Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. I'd like to think we have a competent ability to fool the enemy and keep our own secrets.

We probably have tons of super advanced stuff that nobody outside of the programs has a clue exists.

See DARPA. The things that they make/think of are really scary.
-SyNAPSE - Project plan: create a cognitive computer with similar form, function, and architecture to the mammalian brain (working with IBM on this one)
-Vulture- Project plan: to build a UAV with a flight time of 5 years (400 ft wing span) (working with boeing on this one)
-XOS- Project plan: Powered military exo suit (started in 2000) first designs will be for heavy lifting future designs for combat
-LS3- Project plan: Robotic packhorse for the military(working with boston dynamicsfor this one)
While its slow now they have other projects for speed

chaos0xomega wrote:
Seaward, no disrespect intended, but as best I can figure out you're more or less fresh out of the RAG, so... IMO, you have all the insider perspective and experience of a private (and besides that I can get that same perspective from at least a dozen other people I know, seeing as how 3 of my former roommates are aviators and one is an RIO). Besides that, like most junior naval aviators, you still seem to be suffering from the Pensacola induced delirium that you are God's gift to the aviation community and that the US Navy has no Achilles heal.

No offense taken. In fact, I'll even be a good guy and let you take a Mulligan on this paragraph and allow you the chance to re-Google. The only hints I'll give you are that the "my former roommate is a RIO" thing is an obvious giveaway that you're making gak up, and that only API takes place in Pensacola.

Oh, and the service commitment's eight years from winging. It'd be pretty tough for me to be both already in a cushy private sector job and a nugget jg at the same time.

As for the lemons (barring the pre 1960s which you already alluded to):
The F-4, as much as I love it, was a flying brick that only got off the ground because of the ridiculous quantities of thrust. Lets not forget that it was originally fielded without a gun and had a nasty habit of leaving a nice black smoketrail in its wake until later on. It wasn't until the development of better missile technology, the add-on of a gun, and alterations to its engines that it really began to shine.

The A-5 had a host of issues when it first entered service, and much like the A-3, I would say that they were doctrinally obsolete before they were even introduced, but thats another matter entirely.

F-3 Demon, initial versions were virtually unflyable, even late production versions were slow, underpowered, sluggish, and useless against contemporary adversary aircraft.

The F-111B, originally designed as a dogfighter, so terrible that ultimately the Navy did the intelligent thing and got the hell out of the project, leaving the Air Force holding a bag full of lemons in the form of the F-111A, and attempted to retool it into the F-14.

The F-8 Crusader, its mishap rate (87% approx.) says it all (although still a great aircraft otherwise).

So those are the lemons to you. Some are accurate, though unfortunately all are from the '60s, save the one that was never actually a Navy aircraft.

And just for gaks and giggles: The F-14 was an overweight, underpowered pig of an aircraft that was entirely useless in a dogfight against an even half-way decent pilot until over a decade after it was introduced into service when the Navy FINALLY wised up and put a more powerful engine in there.

How many mock dogfights against F-14As have you been in, out of curiosity? Are your BFM credentials also of the "I know a guy," type? The Rhino's criminally under-thrusted too, yet gun kills against Raptors do indeed happen. As you no doubt know, it's all about playing to the Navy's strengths - low speed, low altitude, high alpha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
Wow....hadn't heard that story. I don't really have an answer to that.

All I can say is it's good thing they did that because it will stir the Navy to investigate how that happened and how they will spend their money to counter the threat.

To be honest with you I think China made a mistake doing that, because they kind of gave away their poker face a bit, and this will force the Navy/Pentagon into upping their research.

GG

Stuff like that happens occasionally. The Air Force did COPE India a few years ago and word got out about how the F-15s got totally and completely schooled by the SU-30MKIs and the sky was subsequently starting to fall. ("Schooled" by our standards, anyway, meaning they lost a lot of 1v3 engagements.)

Make what you will of the fact that the COPE India 'incident' happened right around the time Congress was debating cutting F-22 funding.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese sub in the carrier group got "Yankee Searched" (active sonar pinged) repeatedly and forced to surface.

You would hope so. The 'We'll just pretend we don't know about it' theory doesn't hold up. There is no way to know the sub commander's intent as he tries to breach the groups perimeter and close with the carrier.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.

Yeah, about that.

Except the battle of little bighorn was indians with repeating rifles vs Cavalry with single shot trap door rifles.


And about that Sub popping up in the middle of a training exercise.

which is better?

A.) Monitor a foreign sub and allow it to pop up in your formation "by surprise" Letting said naiton take Joy in their sub and start to make more of them, even though we know where they are (making the foreign nation waste time and money making outdated subs)

or

B.) alert the foreign sub right away that we can see it and then have said nation go back to the drawing board to design a better sub?


its similar to the Chinese/Russian stealth figther programs, Should we tell them that we have the ability to track Stealth aircraft?or let them waste time(10-20 years), resources and money making stealth aircraft.

yes China is expanding their fleet for the only reason of power projection.
The Chinese government is investing all over Africa for natural resources, it makes sense that china would want to have the ability to respond with military force to something that is threatening their interests and it would be on a Continent that most western nations honestly don't give two gaks about.

