As a cashiered former SECAF, I find his opinion of marginal interest.

Mr. Gates is the SECDEF, is in charge and makes the decisions. Mr. Wynne bet his career on forcint the F-22 issue and seems to have come out second best.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909–1.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009–06.html

What does that say about their radars?

The F-22… too expensive… maybe, but you need to look at it in the environment it is designed for, Air superiority against any threat. in this role there is no other fighter in the sky that can expect to fly out of an engagement with an F-22. and the 187 of them to be built is not enough. how many are available for deployment at any one time? what about training units, development units, and maintenance? my 2c worth is build them (lots of them) & sell them to (at least) Japan & Australia.

Either the nano/et tech is really good and classified ultra top secret, or we are giving it away?

And, Obama is raising the Chinese flag on the White House law to celebrate the communist takover of the pnrc — where 40–60 million were slaughtered to build the “working class” — give me a break!

pnrc: has a port in Long Beach Harbour, OWNS the Panama Canal, built the largest deep water port in the Bahamas, cyber-swyped the F-35 database, and is OUR FREIND!?

pray to Creator Gates knows what he is doing — hey, they don’t give me the top intel — but, it looks like a sell out and I will go down swinging a BIG FIST! And, I won’t be alone.

Fund the F-22, forget being the policemen for the NWO, give the illuminuts the finger, or we we’ll all be singing the Chinese national anthem, or sniping their sleeper cells. And, I can’t sing~!

militia man

The fact is that he has a point. If we won’t spend the money on our own to put new technology in the field, and won’t even let our allies buy the best technology we have, then we should not be surprised at all if we gradually lose out to the Europeans and perhaps even the Russians. Exactly how is this in our national interest if burden-sharing is the goal ? America always seems to want to impose these silly, self-serving unilateral policies not just on our enemies but on our friends. It is no surprise that they will draw their own conclusions and reduce their dependency on us. I’ve been browsing through Guenther Rall’s biography over the weekend, and one fact that comes out is that the Luftwaffe would probably not lost so make of its pilots in the F-104 Widowmaker if our tech control policy had been more enlightened and less bureaucratic, and significant safety-related changes had not been held back.

The F-22 was not too costly, it was simply an unjustified political murder. The F-35 is a compromise in several areas, but considering it should have only replaced the F-16 and AV-8, but that was okay. The F-22 did not compromise and was needed for air-superiority. It is a mistake to substitute it with a fighter inferior to upgraded F-15Es in some regards.

Some technologies are too sensitive to sell to even your closest allies.

***

Armamentsoldier,

No, Wynne was NOT fired for incompetence (Gates is the incompetence one). Wanye was fired because he dared to stick to the truth that the USAF needs more than 183/187 F-22s in direct contradiction to Gates’ position.

Sec Gates did not say the F22 was not a good bird, he said it cost too much, besides, wasn’t a lot of right wingers behind the F35 because Rummie and all the republicans was behind it? Sometimes I get the idea the right wingers don’t know what that want. They do know how to say No though, thats a good leadership trait, ain’t it? I’am just saying.

The F-35 has has NEVER been pitted against ‘legacy’ Flanker variants. It has ALWAYS been pitted against near FUTURE Flanker variants. Therefor that whole long spew (premised on such falsehood) is trash.

For your information I never said the PAK-FA had anything in common with the Flanker. The only thing I DID say is that based on the results it is doubtful that the “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future” in the latest simulations was the PAK-FA but rather the Su-35BM/Su-35S.

As for “Predator or Prey”. Just one example of how incorrect its assumption are — the F-35 was NOT designed for the 1990’s environment, it was designed for the 2015–2050 environment.

***

Rorge,

No, the simulations were (BOTH those in 2002 & those in 2008/2009) a number of modern western fighters & the F-35 vs “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future”. While the publicly released results do not indicate exactly what the “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future” it is quite obvious that (in both cases) it is some advanced Flanker variant. I don’t know what study you are referring to but NO Flnaker has EVER ‘won’ vs the F-35. BUT assuming you are reffering to that infamous RAND study…http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25/index.html

Degrading and underestimating your potential enemies and having no respect for their capabilities are alive and well in the US! The religion of American Exceptionalism, we are the best and the smartest in the world, all that we build and do is superior to all others and we can kick anyone’s ass any time we choose! Some of you guys live on a different planet than I do! This is not the decades after WWII, the rest of the world is catching up and in some cases leaving us behind! We are also broke and barrowing money from the Chinese to stay afloat! History has shown that underestimating the capabilities of our enemy has ALWAYS come back to bite us in the ass! The Japanese “Zero” and the MIG 15, the “Battle of the Bulge” and the “Tet Offensive” come to mind! All were a sobering shock! Economically and hence Militarily our power is declining, our infrastructure is crumbling and if we don’t begin to come to grips with these facts we are in big trouble!

Wow, you write fast.

