusing than a rage post. Poor pic-oil it must really suck that your plane can't even get off the ground, huh? Remember on this topic not long ago we got into it when your french plane had a 48% MCR and you almost had a crap fit and posted that it's actually in the mid 60% range? What BS from you. You could only wish your french plane had a 64-65% MCR now, huh?

Poor thing, everyone has seen that you don't understand anything and that it's not even worth explaining to you. My plane, as you say, is capable of reaching 98% FMCR, but we French set this rate at the level we need it. For example, when we sell second-hand Rafales to Greece and Croatia, we raise this rate by about 10%.

On the other hand, your aircraft, of which you are so proud, has an MCR of around 60% but an appalling FMCR (Full Mission Capable Rate) of around 15%, and whatever the organisational efforts made by the US air force, this rate does not go up.

But of course you didn't even understand that these rates are not a characteristic of the aircraft alone, but a characteristic of the aircraft and the organisation that was put around it.

It's sad to see people like you who imagine that they have defended their point of view well when all they have done is pollute a site that was serious before they came.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Those GOA number are wrong for several reasons. First they are using over $40k CPFH out to 2036, Not the current $36 or $30k for 2023 or the $25k for 2025. Second is the F-35a allowance is so much less than the b/c. Obviously they need to bring the money allowed, in line with the others. Lastly affordability constrains could be the pentagon, just asking congress for more money.

The current CPFH is 36,000, the GAO anticipates a CPFH of 40,000 and L.M. of 25,000 but as L.M. is both judge and jury it is better to use an independent estimate such as the GAO.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Right so we turn to combat, and see the F-15 is undefeated in the air. This should end the debate as unless Flankers suddenly amass over a hundred kills all of the sudden, the F-15 is still the machine to beat and sits atop the mountain, but now we can't even trust combat statistics. why? "monkey models"




I actually read Suvorov's book when I was 16. It doesn't stop the fact that its a poor excuse. I didn't say it was not real. I said its a bad excuse and I stand by it. You also assume that the "first tier" soviet equipment even matched the US in the first place. Its great that monkey model Mig-29s are inferior to first tier USSR MiG-29s but its also meaningless as you are simplycomparing Russia with Russia. Moreover the US has achieved access to these systems because Russia was for sale in the 1990s, and the Ukraine was a part of the USSR and the US has access to them, not to mention a bunch of other former soviet republics.

I will make 3 more points.

1. Russia is still behind, just like it was behind in the USSR days, and just like it was behind after losing a decade with Yeltsen, you keep thinking the Soviets had some real amazing stuff just hidden that no one knows about, and its not true and obviously so if you take out the red stars from your eyes. the F-22 is possible because of massive investment in advanced engine tech in the 1980s. This is engine tech the USSR was beginning to explore before the collapse. its been playing catch up ever since. hence Su-57M which will finally get something maybe as nearly good as F119, F414, and F135. maybe.

2. long ago, weapon systems were less reliant on electronics and precision and other sophisticated engineering back when airplanes were something akin to flying tractors but as things became more modern, Russia fell behind and we see this today. The T-62 he mentions, even the not monkey model never bothered with an automatic transmission. even when fitted with motors for turret it still traverses slowly, the conditions are cramped and the loader struggles to maintain a rate of fire with that of western tanks. The problems with the T-62 go beyond the downgraded monkey model sights so even the secret amazing 1st tier T-62 was inferior. Take the T-72, ok its a monkey model, but turns out the autoloader in all T-72s is slow and cumbersome no matter the level. its cramped and tiny too. its inferior to western tanks. in fact its built to be because old ivan wanted to overwhelm the West just like he did Jerry in World War II We have seen the "superior" Russian gear suffer completely even when used by Russians. "If it explodes it must be a monkey model" is a helluva way to die. it just turns out that a lot of this equipment whether its a T-80 in Grozny or Monkey model T-55 in the israeli desert just isn't that good. its not a matter of upgraded night vision turning the tide of battle.

3. Even if there is some amazing super sauce of a flanker its still a Flanker. tell the Rafale pilots in india with experience flying for and against flankers that there is some new super flanker out there, that is "10 percent better in every capacity", and they simply take what they already know and add 10 percent. its nothing revolutionary. in fact that is the point. Its a constant Flanker evolution from here to now, but its nothing that amazing compared to what is known. Thats the problem. this isn't sputnik or some secret "think in Russian" fighter. its A flanker. something comparable to an F-15 which the west is also very familiar with. Rafale is going to have better electronic capability than even tier 1 Russian gear. Sorry to have to tell you that, and the French posters here will back me on it. The things that matter in modern aviation are Russia's biggest problem areas.