There is of course Option C: "accidently" sink it.

 Ratbarf wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Don't be dense. China could easily hire retired personnel with first-hand experience in such things to train their pilots. For all intents and purposes, they have as I understand it.

I hope they didn't hire Russians.

And it's not just a matter of getting the right people. You need a lot of the right people, and a lot of institutional memory - not to mention the institutions in the first place - to do it up right. We have multiple RAGs, working all the way, always bringing up fresh aviators. We've got complicated rotations of dets for nugget carrier quals, and an awful lot of boats for them to land one, so they're not hamstrung by simply waiting months or years on end for a deck to be available.

It's a very complicated process, and only having one semi-operational carrier means they haven't even truly started it yet. I'd liken it to building a foreign intelligence service; sure, you can plop a building down somewhere, and even hire former spies, but it's still going to take a long, long time to build the institution itself up to useful levels, because it's not something you can teach in a six week correspondence course and then have everyone good to go.

I'm sure the Chinese can afford to hire some Americans. And while you're right that it requires institutional memory, etc. again, a lot of that can be 'prefabricated' by pulling from elsewhere. What took us 80 years can easily be accomplished by them in 20 or 30 if they can get the right resources in place. The biggest issue will be the one carrier (for now), but that will be changing in time.

Nah, it was designed for the Yak-38, a strike fighter and a terrible, terrible VTOL. Everything they built for aviation was designated in that "cruiser" manner, by the way. The Soviets paid very, very little attention to their fleet air arms, hence the insistence on that 'hybrid' sort of ship for far longer than was practical. It's why their naval aircraft sucked so badly, it's why their boats sucked so badly.

I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, while the US had a few gems in terms of ships and aircraft, its also had a lot of lemons. As for the YAK, it was a much better CAS platform than it was a strike platform (although that might be owing to the fact that their only ever operational use in Afghanaland was as a CAS platform rather than a strike platform).


BTW, a good read if you like what-if is CDR Kraska's "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" if you can find it anywhere online. I would say theres a good amount of "handwavium" at work in it, etc. but its a nice insider-perspective on the matter.

Was this the paper you were referring too?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1648631

Yup! Thanks for tracking it down!

A.) Monitor a foreign sub and allow it to pop up in your formation "by surprise" Letting said naiton take Joy in their sub and start to make more of them, even though we know where they are (making the foreign nation waste time and money making outdated subs)

Yeah, no thats not what happened. The Song class was already succeeded by the Yuan class by the time the incident occurred. Besides that, considering its a diesel-electric design and China has its sights on a nuclear navy, its irrelevant as to influencing their thinking.

its similar to the Chinese/Russian stealth figther programs, Should we tell them that we have the ability to track Stealth aircraft?or let them waste time(10-20 years), resources and money making stealth aircraft.

They already know we can do that, and they can do it too. The technology has existed for a long time now, it just hasn't really proliferated, which makes the current obsession with stealth aircraft rather strange to me.

We probably have tons of super advanced stuff that nobody outside of the programs has a clue exists.

No doubt, but those secret squirrel programs only make up a tiny fraction of the total force.

See DARPA. The things that they make/think of are really scary.
-SyNAPSE - Project plan: create a cognitive computer with similar form, function, and architecture to the mammalian brain (working with IBM on this one)
-Vulture- Project plan: to build a UAV with a flight time of 5 years (400 ft wing span) (working with boeing on this one)
-XOS- Project plan: Powered military exo suit (started in 2000) first designs will be for heavy lifting future designs for combat
-LS3- Project plan: Robotic packhorse for the military(working with boston dynamicsfor this one)

DARPA is more theoretical for research purposes rather than practical production designs.

No offense taken. In fact, I'll even be a good guy and let you take a Mulligan on this paragraph and allow you the chance to re-Google. The only hints I'll give you are that the "my former roommate is a RIO" thing is an obvious giveaway that you're making gak up, and that only primary takes place in Pensacola.

lol, if you want to believe that, thats cool. or maybe I just wasn't thinking when I typed it and to me RIO and NFO are interchangeable acronyms used to describe the under appreciated bastard that has to put up with all the bs of primadonna naval aviator. Really, it would be a foolish assumption on your end to assume that it wasn't true, considering I was A) in AFROTC, B) roomed with a half dozen Navy midshipmen (I couldn't stand most of my fellow cadets, I quickly learned that the AF is called the "Chair Force" for a reason), C) have a degree in Joint Military Studies (which further exposed me to military personnel, particularly Marines and Sailors) and D) its actually true. I have another roommate who is currently qualifying as a surface nuke officer, a good friend whos finishing up prototype in Saratoga Springs before reporting to a sub, a couple friends that have already completed sub quals, etc. and are stationed out in Hawaii (as well as a SWO buddy doing a tour on a Cruiser), another one stationed in Groton, another whos wrapping up a tour in San Diego off an amphib before reporting to a shore tour as a liason to a contractor in Mobile, Alabama, another "buddy" (if you can call him that anymore, lot of bad blood there) who just reported to NAS Oceania to fly Superhornets, and another roommate who evidently couldn't hack it as a jet pilot who was given another chance at life and just got sent back to P-cola/Whiting Field to take a shot at helo's.