You are neglecting four things: 1)training, 2)human factors, 3) politics, and 4)defense budget

1) A Russian or Chinese pilot getting 4 hours a month will not surpass an American/European/Israeli pilot getting far more hours in both aircraft and quality simulators. Better trained race car drivers or pilots in inferior equipment will best lesser trained counterparts in better equipment…and our equipment is not inferior. Even in Korea with nearly identical equipment, our loss exchange ratios was what, 10:1? Our current training simulation technology is part of what makes our pilots better.

2) Human factors include motivation and intoxication. Russia has a serious alcohol problem. This impacts aircraft engineering, production, quality control, mechanics, parts producers, and pilot capacity. With insufficient flight hours and pay, morale is affected and the best candidates will want to pursue other more lucrative jobs.

The Australia clan looks at aircraft performance in the absence of these factors and whether Russian equipment actually WORKS as advertised. They appear to still believe that most air-to-air will occur WVR where Russian pilots, if adequately trained and with no hangover, might have a chance.

The problem of course is they will almost never get that opportunity due to our stealth and superior radars, jamming, AWACS, and missiles. If they did vs. an F-35, its well-trained pilot would use off-axis AIM-9X and helmet mounted display to end the matter quickly before aircraft performance came into play.

3) Politics is what influenced the Indian-U.S. wargames. Obviously we do not fly without AWACS and the Indians have no identical capability yet we provided them vectoring in the wargames. We were restricted from using our best AESA radars…fighting with one hand tied behind our back. Finally, they were not fighting our newest stealth aircraft.

4) Defense spending is the last factor where we surpass the Russians. With one tenth the defense budget they simply cannot produce sufficient planes to match our R&D and manufacturing rate. They also lack modern sterile factory infrastructures for both aircraft and parts manufacturing.

The Chinese spend twice what the Russians do but still far less than a fifth of our budget. They rely on either being sold or copying Russian technology. The Russians are tired of losing the revenue and technology to the Chinese.

Our technology advantage could be duplicated and surpassed if we sold our F-22 to the Japanese, Australians, or others. That is not politically correct to say, but nevertheless would occur. Plus, if we sold a few nations the F-22, other nations would feel slighted and fewer nations would want the next best thing –the F-35.

The sky is not falling. The Air Force Association makes their living trying to scare Congress into spending more for the last ounce of unfair advantage for Air Force pilots. Yet the scenarios where major F-22 air-to-air battles could occur are few and far between, and the F-35 is more than capable of picking up any slack.

Meanwhile, real,not simulated casualties occur daily in Afghanistan against actual threats. When does the Army gets its chance at an unfair advantage?

Watch Air Force commercials showing F-22s, or Airmen in the U.S. helping ground Soldiers with a Reaper, and then they ask “Science Fiction?” Then they show that the Reaper is real.

The implication, of course, is that technology only works in the air, and it is a not-so-subtle slight against FCS tech. It employs recruiting advertising monies (how many enlisted pilots are out there?)to attempt to sway those holding the budget purse strings to fund aerial technology to the exclusion of ground tech…where troops are actually dying. Geez.

For your information, the SU variants are based on the T10 and have nothing in common with the future Pak-FA or T50!

Air Combat can be simulated on a computer and the accuracy is completely dependent on the data entered, the quality of the simulation software and in some cases what you want for an outcome!

The US Air Force F-15’s that got “smoked” without AWACS assistance against Indian Flankers was not a computer simulation neither was the FA-18’s problems with German Air Force MIG-29’s.

Please don’t insult my intelligence, of course there is more to air combat then flight performance! I also know that placing too much importance on Stealth can be dangerous. If there is a sudden counter measure developed, you are screwed.

Google “F35 Predator or Prey?” Here is a small portion. Just because it disagrees with your opinion does not make it trash!

How people feel about this quantity of F-35 JSFs depends on two factors — firstly whether the aircraft will be protecting or attacking them, and secondly whether it will be effective or ineffective at National-Defence-critical roles such as air dominance and penetrating strike.
Many in the Western World have full confidence in the F-35 ‘Lightning II’, and are comfortable with the thought that this world-wide armada of aircraft will protect them, their Nation and its global interests. They are willing to pay an unknown price for the privilege. Cost estimates have the price at least $150M a copy — the most expensive production fighter aircraft — ever.
Outside the West, the view is different. How would Nations like Russia and China feel about having 3,500 combat aircraft arraigned at them? Insecure? Threatened? Non-Western military arms companies might see this differently. A threat of this magnitude presents a huge opportunity to develop effective countermeasures which can be sold in large volumes for large profits.
And so Russian and Chinese military arms companies have been investing substantial resources in analyzing the F-35 JSF to find ‘chinks’ in its armor. They draw on the immutable laws of physics to find their answers and opportunities.

I don’t know where you got that trash but the F-35 has NEVER been pitted against ‘legacy’ Flanker variants. It has ALWAYS been pitted against near FUTURE Flanker variants.