The reason I even bring all this thread is you seemed to have elevated these Russian aircraft beyond all reason. an Su-57M if its lucky will be in the ball park with an F-22, and even then Russia is struggling and its still years away. F-22 will be in service TWENTY YEARS before Russia puts up a couple dozen of something that can be loosely described as a counter. And you think Su-57M is equivalent to NGAD? NGAD is beyond even F-22. You mention Su-75 being equal to F-35. Its a wooden mockup at an air show, much like so many other aircraft revealed by the Russians that come to nothing. in fact its worse in someways, Yak-141 and S-37 Berkut at least flew. Su-75 might in a few years.

also you can't export "prime technologies" that don't exist, so you are absolutely right there. That really helps. Some of these Russian technologies are so advanced not even Russia has them and won't for years yet, but you think the west will be "threatened" by such things, who wouldn't want to invest in Russia's latest boondoggle?

This is really a very long argument that can be easily contradicted by pointing out that for hypersonic missiles it is the US that is years behind the Russians, and from the point of view of a US aircraft carrier, this is quite worrying.

 

[randomradio]

Right so we turn to combat, and see the F-15 is undefeated in the air. This should end the debate as unless Flankers suddenly amass over a hundred kills all of the sudden, the F-15 is still the machine to beat and sits atop the mountain, but now we can't even trust combat statistics. why? "monkey models"

Any aircraft can do that if there's a generation gap.

I actually read Suvorov's book when I was 16. It doesn't stop the fact that its a poor excuse. I didn't say it was not real. I said its a bad excuse and I stand by it. You also assume that the "first tier" soviet equipment even matched the US in the first place. Its great that monkey model Mig-29s are inferior to first tier USSR MiG-29s but its also meaningless as you are simplycomparing Russia with Russia. Moreover the US has achieved access to these systems because Russia was for sale in the 1990s, and the Ukraine was a part of the USSR and the US has access to them, not to mention a bunch of other former soviet republics.

I will make 3 more points.

1. Russia is still behind, just like it was behind in the USSR days, and just like it was behind after losing a decade with Yeltsen, you keep thinking the Soviets had some real amazing stuff just hidden that no one knows about, and its not true and obviously so if you take out the red stars from your eyes. the F-22 is possible because of massive investment in advanced engine tech in the 1980s. This is engine tech the USSR was beginning to explore before the collapse. its been playing catch up ever since. hence Su-57M which will finally get something maybe as nearly good as F119, F414, and F135. maybe.

2. long ago, weapon systems were less reliant on electronics and precision and other sophisticated engineering back when airplanes were something akin to flying tractors but as things became more modern, Russia fell behind and we see this today. The T-62 he mentions, even the not monkey model never bothered with an automatic transmission. even when fitted with motors for turret it still traverses slowly, the conditions are cramped and the loader struggles to maintain a rate of fire with that of western tanks. The problems with the T-62 go beyond the downgraded monkey model sights so even the secret amazing 1st tier T-62 was inferior. Take the T-72, ok its a monkey model, but turns out the autoloader in all T-72s is slow and cumbersome no matter the level. its cramped and tiny too. its inferior to western tanks. in fact its built to be because old ivan wanted to overwhelm the West just like he did Jerry in World War II We have seen the "superior" Russian gear suffer completely even when used by Russians. "If it explodes it must be a monkey model" is a helluva way to die. it just turns out that a lot of this equipment whether its a T-80 in Grozny or Monkey model T-55 in the israeli desert just isn't that good. its not a matter of upgraded night vision turning the tide of battle.

3. Even if there is some amazing super sauce of a flanker its still a Flanker. tell the Rafale pilots in india with experience flying for and against flankers that there is some new super flanker out there, that is "10 percent better in every capacity", and they simply take what they already know and add 10 percent. its nothing revolutionary. in fact that is the point. Its a constant Flanker evolution from here to now, but its nothing that amazing compared to what is known. Thats the problem. this isn't sputnik or some secret "think in Russian" fighter. its A flanker. something comparable to an F-15 which the west is also very familiar with. Rafale is going to have better electronic capability than even tier 1 Russian gear. Sorry to have to tell you that, and the French posters here will back me on it. The things that matter in modern aviation are Russia's biggest problem areas.