And just for gaks and giggles: My dad flew MiG-19s for the Hungarian Air Force. Completely irrelevant to anything and everything we're discussing, I just think its cool.

Oh, and the service commitment's eight years from winging. It'd be pretty tough for me to be both already in a cushy private sector job and a nugget jg at the same time.

Then you've been misrepresenting yourself, as I had been under the impression that you were still active duty.

So those are the lemons to you. Some are accurate, though unfortunately all are from the '60s, save the one that was never actually a Navy aircraft.

Are they? Eh, there haven't been quite that many planes since the 60s to begin with, save the Hornet/Superhornet (and the F-35, which I'd like to lump into the lemon category, but I can't exactly blame the Navy for that one), which I really can't hate on too much, because while they might not be the best, they are still pretty damned good, and at least they are/were cheap.

How many mock dogfights against F-14As have you been in, out of curiosity? Are your BFM credentials also of the "I know a guy," type? The Rhino's criminally under-thrusted too, yet gun kills against Raptors do indeed happen. As you no doubt know, it's all about playing to the Navy's strengths - low speed, low altitude, high alpha.

I don't need to be in mock dogfights with an F-14 to know that it was the truth. Theres a reason why the Navy brass (and as I understand it even certain pro-F-14 members of Congress) blocked fly-offs and mock training missions between the two aircraft. Likewise, when it came to foreign sales, every potential candidate for the F-14 (with the exception of the Iranians, who were evidently swayed by the ability of the F-14 to sling Phoenix missiles from 100+ miles away) opted instead for the F-15. In fact, the Israelis, as I understand it, had a lot to say about the virtues of the F-15 relative to the F-14 (one of my college professors was on the Israeli test/evaluation team that unanimously decided in favor of the F-15).

As for low speed/low altitude, yes the F-14 had the advantage there, but as I understand it (this I'm no expert in), you would have to be a pretty green eagle driver (let alone any other airframe) to actually slow down and give the opening to an F-14 to take advantage of that situation. Besides that, from what I've been told, the F-14 had a lot of trouble picking up speed and altitude again once it did slow down, so you might splash one, but what about his wingman?

Stuff like that happens occasionally. The Air Force did COPE India a few years ago and word got out about how the F-15s got totally and completely schooled by the SU-30MKIs and the sky was subsequently starting to fall. ("Schooled" by our standards, anyway, meaning they lost a lot of 1v3 engagements.)

Make what you will of the fact that the COPE India 'incident' happened right around the time Congress was debating cutting F-22 funding.

I thought COPE India was F-15s vs. MiG-21bis, F-15s were barred from using RADAR and without AWACS support?

The COPE India 2004 exercise had our F-15's fighting 1-3 odds, against a variety of aircraft that could take advantage of different tactics. They were also un-upgraded models, and weren't allowed to use certain weapons that would have evened the odds.

It was a situation where our pilots hands were tied, thrown into a dogfight they don't really train for, and the result was expected. Had they had the equipment that they would in a real conflict, it certainly would have gone down differently.

Just because it was a situation they don't train for doesn't mean its a situation that can't happen in a 'real conflict'.

chaos0xomega wrote:
lol, if you want to believe that, thats cool. or maybe I just wasn't thinking when I typed it and to me RIO and NFO are interchangeable acronyms used to describe the under appreciated bastard that has to put up with all the bs of primadonna naval aviator.

I'd get out of that habit. RIOs haven't existed for a while now.

Really, it would be a foolish assumption on your end to assume that it wasn't true, considering I was A) in AFROTC, B) roomed with a half dozen Navy midshipmen (I couldn't stand most of my fellow cadets, I quickly learned that the AF is called the "Chair Force" for a reason), C) have a degree in Joint Military Studies (which further exposed me to military personnel, particularly Marines and Sailors) and D) its actually true. I have another roommate who is currently qualifying as a surface nuke officer, a good friend whos finishing up prototype in Saratoga Springs before reporting to a sub, a couple friends that have already completed sub quals, etc. and are stationed out in Hawaii (as well as a SWO buddy doing a tour on a Cruiser), another one stationed in Groton, another whos wrapping up a tour in San Diego off an amphib before reporting to a shore tour as a liason to a contractor in Mobile, Alabama, another "buddy" (if you can call him that anymore, lot of bad blood there) who just reported to NAS Oceania to fly Superhornets, and another roommate who evidently couldn't hack it as a jet pilot who was given another chance at life and just got sent back to P-cola/Whiting Field to take a shot at helo's.

I'm still not hearing anything that suggests you actually have any experience with what we're discussing, though I do find it amusing that you disparaged the working knowledge of guys fresh out of Advanced Strike a couple posts ago, and now admit that they're what you're relying on for your perspective.

