what really bugs me is how blinded `people` are to the other countries around the world take china they have the ability to hard kill a us carrier - with terminal maneuvering warheads from irbm`s the usa had these in the 70`s , yet binned the tech - china has it , developed it and now can target a carrier and drop a large warhead on it , whilst moving , from space. and nothing the usa has can stiop it take Russia - the `battle` of streakers vs dancers is over (anti ship missiles) - Russia wins. mach 5 at 15 feet , with swarm attack mode - 1 flies at 30000 feet guiding the rest , with a kill phase of 10 seconds from max engagement range of SM3 to hit. nothing reacts that fast in the chain of command - and IF CIWS manages to fire - 10 rounds at best ; its still a kill - inertia carries the missile in anyway.
Right, and it's not very good at it for a flyaway cost $5 million higher than the F15-C/D So what though? You're arguing that multi-role aircraft aren't very good, and I'm pointing out that three of the four aircraft the F-35 is replacing are multi-role aircraft. Well of course, this is what boggles my mind. What do opponents of the F-35 think, that if the US had had an extra 5 trillion lying around to be spent only on new fighters they *wouldn't* have developed 3 or 4 seperate 5th gen aircraft? Of *course* they would have, but to develop even a single one has been extremely expensive and compromising on some capabilities is a necessary requirement. Dogfights are definitionally close range and hence WVR. The USA *does* use it, and I wasn't saying it was inferior to modern RADAR systems because the US "doesn't" use it, but because it is in many regards. Which requires a network of massive, hugely expensive and vulnerable L-band RADARS all along whatever defensive front one wants to hold. IRST, among other things, is limted in range. An aircraft packing an IRST *might* catch an F-35 when it's within 50km, but that F-35 has been tracking the other bird from 150-190 km away. The anti-F-35 hysteria is really getting pretty absurd on the net these days. It's going to be a solid aircraft and it's got a lot of great things going for it. You need to stop believing the hype buddy, the DF-21D is essentially unproven, and tracking even the entire CBG within the ocean is an incredibly tough task. You're talking about launching something from 1700 miles away towards a target which is moving at 50 mph, and has a facing side of maybe 40-60 metres and is god knows where in the middle of a very very large ocean. That's completely ignoring the fact that the thing has to get past a number of destroyers and a cruiser which are there purely to protect the damn thing. The end is not so nigh . As for things like the Brahmos II, well we'll see. We just don't know yet, but you're making heavily biased assumptions there on the success of missile technology which is, as of yet, unproven.
the F-15E costs more than the fight only version - and you honestly think as a bomb truck its not good? really? the USA liked it so much - they went and built the Strike Eagle! im not saying they are not good per se ,I am saying they cannot be `as good` as a single role aircraft , by virtue of compromise. or can you not actually see that? cost increase is because of mission creep and a boys toys wish list and reality of trying to actually deliver what was promised. so far , the LRP don't have any deliverable mission capability - `lot 5` cannot do much else other than fly around and be expensive hanger queens. yeah had a brain freeze - that's why Israel has thrown a lot of money at short range missiles rather than long range stuff - shooting at a target in London when your orbiting brighton doesn't really work. [quoteThe USA *does* use it, and I wasn't saying it was inferior to modern RADAR systems because the US "doesn't" use it, but because it is in many regards.[/quote] the US kit is not as advanced as other countries - and costs more , they threw money at AESA whereas Russia went IR. both systems work well together as the RAF showed the F22 drivers in red flag recently (btw , typhoon drivers have nothing to fear in the merge against an F22 - that's from the USAF themselves). and the AESA equipped `phoon that went to red flag was a lot better than was expected. which country already HAS a large array of L-band radars - they could track stealth 20 years ago.... the AN/APG-81 is a good piece of kit - in fact the USA really should get into the wedetail programme - the 737`s IMO have more capability than the huge E-3`s for less per hour cost and crewing level. since you`ve started the polite `I am better than you` reply I shall respond stop sucking the `USA are best` kool aid. really. carrier defences have been tested and found wanting - SeaRam , CIWS , SM-3 ; ALL failed when need the most , layered defence? doesn't work. and AIP boat killed Ronald Reagan on exercise then went on to sink the escorts. you do know how easy it is to locate a CSG don't you? a 100 mile wide green path across the ocean is easy to spot - the Russian were doing it in the 70`s. so with the area now know n the time to target for an irbm travelling at least mach 6 would be calculated , mid course targeting by over the horizon radar - or Chinese drone assets which leaves the final dive using its own radar. CSG`s don't travel fast - 30 knots (where you got the idea they do 60 knots from I`ll never know - stop playing COD I think), so once located its easy to draw a circle around the area they are in for as far as they can go. and side view? lol - you are looking DOWN onto it - so that 40 meter is now 330meters from that huge main deck 1500 miles away? missile travels at 5000 mph (under mach 7) , takes 18 minutes to reach you - which at best means you are 10 miles from the detection point. as warhead comes in from near space it can scan that easily. pershing did this in the 1970`s. theres no ` well see` about it - the indian`s have proven the ability and the usa are desperately trying to buy them - they have run out of Coyote missiles to test with. Israel know all about the C-802 and how it got passed all the defences (and the wall of excuses that followed as to why the automatic systems didn't kill the missile) as does the usa with the uss stark.