The reason I even bring all this thread is you seemed to have elevated these Russian aircraft beyond all reason. an Su-57M if its lucky will be in the ball park with an F-22, and even then Russia is struggling and its still years away. F-22 will be in service TWENTY YEARS before Russia puts up a couple dozen of something that can be loosely described as a counter. And you think Su-57M is equivalent to NGAD? NGAD is beyond even F-22. You mention Su-75 being equal to F-35. Its a wooden mockup at an air show, much like so many other aircraft revealed by the Russians that come to nothing. in fact its worse in someways, Yak-141 and S-37 Berkut at least flew. Su-75 might in a few years.

also you can't export "prime technologies" that don't exist, so you are absolutely right there. That really helps. Some of these Russian technologies are so advanced not even Russia has them and won't for years yet, but you think the west will be "threatened" by such things, who wouldn't want to invest in Russia's latest boondoggle?

The Russians have definitely fallen behind. Their best hope is to catch up with the Su-57, not the Flankers and Fulcrums.

And no, I've not put them up on a pedestal, I'm only pointing out that your underestimation of SU/Russian tech is is bit too much on the higher side. And yeah, compared to the Rafale, let alone the F-35, they are behind, considering their currently operational Flanker tech.

You should read the article on the new engine I posted in the Su-57 thread today. It's well beyond currently operational American engines based on cursory information.

As for the T-72, T-62, T-80 etc, all three tanks were designed before Western current gen tanks. So I don't really know what you're getting at. I suppose you should be comparing to the Armata UCP instead, but that would be meaningless. Tanks are a lot more dependent on the geographical conditions, tactics and doctrine than just basic specs. Like the UCP's logistics advantage is of much greater importance than an Abram's armour or firepower, since the SU/Russians were expected to perform the offensive, while the West was supposed to play defence. Read up on the Battle of Asal Uttar on how a significantly inferior force could practically annihilate a very powerful force. Regardless my point was monkey models existed, and export models were very weak even within the same generation, let alone when compared to later design Western tanks like Abrams, Leopards and Leclercs.

As for "super sauce" of a Flanker, nah, there are considerable differences between different variants, enough to give each modernisation a significant advantage over the previous one. For example, the MKI handily beats the generic Su-27, and the new Su-35S has a significant advantage over the MKI, enough to create a wide gap in kill ratios. Assuming the Fulcrum and Flanker are of the same generation, IAF pilots pointed out that the legacy Mig-29 they operated stood no chance against the MKI, it was always a one-sided massacre during exercises. They pointed out that Mig-29 pilots didn't even know they were targeted and killed. So, even within the same generation, with the same tech base, mere 10-year gap, there were significant differences. So it's natural to assume the difference between smaller third world countries like Iraq and the advanced nations of NATO would be even bigger.

A more objective view needs to be established in the West about the capabilities of the Russians because our officers in India actually laugh at Western assessments of Russian tech, considering we have access to both.

 

[Optimist]

Does Russia have the GDP to spend keeping up? It's around the same as S Korea. Spain and Australia.

GDP Ranked by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

.....................................................................GDP 2019..........2016 ............. Per person..............population

5	India	3.26 Tn	2.26 Tn	$2,338	1,393,409,038
6	United Kingdom	2.93 Tn	2.65 Tn	$42,915	68,207,116
7	France	2.88 Tn	2.47 Tn	$43,959	65,426,179
8	Italy	2.09 Tn	1.86 Tn	$34,629	60,367,477
9	Brazil	2.06 Tn	1.80 Tn	$9,638	213,993,437
10	Canada	1.83 Tn	1.53 Tn	$48,137	38,067,903
11	South Korea	1.74 Tn	1.41 Tn	$34,000	51,305,186
12	Russia	1.67 Tn	1.25 Tn	$11,428	145,912,025
13	Spain	1.50 Tn	1.24 Tn	$32,026	46,745,216
14	Australia	1.48 Tn	1.30 Tn	$57,447	25,788,215

 

[zinswinsin]

They certainly don't have enough for serial production without scamming some foreign sales.

Just look at the Checkmate.