The basic problem I'm having is understanding where your self-assurance that you know more about naval aviation's coming from. I mean, really, if it's all about discarding personal experience in favor of who knows the most naval aviators...well, I guarantee I win that one, too.

None of which is to say you're not entitled to a perspective. But, like it or not, my dong's longer when it comes to flying gak off boats and getting back aboard, so you can disregard what I have to say all you like, but claiming I don't know what I'm talking about isn't going to fly.

Then you've been misrepresenting yourself, as I had been under the impression that you were still active duty.

No, I've said in many, many threads that I'm currently in the private sector.

I don't need to be in mock dogfights with an F-14 to know that it was the truth.

Yet we know from actual experience that it was not, in fact, the truth. As for who's buying what on the export market...who cares? If I were building a land-based air force, I'd opt for the F-15 over the F-14 in most cases, too. You have to make a lot of sacrifices to make an aircraft seaworthy. And if you end up flying those seaworthy aircraft, you figure out how to minimize the deficiencies and maximize the advantages.

As for low speed/low altitude, yes the F-14 had the advantage there, but as I understand it (this I'm no expert in), you would have to be a pretty green eagle driver (let alone any other airframe) to actually slow down and give the opening to an F-14 to take advantage of that situation. Besides that, from what I've been told, the F-14 had a lot of trouble picking up speed and altitude again once it did slow down, so you might splash one, but what about his wingman?

By the same logic, you'd need to be a "pretty green" Raptor pilot to let a Rhino get guns on you, and yet...well, that's exactly what my avatar's a shot of. Everything the Navy's flown for the better part of three decades now has (primarily transonic) acceleration issues. Oh, well. Just don't let the fight get to a point where that becomes relevant. Get on the perch, then force it slow, where the ability to keep pointing the nose when the other guy can't wins.

All of which is irrelevant, of course, because air-to-air Top Gun-style gunfights are a thing of the past, and are only going to become more irrelevant as the F-35 makes its debut. A lot of people waste a lot of time fretting over individual numbers - "Oh my God, plane X can only sustain 5G turns!" - without knowing what they actually mean and in what context.

I thought COPE India was F-15s vs. MiG-21bis, F-15s were barred from using RADAR and without AWACS support?

COPE India's been a lot of things. It's not a one-off exercise.

Here's the bottom line: when it comes to Chinese naval aviation, they're nowhere close to being operational. They're going to dick around learning how to do it with whatever they're calling the Varyag for at least a decade, because it's going to take them that long to build up the cadre of experienced pilots they need to start teaching new guys how to do it. They're going to need to build more boats. They're going to need to come up with better navalized aircraft. And, in twenty to thirty years, when they're finally up on their feet...they're still going to suck, unless they've managed to stop buying avionics from the Russians.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Just because it was a situation they don't train for doesn't mean its a situation that can't happen in a 'real conflict'.

Our aircraft would not be sent on an air combat mission where they don't have radar, and our standard missiles. And they were still outnumbered 3 to 1. We effectively tied a hand behind the back of our pilots and sent them into combat, the results to me weren't exactly to surprising.

 djones520 wrote:
The COPE India 2004 exercise had our F-15's fighting 1-3 odds, against a variety of aircraft that could take advantage of different tactics. They were also un-upgraded models, and weren't allowed to use certain weapons that would have evened the odds.

It was a situation where our pilots hands were tied, thrown into a dogfight they don't really train for, and the result was expected. Had they had the equipment that they would in a real conflict, it certainly would have gone down differently.

A lot of people, myself included, suspect the 04 showing was designed to get Congress to freak out.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

Except the battle of little bighorn was indians with repeating rifles vs Cavalry with single shot trap door rifles.

So, what kind of aircraft does the Chinese Air Force use as their mainline combat craft? Migs or some domestic knock-off of it?

 Easy E wrote:
So, what kind of aircraft does the Chinese Air Force use as their mainline combat craft? Migs or some domestic knock-off of it?

Their primary fighter is a home built aircraft. They also have about 100 SU-27's and SU-30's.

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
lol, if you want to believe that, thats cool. or maybe I just wasn't thinking when I typed it and to me RIO and NFO are interchangeable acronyms used to describe the under appreciated bastard that has to put up with all the bs of primadonna naval aviator.

I'd get out of that habit. RIOs haven't existed for a while now.

I honestly don't really care since its a situation that comes up maybe once a year, if that, and makes no real difference in my personal or professional life, nor am I really sure where I picked up that "habit" to begin with.

I'm still not hearing anything that suggests you actually have any experience with what we're discussing, though I do find it amusing that you disparaged the working knowledge of guys fresh out of Advanced Strike a couple posts ago, and now admit that they're what you're relying on for your perspective.

The basic problem I'm having is understanding where your self-assurance that you know more about naval aviation's coming from. I mean, really, if it's all about discarding personal experience in favor of who knows the most naval aviators...well, I guarantee I win that one, too.

None of which is to say you're not entitled to a perspective. But, like it or not, my dong's longer when it comes to flying gak off boats and getting back aboard, so you can disregard what I have to say all you like, but claiming I don't know what I'm talking about isn't going to fly.