It's not particularly good no. I mean it's big and it can carry lots of bombs if you want to take care of easy targets like Terry, but if you look at it's actual combat performance when it's been in any real danger it's done fairly poorly compared with the eagle. Well that's almost inevitably true, but do people really think such a claim has value in a discussion? It's like poopooing a ford focus on the basis that it's not a formula one car when all grown ups are comparing a focus or a golf. Find me a major acquisition program without cost increase and you'll have found a very rare thing indeed. But Israel essentially can't avoid dog fights in any air combat. The speed of modern day fighters combined with the fact that it's only 40 miles from the east of the country to the med means that essentially all combat is close range. The thing is, who cares? Large stationary targets are the first things to die, and it doesn't take much at all to punch a hole in an L-band net because the things are just so damn crappy compared with other modern sensors. the AN/APG-81 is a good piece of kit - in fact the USA really should get into the wedetail programme - the 737`s IMO have more capability than the huge E-3`s for less per hour cost and crewing level. Only fair. Well, in terms of absolute military might they are. I think it's easy to just believe "CHINA HAS NEW SUPER MISSILE" type stuff though and ignore the fact that the US has been preparing for stuff like this for decades. The first defence is just being a hard target, which is not to be under-estimated. Look I'm not saying the DF-21D is absolutely useless and couldn't inflict serious damage on the US fleet in the right circumstances, I'm just saying that the people who act as if the US will lose all 10 of it's carriers within the first week of a shooting war are being absolutely absurd. Locating and landing a missile on a 40 m target at 1700 km are two different things. so with the area now know n the time to target for an irbm travelling at least mach 6 would be calculated , mid course targeting by over the horizon radar - or Chinese drone assets which leaves the final dive using its own radar. CSG`s don't travel fast - 30 knots (where you got the idea they do 60 knots from I`ll never know - stop playing COD I think), so once located its easy to draw a circle around the area they are in for as far as they can go. and side view? lol - you are looking DOWN onto it - so that 40 meter is now 330meters from that huge main deck 1500 miles away? missile travels at 5000 mph (under mach 7) , takes 18 minutes to reach you - which at best means you are 10 miles from the detection point. as warhead comes in from near space it can scan that easily. pershing did this in the 1970`s. theres no ` well see` about it - the indian`s have proven the ability and the usa are desperately trying to buy them - they have run out of Coyote missiles to test with. Israel know all about the C-802 and how it got passed all the defences (and the wall of excuses that followed as to why the automatic systems didn't kill the missile) as does the usa with the uss stark.[/QUOTE] Now now, no need to be rude. I said 50 mph, which is 43 knots - the US don't release info other than "in excess of 30" but it's widely enough rumoured the Nimitz class could pull 40, who knows what Ford can manage given it's huge increases in power and more modern propulsion systems.