 

[Innominate]

Poor thing, everyone has seen that you don't understand anything and that it's not even worth explaining to you. My plane, as you say, is capable of reaching 98% FMCR, but we French set this rate at the level we need it. For example, when we sell second-hand Rafales to Greece and Croatia, we raise this rate by about 10%.

On the other hand, your aircraft, of which you are so proud, has an MCR of around 60% but an appalling FMCR (Full Mission Capable Rate) of around 15%, and whatever the organisational efforts made by the US air force, this rate does not go up.

But of course you didn't even understand that these rates are not a characteristic of the aircraft alone, but a characteristic of the aircraft and the organisation that was put around it.

It's sad to see people like you who imagine that they have defended their point of view well when all they have done is pollute a site that was serious before they came.

March 9, 2020 | By Brian W. Everstine
Airmen and F-35s deployed to the Middle East from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, increased the jet’s mission-capable rate during combat operations while helping guide the future of the jet’s complex maintenance logistics system.

F-35s from Hill’s 4th Fighter Squadron deployed to Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates, for six months last year. The jets almost instantly began conducting airstrikes while 70 percent of the fleet was able to conduct its mission, said Brig. Gen. David Abba, director of the Air Force’s F-35 Integration Office. By the end of the deployment, that rate had climbed to more than 90 percent.

The jets flew 1,300 combat sorties over about 7,300 combat hours, and employed about 150 weapons. All bombs worked as planned without aircrew errors or weapon system malfunctions.

“The numbers are pretty remarkable,” Abba said.

The squadron was able to increase the mission-capable rate with a cadre of inexperienced maintainers. Hill AFB is has more than it needs of the most junior maintainers, so that those Airmen can spread across the operational units as they hone their skills, Abba said.

“They brought a truly representative set of maintainers that finished that deployment over 90 percent,” Abba said at a Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies event in Arlington, Va.

The 4th Fighter Squadron has been replaced in theater by the 34th Fighter Squadron, which “will not be the last” F-35A deployment to the region, Abba said. The 34th’s time in the region came amid heightened tensions surrounding Iran’s attack on Americans at bases in Iraq. In response to these attacks, F-35s “were ready to respond on a moment’s notice, should the order have been given for any additional missions to be executed,” he added.

Deployed F-35s Raise Mission-Capable Rates, Help Form New Logistics System | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Airmen and F-35s deployed to the Middle East grew the jet’s mission-capable rate and guided the future maintenance logistics system.

www.airforcemag.com

"Taking into account the issues related to the engine and the level of operational support [NSO], the technical operational availability [DTO] of the Rafale [air and marine] reached 55.8% in the first half of 2021, against 50.4% in 2020", which remains "to be put into perspective" given that the "current rate appears very close to that observed in 2018 [55.7%], and not so far from that of 2017 [53.2%] and 2019 [52.2%]".

 

[Spitfire6]

The JSF/F-35 is an example of the glittering virtualisation of the US armed forces. The Pentagon's export control and export services have established protocols to ensure that they have effective control of the aircraft on export, while US users are instructed not to "risk" the aircraft in real-world operational conditions where it might get dirty.

Even the Israelis, who have had the F-35 for three years, are extraordinarily discreet ('stealth') about its operational use, - in contrast to their habit of intensively using a new weapon in their arsenal with the hoped-for deterrent effect.

Why are they not louder about things they do with their covert stealth aircraft?

is that a serious question?

In the end, it is the director of the Air Power Australia website, Peter Goon, who best defines it, citing the most spectacularly sham and fake financial system of the 2000s:

My god you are quoting APA? I don't know what is worse at this point, the fact that you are hopefully lying about your time spent in Dassault or if you actually did work there but this is quality of their employee. I thought Dassault knew their stuff, but with every post you prove otherwise. it funny that an "airplane" guy wants to talk anything but airplanes

which brings us to

Another dimension of this virtualisation approach is the naval dimension. Until now, the U.S. Navy's presence on the world's seas has been marked by the large attack aircraft carriers (CVNs), of which it has ten in principle, on the main routes and at the central strategic points.

Recently, it has been observed that in important theatres, the flagship function has been entrusted to lower category aircraft carriers, either amphibious assault (LCD) or command (LCC). In recent weeks, the LCD USS 'Essex' performed this function in the Gulf, and the LCC USS 'Mount Whitney' in the Black Sea (and Mediterranean).