It wasn't about personal experience, it was about having access to an insiders perspective to Naval Ops and the future of the Navy. As you will recall, I suggested that "How the US Lost the Naval War of 2015" (an article written by a Commander in the US Navy) was an interesting read, and offered a bit of an insiders perspective on the situation. You suggested that you could give your own insiders perspective on the manner, I (operating under the assumption that you were inexperienced and didn't know gak) suggested that if I wanted the perspective of someone who didn't know gak I had plenty of other alternatives available to me, and now we're here.

No, I've said in many, many threads that I'm currently in the private sector.

I honestly don't pay that much attention to things.

Yet we know from actual experience that it was not, in fact, the truth.

Based on... what experience exactly? The F-14A was, in fact, an overweight, underpowered pig... it was also a huge hangar queen. I've had a retired Tomcat driver tell me as much himself, the F-14B and later the F-14D was a huge improvement on the design, but made for a much better Strike aircraft (better than the Strike Eagle from what I've been told, at least until the most recent iteration of avionics upgrades, by which point I think the Tomcat was retired). Are you talking about the Iran/Iraq war, where F-14s went up against laregely outdated and obsolete airframes, and piece o' gak MiG-23s flown by poorly trained and inexperienced pilots? The incidents in Libya where, as I understand it, the Libyan pilots flew along a straight, level flight path, launched missiles... and continued along a straight, level flight path as the F-14s evaded their missiles and then shot them down? AFAIK, most of the US F-14 combat experience came in an air-to-ground role, rather than an air-to-air role.

By the same logic, you'd need to be a "pretty green" Raptor pilot to let a Rhino get guns on you, and yet...well, that's exactly what my avatar's a shot of. Everything the Navy's flown for the better part of three decades now has (primarily transonic) acceleration issues. Oh, well. Just don't let the fight get to a point where that becomes relevant. Get on the perch, then force it slow, where the ability to keep pointing the nose when the other guy can't wins.

AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, theres only been one kill against an F-22 by an F-18 or variant thereof (from what I was told it was an EA-18G Growler), which in fact occurred after the cessation of combat maneuvering as the F-22 pilot was standing down (and thus not even attempting to evade the Growler) after the Growler pilot dropped below the hard deck. In any case, I've met a few Eagle drivers who managed to score a kill or two against F-22s out of Langley in mock combat, so its not *quite* that impressive.

All of which is irrelevant, of course, because air-to-air Top Gun-style gunfights are a thing of the past, and are only going to become more irrelevant as the F-35 makes its debut. A lot of people waste a lot of time fretting over individual numbers - "Oh my God, plane X can only sustain 5G turns!" - without knowing what they actually mean and in what context.

They said that of 'Nam, that turned out to not be true. In any case, the F-35 is an impressive turd of an aircraft for an altogether different set of reasons relating to its actual practical use and lifetime costs, rather than its dogfight performance. IMO, its amazing at pretty much everything you don't really need it to do, and deficient in pretty much everything you would want it to do.

Our aircraft would not be sent on an air combat mission where they don't have radar, and our standard missiles. And they were still outnumbered 3 to 1. We effectively tied a hand behind the back of our pilots and sent them into combat, the results to me weren't exactly to surprising.

So, its altogether unfeasible that a flight of F-15s returning from a combat mission in which they blew their entire load could end up in a situation where the on-station AWACS has been blown out of the sky get hit from behind by an enemy flight of Sukhois/MiGs/what have you and taken for surprise? I know its unlikely, but that doesn't mean it *can't* happen.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The COPE India 2004 exercise had our F-15's fighting 1-3 odds, against a variety of aircraft that could take advantage of different tactics. They were also un-upgraded models, and weren't allowed to use certain weapons that would have evened the odds.

It was a situation where our pilots hands were tied, thrown into a dogfight they don't really train for, and the result was expected. Had they had the equipment that they would in a real conflict, it certainly would have gone down differently.

A lot of people, myself included, suspect the 04 showing was designed to get Congress to freak out.

Thats generally true of a lot of military exercises. Deficiency in the military only has one solution: POUR MOAR MONEY INTO IT!!!

Yes, Chaos, I'd say that situation would be unfeasible. Part of the reason we spend so much money on defense is to make it so.

 djones520 wrote:
Yes, Chaos, I'd say that situation would be unfeasible. Part of the reason we spend so much money on defense is to make it so.

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." "The first casualty of war is the battle plan." etc. etc. ad nauseum. Check your hubris at the door my friend, even our military isn't infallible.

At the risk of Godwinning the thread, I can't help but think of reading the seemingly well thought comments of the Jews in Germany stating nothing could possibly happen to them because of one reason or another.
The rest, as they say, is history.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

I don't care if they have 100 sub chasers or 100 out of date carriers.. if they don't know how to use them or if the tech doesn't work right, or if it's out of date, we are literally talking Indians with bows and arrows vs cavalry and winchester rifles here.

Yeah, about that.

