The U.S. Navy has ordered another eight Virginia class SSNs

[JALU3]

What the heck was that Periscope? Who said I was rallying for the F-35C or the X-47? Before you go out and try to deride my statements first understand what I am trying to say!

What I am saying is that the CVWs, with their F/A-18E/Fs and F-35 primary build out as planned, compared to its old Cold War Build out of longer ranged aircraft including the F-14s, A-6s, and A-7s, had a superior strike radius, thus giving them a larger area of control, the ability to strike deeper into a target country independent of refueling if need be, and was able to keep the CVBG/CVSG further away from the potential threats that could be launched ashore.

What you have shown is you are a lobbyist for the Super Hornet, and believe it a superior naval aircraft over any other possible alternative, specifically the F-35. Great, good for you.

However, that doesn't solve the problem that, although the F/A-18E/Fs have replaced the KA-6Ds, it was my understanding, that the F/A-18E/Fs that had been loaded out for the tanker mission, did not carry the same (or greater) amount of fuel as the aircraft that they replaced, and had the same limitations of a shorter operational radius that is inherent to the F/A-18E/Fs in the first place remain.

Therefore, since both the F/A-18E/Fs and the planned F-35C have an inherently shorter operational raduis, then its predecessors, this reduces that capability of the CVW as a whole, and thus increases the threat to the CVBG/CVSG. Thus, if they could do it before, and have larger combat radii, then the should be able to engineer new aicraft with superior capability than the present and past aircraft, that can go equal distance to the longer legged cold-war era aircraft, or longer.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I'm sorry, I worded this poorly. Russian SAMs are probably the best weapons the Russians make, far more capable than their fighters for anti air IMO. What I was saying was, they should have known better. They themselves built the system. As close as it was to their border they should have known where these things were approximately through ELINT, sat recon, and perhaps even HUMINT.

The very point of the very high mobility of the latest generation of Russian antiaircraft weapons is to defeat or degrade the Recce-Strike Complex of NATO, even as the weapons are relatively close to the borderline (say as the Soviets advance through West Germany). If the weapons live up to half the hopes, it is hardly surprising they can evade destruction long enough to bag a few aircraft.

They made the system. If not capable of knowing how to outright defeat it, they should have known EXACTLY how to avoid it.

SAM systems are so sited that enemies have to fly through their kill zones to reach their target. If they were able to "avoid" it, it'll likely be because of a Georgian deployment error.

The RuAF did OK with CAS in Georgia, but if they were ever to come up against a modern air force I have my doubts about them. Keep in mind the vast majority of their Air Force is the same stuff they were using in the 1980's. Ours is too (and earlier), but has seen A LOT of upgrading. The majority of Russian equipment hasn't. And the performance of their radar guided AAMs (as recently as mid 1990s) has been absolutely terrible, even compared to Vietnam era Sparrows.

While I don't think they are quite up to modernity yet, Do you mean Ethiopia and Etritea? What happened to warm thoughts of the Russians and Ukies knowing how to defeat their own systems in this one?

Anyway, the murky statistics suggest out of 16-24 firing attempts, there was 4-5 hits (1 direct, 3-4 proximity), 2 unknowns, and 10-16 misses or failures to launch (according to Yefim Gordon). That's about a 17-44% hit rate, which is actually better than the Vietnam Sparrow pK of 0.08 (according to RAND).

Which is not too bad when you consider the actual pK of AMRAAM in the 90s wound up to be .59, and of BVR shots .46 (again according to RAND). The Sparrows in GW1 were IIRC about 24/71 fired or so.

Besides, the R-27 labored under several disadvantages in the battle. Never mind the maintenance, which is likely to be far inferior in a merc-hiring African country (and is the official reason for the relatively poor performance), but being in Africa, one can see little hope of competent vectoring. Positioning is a big factor in whether you can get hits or not BVR

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by JALU3

What the heck was that Periscope? Who said I was rallying for the F-35C or the X-47? Before you go out and try to deride my statements first understand what I am trying to say!

What I am saying is that the CVWs, with their F/A-18E/Fs and F-35 primary build out as planned, compared to its old Cold War Build out of longer ranged aircraft including the F-14s, A-6s, and A-7s, had a superior strike radius, thus giving them a larger area of control, the ability to strike deeper into a target country independent of refueling if need be, and was able to keep the CVBG/CVSG further away from the potential threats that could be launched ashore.

What you have shown is you are a lobbyist for the Super Hornet, and believe it a superior naval aircraft over any other possible alternative, specifically the F-35. Great, good for you.

However, that doesn't solve the problem that, although the F/A-18E/Fs have replaced the KA-6Ds, it was my understanding, that the F/A-18E/Fs that had been loaded out for the tanker mission, did not carry the same (or greater) amount of fuel as the aircraft that they replaced, and had the same limitations of a shorter operational radius that is inherent to the F/A-18E/Fs in the first place remain.

Therefore, since both the F/A-18E/Fs and the planned F-35C have an inherently shorter operational raduis, then its predecessors, this reduces that capability of the CVW as a whole, and thus increases the threat to the CVBG/CVSG. Thus, if they could do it before, and have larger combat radii, then the should be able to engineer new aicraft with superior capability than the present and past aircraft, that can go equal distance to the longer legged cold-war era aircraft, or longer.

I hear ya' Jalu. I know we're going to getting much less of a radius than Cold War Era. Those Cold War era platforms are not coming back though, what I'm saying is that we have three choices (or a mixture thereof): F-35C, F/A-18E/F, X-47.

I think I've made it clear I prefer a X-47 (would bring back our radius advantage during the Cold War, in fact surpassing Cold War radii if it doesn't suffer from mission creep and they keep it as a dumb bombtruck) and Superhornet for the reasons I have already mentioned.

I definitely believe the Superhornet and X-47 combo would be a superior investment to $300+ billion on a manned bombtruck. Calling me a lobbyist makes it sound like some Washington fatcat is paying me to post this here. If only that were my dayjob.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

While I don't think they are quite up to modernity yet, Do you mean Ethiopia and Etritea? What happened to warm thoughts of the Russians and Ukies knowing how to defeat their own systems in this one?

KS, you have a little bit more faith in Russian radar guided AAMs than I do. They've never had a Vietnam that caused them to say, "Yep, they really do suck!" They've always had third world country showing poor results (with more than likely inferior export equipment, and maintenace as you mentioned anyways). Which allowed the Soviets to say, "Not our fault, it was those savages improperly employing downgraded technology." We've yet to see K-77s being used in combat, and maybe they will be significantly improved over their predecessors.

As for those Georgian SA-11s, maybe I'm being too harsh by not being able to believe the Russians hadn't a clue where they could be found when they were so close to their own border. While certainly a capable Air Force, the Russian Air Force would get torn up by an encounter with a Western Air Force IMO. If the Georgian conflict is any indication, they still aren't flying night bombing sorties and it's 2008 now (unless you've seen stuff I haven't). Granted, the Soviet Air Force was created with different things in mind . But the advantages of operating at night are pretty well known now.

And which Gordon book is it that you're referencing? Is it one of his Flanker titles? I've been wondering if there is anything worth buying out there about the African Sukhoi and MiG clashes.

PD