The “400%” number comes from computer modeling/simulation done way back in 2002 vs a “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future” — it does not take a brain surgeon to recongnize that to be an advanced (as of 2002) Flanker varient. More recently (results made public in Feb 2009) the computer modeling/simulation was done again & obviously the “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future” there was the Su-35BM/Su-35S [based on the results I SERIOUSLY doubt it to be the PAK-FA] — and you have your head in the sand if you think we don’t have a more than fair idea of the capabilities of the Su-35BM/Su-35S. The Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI all FAILED TO ACHIEVE A POSITIVE KILL/LOSS EXCHANGE RATIO vs the “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future” but the F-35 did.

Wht you need to realize is that pure flight performance has not been THE determining factor in air-to-air effectiveness. The days of having to point the nose of your aircraft at your opponent in order to target/fire on it have long passed.

I think they pretty much know their stuff! It would not be the first time we procured a pig in a poke! In addition, this attitude I often see expressed here of our ultimate supremacy in all things is simply not true! I will accept the following until someone provides a more convincing argument!

If we compare a late model AESA equipped F-15K/SG subtype against the late model Su-35BM/Su-35–1, both likely to be rolled off a production line at the same time, these Flankers will outperform these F-15s in much of the flight envelope, especially at transonic speeds. With the AL-41F engine the Flanker will be able to sustain decent supersonic speed on dry thrust, giving it an energy advantage throughout the envelope. How much supercruise capability the hybrid AL-31F-117 series engine will provide remains to be seen. With conformal fuel tanks the F-15 will have comparable range to the Flanker with external PTB-2000 drop tanks. Equipped with the Irbis E the Sukhoi will achieve a first look / shot capability over the F-15 with an APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. In terms of EWSP capability, the Sorbstiya jammers will deliver better EIRP than the legacy ALQ-135 series, and the Khibiny-M will be comparable to the ALR-56M series. An area of uncertainty is how much of their newer radar signature suppression technology the Russians will incorporate in export Flankers.

In performing an overall summary, the Flanker will outperform or match the F-15 in most cardinal parameters and capabilities.

The other production Boeing fighter is the F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet with its much vaunted APG-79 AESA radar. The Su-35BM/Su-35–1 outperforms it on all cardinal parameters, including radar range, but excluding the somewhat academic measure of clean radar signature – academic since in combat external stores must be carried by both fighters.

Lockheed’s F-16E / Block 60 subtype with AESA and conformal fuel tanks is not competitive against the Su-35BM/Su-35–1 on any parameters, the Sukhoi cleanly outclasses it across the board.

The Lockheed-Martin F-35 JSF will be outclassed in all cardinal performance parameters, with the exception of radar signature when the JSF is flown clean with internal stores only. That advantage may also be entirely academic if the Flanker is networked with low frequency band radar to cue it to the JSF. It is also not entirely clear whether the radar signature of the export variants of the JSF will be low enough to deny lock-on by the powerful Irbis E at useful missile ranges.

The Eurofighter Typhoon with AMSAR will compete with the Su-35BM/Su-35–1 in terms of close combat agility and dash speed, but it does not have a decisive advantage in systems and sensors and cannot match the radar range of the Irbis E, and will not match a supercruise engine equipped Flanker.

The Dassault Rafale share many qualities with the Typhoon, but is smaller, and much the same comparisons apply to the Su-35BM/Su-35–1.

A key advantage the Flanker will possess against all but the conformal tank equipped F-15 is combat persistence, which provides far more flexibility in choosing engagements and the opportunity to run an opponent out of gas.

I suppose that an attitude similar to yours was prevalent when they shocked the crap out us in Korea with the MIG15? How could such a backward and unsophisticated country build such an advance aircraft. Or indeed beat us with the first earth satellite, the first man in space or the best ground attack plane of the second world war? Then there is the T34 tank that was so good that the Germans used much of its innovation in there later designs. They have the largest cargo planes in the world which we on occasion actually leased because we have nothing to match them. They also produce some of the best helicopters. The AK47 is generally regarded as a milestone in small arm development!

You may want to do a little checking on a joint military operation done recently between us and the Indian Air Force. Fighter on fighter without our AWACS the SU’s cleaned up on the F15’s!

You may also remember after the cold war we fitted Russian ejection seats into some of our fighter because they where a superior design.

Do a little reading on the US doing exercises with the German Air Force and how our FA18 had a hell of a time with their MIG29’s.

As for the Pak Fa, nobody knows as of yet! However, it is pretty well recognized outside the Pentagon and US manufacturers (who obviously have something to gain) that the SU35S and its later siblings are the most maneuverable and deadliest close in aircraft on the planet and only the F22 is superior in BVR!

I am not saying they are ahead of us across the board and they do not have their problems. But your conclusion is a dangerous assumption! Check out ausairpower.net you will get an education!

Quote:
This paper performs a comparative assessment of Russian technology employed in contemporary fighter aircraft and associated systems and weapons. Models of future air combat are defined and discussed. All categories of basic systems technology are then consecutively compared against their US or other Western equivalents. Finally, fighter types are compared to the first order. In conclusion, the notion that contemporary production Russian fighters are inferior in technology, performance and overall capability to their US/EU peers is largely not correct, and predicated on assumptions about Russian technological capabilities which ceased to be true a decade or more ago.