Except the battle of little bighorn was indians with repeating rifles vs Cavalry with single shot trap door rifles.


And about that Sub popping up in the middle of a training exercise.

which is better?

A.) Monitor a foreign sub and allow it to pop up in your formation "by surprise" Letting said naiton take Joy in their sub and start to make more of them, even though we know where they are (making the foreign nation waste time and money making outdated subs)

or

B.) alert the foreign sub right away that we can see it and then have said nation go back to the drawing board to design a better sub?


its similar to the Chinese/Russian stealth figther programs, Should we tell them that we have the ability to track Stealth aircraft?or let them waste time(10-20 years), resources and money making stealth aircraft.

yes China is expanding their fleet for the only reason of power projection.
The Chinese government is investing all over Africa for natural resources, it makes sense that china would want to have the ability to respond with military force to something that is threatening their interests and it would be on a Continent that most western nations honestly don't give two gaks about.

Considering that you guys extended the lease of HMS Gotland for a year to get more practice in locating conventional submarines I'd say it's pretty fair to assume that the Chinese are just as capable as us Swedes at building and operating submarines (considering how much more money they could throw at it than us...), unless you're arguing that the US is so much better than everyone else in the world that they'd lease a Swedish submarine and conduct anti-submarine excercises for two years just to pretend that the US Navy is worse at its job than it is. There really is nothing pointing to the US "letting" the Chinese sub surface where it did. It's possible, but a simpler explanation is to simply accept that other nations can do awesome stuff too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/world/asia/us-flies-b-52s-into-chinas-expanded-air-defense-zone.html

Obama has balls... I like balls...

U.S. Flies B-52s Into China’s Expanded Air Defense Zone

WASHINGTON — Two long-range American bombers have conducted what Pentagon officials described Tuesday as a routine training mission through international air space recently claimed by China as its “air defense identification zone.”

The Chinese government said Saturday that it has the right to identify, monitor and possibly take military action against aircraft that enter the area, which includes sea and islands also claimed by Japan. The claim threatens to escalate an already tense dispute over some of the maritime territory.

American officials said the pair of B-52s carried out a mission that had been planned long in advance of the Chinese announcement this past weekend, and that the United States military would continue to assert its right to fly through what it regards as international air space.

Pentagon officials said the two bombers made a round-trip flight from Guam, passing through a zone that covers sea and islands that are the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Japan and China.

Officials said there had been no Chinese response to the bomber run.

Within hours of the Chinese announcement this weekend that it had declared what Beijing termed an “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued a statement expressing deep concern over the action.

“We view this development as a destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region,” Mr. Hagel said. “This unilateral action increases the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculations.”

Mr. Hagel noted that “this announcement by the People’s Republic of China will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.”

Pentagon officials said the training sortie by the two B-52s could be seen as underscoring that commitment to preserving traditional rules of international air space.

Mr. Hagel’s statement said the United States had conveyed “concerns to China through diplomatic and military channels, and we are in close consultation with our allies and partners in the region, including Japan.”

His statement concluded by noting the United States is “steadfast in our commitments to our allies and partners. The United States reaffirms its longstanding policy that Article V of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.”

The move by China appeared to be another step in its efforts to intensify pressure on Japan over the Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea that are at the heart of the dispute.

The declaration, from a Ministry of National Defense spokesman, Col. Yang Yujun, accompanied the ministry’s release of a map, geographic coordinates and rules in Chinese and English that said “China’s armed forces will take defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in identification or refuse to follow orders.”

“The objective is to defend national sovereignty and territorial and air security, as well as to maintain orderly aviation,” Colonel Yang said in comments issued on the ministry’s website.

In the famous words of our forefathers "Feth you"

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
In the famous words of our forefathers "Feth you"

I was thinking more of "Nuts!!" being shouted at the Germans

chaos0xomega wrote:
Based on... what experience exactly?

The experience of many, many pilots who either flew it or flew against it.

AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, theres only been one kill against an F-22 by an F-18 or variant thereof (from what I was told it was an EA-18G Growler), which in fact occurred after the cessation of combat maneuvering as the F-22 pilot was standing down (and thus not even attempting to evade the Growler) after the Growler pilot dropped below the hard deck. In any case, I've met a few Eagle drivers who managed to score a kill or two against F-22s out of Langley in mock combat, so its not *quite* that impressive.

There have been more than that. And the point was raised simply because if the contention that a slow-to-accelerate, overweight aircraft can't possibly be a competent dogfighter, your real exemplar is the Rhino, not the Tomcat. Nothing gets faster slower (or slower faster) than an E or F. Yet here it is, managing to pull off gun kills against the most advanced fighter in the world.

They said that of 'Nam, that turned out to not be true.

The difference in missile technology, countermeasures, and avionics between 1962 and today is pretty vast. We now have lots of combat experience with air-to-air missiles and know how to test them and make them work. The last time anybody got killed in a dogfight with guns was...well, likely in the '80s, by an Israeli.