The fate of the CVNs is more difficult to determine, with the USS 'Harry Truman' expected to be decommissioned, and the brand new USS 'Gerald R. Ford' in endless trouble. Temporary lay-ups for maintenance, repair and modernisation are taking up more and more time and money.

Another kind of explanation for a certain fading of the big CVNs of the U.S. Navy is of course the fear of Russian and Chinese hypersonic missiles in case of conflict, according to a Russian naval expert. They prefer to put their aircraft carriers at a distance from greater security. This in itself is a kind of admission of weakness, like a defeat if you like.

This process is essentially about the desire of military leaders and the national security community not to lose any of the major axes of what was once Americanist hegemony; if you like, it is about "keeping up appearances", with the colossal Pentagon budget, sewn up in every direction and in every way by waste, corruption and impotence, acting as an inescapable reference point for the quick-witted.

In this process and given the loss of real means and the weakening of operational capacities, the strategic situation is becoming increasingly tense and there is this search for completely artificial and simulacrum substitutes to continue to appear hegemonic.

One cannot end this review of the virtualisation of the US armed forces without mentioning the 'wokenisation' of the forces, which contributes to a sharp decline in their combat capabilities, cohesion, sense of mission and duty, etc. The process of virtualisation fits quite well with the current situation. The process of virtualisation corresponds quite well to wokenisation, which is another radical way of virtualising oneself; in both cases, there is radical deconstruction and destructuring ('deconstructuring'); all this, in the logic of our times gone mad.

In a way, we are witnessing a mutation of the US armed forces, their transmutation, both operational and psychological. It is an original show.

 

[Spitfire6]

Any aircraft can do that if there's a generation gap.



The Russians have definitely fallen behind. Their best hope is to catch up with the Su-57, not the Flankers and Fulcrums.

And no, I've not put them up on a pedestal, I'm only pointing out that your underestimation of SU/Russian tech is is bit too much on the higher side. And yeah, compared to the Rafale, let alone the F-35, they are behind, considering their currently operational Flanker tech.

Thank you. I appreciate that

You should read the article on the new engine I posted in the Su-57 thread today. It's well beyond currently operational American engines based on cursory information.

Everyone is perfect on paper. the proof is in the pudding.

As for the T-72, T-62, T-80 etc, all three tanks were designed before Western current gen tanks. So I don't really know what you're getting at. I suppose you should be comparing to the Armata UCP instead, but that would be meaningless. Tanks are a lot more dependent on the geographical conditions, tactics and doctrine than just basic specs. Like the UCP's logistics advantage is of much greater importance than an Abram's armour or firepower, since the SU/Russians were expected to perform the offensive, while the West was supposed to play defence. Read up on the Battle of Asal Uttar on how a significantly inferior force could practically annihilate a very powerful force. Regardless my point was monkey models existed, and export models were very weak even within the same generation, let alone when compared to later design Western tanks like Abrams, Leopards and Leclercs.

My point is simply that the monkey model may be downgraded, but even the upgraded versions are not much to be excited about when the Monkey model and the best models are still fundamentally flawed.

As for "super sauce" of a Flanker, nah, there are considerable differences between different variants, enough to give each modernisation a significant advantage over the previous one. For example, the MKI handily beats the generic Su-27, and the new Su-35S has a significant advantage over the MKI, enough to create a wide gap in kill ratios. Assuming the Fulcrum and Flanker are of the same generation, IAF pilots pointed out that the legacy Mig-29 they operated stood no chance against the MKI, it was always a one-sided massacre during exercises. They pointed out that Mig-29 pilots didn't even know they were targeted and killed. So, even within the same generation, with the same tech base, mere 10-year gap, there were significant differences. So it's natural to assume the difference between smaller third world countries like Iraq and the advanced nations of NATO would be even bigger.

peachy

A more objective view needs to be established in the West about the capabilities of the Russians because our officers in India actually laugh at Western assessments of Russian tech, considering we have access to both.

So does the west. The Idea that we are clueless about such things is completely ridiculous. in many of your posts there is this idea that the Russians are always always holding back the good stuff to the point they deny even themselves advantages. There is not some secret bunker in Russia full of top class avionics, engines, tanks, software, and other western advantages hidden since the USSR days and only added to, but never used unless its revealed 15-20 years too late. If the Russians have the secret fix for Su-57, they should have used it in 2010.