a carrier wont leave its escorts behind in a shooting war - you have incoming ` vampires` the arleigh burkes et all are a metal goal keeper for that big and expensive floating airport - so the captain wont push the pedal to max and leave them behind. GW2 - the only time the Abrahms actually engaged Russian kitted tanks was at the airport - when 2 kontakt 5 equipped tanks engaged the charging US forces - the M1 fired and hit the Iraqi tanks but for the first time didn't actually kill them! they fired back and hit the US tanks with 1 mobility kill. the M1 fired again killing the tanks the second and third shots. the germans found this when they got hold of kontakt in the 80`s with the reunification of Germany - but by then the replacement was underway in Russian (ending up as relikt) you can see , that the so called `silver bullet` didn't allways work - USA takes 1 step and the rest of the world take another. as for programmes on budget? sentinel R1 - came in on time and on budget edit: why are you so anti the tornado? it did what was asked of it in GW1 - and the F15E was barely in service when that war in the sandbox broke out
Sorry, Nexxo; I completely misread your original post! I've no idea how I did that - I thought you were saying it was a silly experiment when you were quite clearly saying the opposite.
TBH the A-10 while cool is mostly irrelevant today, anything that resembles a capable convention foe against the US (think something like 1991 Gulf War except the opposing force being competent, Saddam's Iraq was hilariously incompetent) would have capable IADS against the A-10 requiring 5th generation fighter while a low-level insurgency would be better dealt with drones.
No worries. I'm still boggling about how everyone suddenly appears to be a human Wikipedia on modern warfare technology. I feel woefully uninformed...
I have nothing to say which hasn't already been said on the A-10. However, where budgets are concerned it should be noted that the US spends in excess of half a trillion dollars a year on their military. SIPRI Trends in World Mlnitary Expenditure 2012 US - 682bn China - 166bn Russia - 90.7bn UK - 60.8bn
The US figures come from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist03z2.xls They exclude the Vetrans budget ~124bn
Well if the US is worrying about deficits (currently not a problem and big scary looking numbers are not everything) then it should just let the tax cuts expire. Though the US Army itself in terms of Manpower is big relative to the small European Armies and relatively far heavier (there are no armored European Heavy Formations anymore) there's the like of ROK's which is just as big in terms of manpower (though US Navy & Air Force are far larger than the ROK's). As mentioned before, the problem is in terms of heavy formations is that the European Militaires literally do not have any left and setting them up takes a long time. They are okay enough taking out the odd group of Militia/Insurgents that have decided to go out of the open but a conventional war even against a somewhat weaker foe would result in causalities for the former. Actually for the US not all for the Armed Forces, some of it is CIA, NSA and similar IIRC.
Yep, otherwise the US would be driving around in diamond-fueled hover tanks. The point is that comparing expenditure in terms of millions doesn't work so well.
Maybe, but it's hard to tell for sure. In the last page of the linked document, the authors provide a definition for "military spending." However the definition is still pretty broad, and the authors don't provide a detailed enough breakdown of the numbers. If the budget numbers are derived from funding for the Department of Defense, then it would most likely include the NSA. The FBI is an agency within the Department of Justice, and the CIA is one of the only independent agencies that operates under the very broad 'Homeland Security' umbrella. If the authors used the number allocated for the DoD, then it might not include many of the alphabet agencies. That said, according to the spreadsheet from the White House link provided by Risky, 'National Defense' spending (which does not include military pensions or the Department of Justice agencies) increased from $294 billion in 2000, to $677 billion in 2012. The document appears to be a bit old because 2013 and 2014 numbers are provided as estimates (with spending estimated to decrease to $592 billion in 2018). As a reference point, NASA's fiscal year 2014 budget request was $17.7 billion. That's roughly 98 F-35 aircraft, or $2 billion less than Facebook paid for Whatsapp. Such is the tangle of trying to investigate government spending. Taking a big number and calling it something like 'military' spending can be misleading if all you want to do is look at how much is spent on tanks and airplanes.
Non-5th generation aircraft won't go near Russian IADS. Even in during the Yugoslavia breakup, NATO aircraft effectiveness wasn't that good (only took out 20 vehicles out of 800) and that was due to 1970s IADS, non-5th genration aircraft would not go anyway near S-300/400s.
Indeed, Lockheed Martin, will be not unhappy with recent events as the F35 is only really justified if America is looking to defend against Russia and China rather than asymetric conflicts.