In any case, the F-35 is an impressive turd of an aircraft for an altogether different set of reasons relating to its actual practical use and lifetime costs, rather than its dogfight performance. IMO, its amazing at pretty much everything you don't really need it to do, and deficient in pretty much everything you would want it to do.

I disagree profoundly, but the thread's off-topic enough. The F-35's amazing once you understand it. I'd be happy to fly it into combat if I still had the opportunity to do that sort of thing.

chaos0xomega wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/world/asia/us-flies-b-52s-into-chinas-expanded-air-defense-zone.html

Obama has balls... I like balls...

Spoiler:

U.S. Flies B-52s Into China’s Expanded Air Defense Zone

WASHINGTON — Two long-range American bombers have conducted what Pentagon officials described Tuesday as a routine training mission through international air space recently claimed by China as its “air defense identification zone.”

The Chinese government said Saturday that it has the right to identify, monitor and possibly take military action against aircraft that enter the area, which includes sea and islands also claimed by Japan. The claim threatens to escalate an already tense dispute over some of the maritime territory.

American officials said the pair of B-52s carried out a mission that had been planned long in advance of the Chinese announcement this past weekend, and that the United States military would continue to assert its right to fly through what it regards as international air space.

Pentagon officials said the two bombers made a round-trip flight from Guam, passing through a zone that covers sea and islands that are the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Japan and China.

Officials said there had been no Chinese response to the bomber run.

Within hours of the Chinese announcement this weekend that it had declared what Beijing termed an “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued a statement expressing deep concern over the action.

“We view this development as a destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region,” Mr. Hagel said. “This unilateral action increases the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculations.”

Mr. Hagel noted that “this announcement by the People’s Republic of China will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.”

Pentagon officials said the training sortie by the two B-52s could be seen as underscoring that commitment to preserving traditional rules of international air space.

Mr. Hagel’s statement said the United States had conveyed “concerns to China through diplomatic and military channels, and we are in close consultation with our allies and partners in the region, including Japan.”

His statement concluded by noting the United States is “steadfast in our commitments to our allies and partners. The United States reaffirms its longstanding policy that Article V of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.”

The move by China appeared to be another step in its efforts to intensify pressure on Japan over the Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea that are at the heart of the dispute.

The declaration, from a Ministry of National Defense spokesman, Col. Yang Yujun, accompanied the ministry’s release of a map, geographic coordinates and rules in Chinese and English that said “China’s armed forces will take defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in identification or refuse to follow orders.”

“The objective is to defend national sovereignty and territorial and air security, as well as to maintain orderly aviation,” Colonel Yang said in comments issued on the ministry’s website.

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Based on... what experience exactly?

The experience of many, many pilots who either flew it or flew against it.

As I mentioned before, I know one or two who had that distinction, and their opinions weren't quite the same (though I do know of one former Tomcat driver that absolutely loved it).

There have been more than that. And the point was raised simply because if the contention that a slow-to-accelerate, overweight aircraft can't possibly be a competent dogfighter, your real exemplar is the Rhino, not the Tomcat. Nothing gets faster slower (or slower faster) than an E or F. Yet here it is, managing to pull off gun kills against the most advanced fighter in the world.

I never said that it (F-14A) COULDN'T be a competent dogfighter, just that it was, when first delivered, pretty much a hunk of junk (and useless at anything other than intercepting a Soviet bomber).

I still can find nothing beyond the one instance of the EA-18G scoring a kill against the Raptor. Since I know that F-15s have managed the feat on several occasions, I'm not going to call into question the legitimacy of the claim, but I will say that circumstance matters, and I will also point out that the F-22s kill ratio in simulated air combat indicates that while its possible, its also improbable.

The difference in missile technology, countermeasures, and avionics between 1962 and today is pretty vast. We now have lots of combat experience with air-to-air missiles and know how to test them and make them work. The last time anybody got killed in a dogfight with guns was...well, likely in the '80s, by an Israeli.

Actually it was during the Ethiopian-Eritrean War, February 1999, Ethiopian Su-27 gunned down an Eritrean MiG-29 after the MiG successfully dodged the Sukhois missiles.... allegedly, apparently there is some dispute as to the exact events although there is (evidently) photographic evidence of the shoot-down. Also, I find it odd that you would state that gun-fighting is done with, yet harp the F-18 gun kills on F-22s, clearly gun kills aren't a thing of a past in this age of missiles and stealth technology, especially since the Navy (via TOPGUN) and the Air Force (via Weapons School) still put a lot of effort into training pilots to dogfight.

I disagree profoundly, but the thread's off-topic enough. The F-35's amazing once you understand it. I'd be happy to fly it into combat if I still had the opportunity to do that sort of thing.

That makes one of us. My dislike of the F-35 is so intense that the mere risk that I might potentially end up in the cockpit of one is enough to make me want to be a grunt, which leads me to my present situation.... I have to say, I'm actually pretty surprised to see you supporting a single-engine high maintenance airframe for carrier operations.

I for one feel enlightened by some random kay-det holding forth on things he's heard about mostly from inexperienced other kay-dets and junior officers. Thanks Chaos, you really shine here.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I for one feel enlightened by some random kay-det holding forth on things he's heard about mostly from inexperienced other kay-dets and junior officers. Thanks Chaos, you really shine here.

Well, I DID study Aerodynamic Engineering (including a course on E-M theory) before switching to Industrial, so I would *like* to think I have some amount of theoretical understanding of the physics behind air combat, in addition to the airpower theory courses I had to take for my minor. While I can't claim *practical* understanding of air warfare, I do *actually* have a basis to speak on in terms of theoretical knowledge (more-so as it relates to strategic level considerations rather than the immediate down and dirty tactical maneuvers, etc.).

As for Junior Officers, err, well the courses I mostly refer back to were taught by active and retired O-6s mostly (Sub officer, USMC Infantry officer, SWO, C-17 pilot, A-10/F-16 pilot), one active O-5 (missileer of all things), and one retired O-7 (USAF Spec Ops pilot before transitioning to F-15s). The remainder were either civilian engineers, with two courses by USAF O-3s (both of whom had been prior-E, one as an F-117 mechanic, the other as a grunt in the Marines). Academically speaking, I would probably be the "kay-det" that the other kay-dets would hear things from to hold on about, considering that I was generally regarded as the "most knowledgeable kay-det", even earning the praise of the aforementioned professors/personnel for my level of understanding and knowledge of military concepts, affairs, technology, strategy, and doctrine (including the USMC infantry O-6, who after I left AFROTC offered me an NROTC scholarship as a marine option (which I didn't take) - I state this not because it's relevant, just because it's probably the one thing I'm most proud of, he wasn't easy to impress).

Considering that the things I'm "holding on about" are primarily in the realm of the theoretical (example: arguing that an F-14A had an inadequate thrust: weight ratio) rather than the realm of practical (I'm not arguing that the the F-14A was incapable of performing some maneuver or another, which I will freely admit that I would have absolutely no real knowledge or basis to stand on), your comment speaks to some sort of elitist holier-than-thou attitude on the premise that theoretical knowledge is of no value relative to practical knowledge... which is funny, because if thats the case, then Colonel Boyd would have had a tough time helping your Marine Corps develop their maneuver warfare doctrine, given that he was a USAF fighter pilot and had no practical knowledge of ground combat, or for that matter amphibious operations.

chaos0xomega wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/world/asia/us-flies-b-52s-into-chinas-expanded-air-defense-zone.html

Obama has balls... I like balls...

Spoiler:

U.S. Flies B-52s Into China’s Expanded Air Defense Zone

WASHINGTON — Two long-range American bombers have conducted what Pentagon officials described Tuesday as a routine training mission through international air space recently claimed by China as its “air defense identification zone.”

The Chinese government said Saturday that it has the right to identify, monitor and possibly take military action against aircraft that enter the area, which includes sea and islands also claimed by Japan. The claim threatens to escalate an already tense dispute over some of the maritime territory.

American officials said the pair of B-52s carried out a mission that had been planned long in advance of the Chinese announcement this past weekend, and that the United States military would continue to assert its right to fly through what it regards as international air space.

Pentagon officials said the two bombers made a round-trip flight from Guam, passing through a zone that covers sea and islands that are the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Japan and China.

Officials said there had been no Chinese response to the bomber run.

Within hours of the Chinese announcement this weekend that it had declared what Beijing termed an “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued a statement expressing deep concern over the action.

“We view this development as a destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region,” Mr. Hagel said. “This unilateral action increases the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculations.”

Mr. Hagel noted that “this announcement by the People’s Republic of China will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.”

Pentagon officials said the training sortie by the two B-52s could be seen as underscoring that commitment to preserving traditional rules of international air space.

Mr. Hagel’s statement said the United States had conveyed “concerns to China through diplomatic and military channels, and we are in close consultation with our allies and partners in the region, including Japan.”

His statement concluded by noting the United States is “steadfast in our commitments to our allies and partners. The United States reaffirms its longstanding policy that Article V of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.”

The move by China appeared to be another step in its efforts to intensify pressure on Japan over the Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea that are at the heart of the dispute.

The declaration, from a Ministry of National Defense spokesman, Col. Yang Yujun, accompanied the ministry’s release of a map, geographic coordinates and rules in Chinese and English that said “China’s armed forces will take defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in identification or refuse to follow orders.”

“The objective is to defend national sovereignty and territorial and air security, as well as to maintain orderly aviation,” Colonel Yang said in comments issued on the ministry’s website.

Sabre? Rattled.

I wouldn't attribute to much of this to Obama. As the article said, it had been planned months in advance. If anything, it was probably just a footnote in one of his daily briefings.

 djones520 wrote:
I wouldn't attribute to much of this to Obama. As the article said, it had been planned months in advance. If anything, it was probably just a footnote in one of his daily briefings.

Probably not, though I'm sure someone somewhere would have had to check with him or someone within his administration to make sure that they could continue with the exercise. I don't imagine too many people would risk an international incident and/or their job by going ahead with something that could potentially prove to be career-ending, if not monumentally stupid in terms of international relations.