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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
And that's before you get into what really makes fighters dangerous in the modern world - radar, infrared search-and-track systems, countermeasures, electronic warfare suites, etc. The Chinese are way behind in all those areas.

So it's less a case of cool dogfights and more a case of the J-15 goes down before it even knows the F-22 is there?

Without wanting to steal Seward's thunder, yes. And any time you see a foreign air force claiming they downed an F-22 in an exercise look long and hard at the parameters of the exercise. For example, the Indian Air Force refuses to let the US use BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missiles in their exercises, basically taking away one of the biggest advantages the USAF has over any of its competition.

Pretty much. Dogfighting doesn't really happen anymore (although funny enough, apparently the F22 doesn't do to well in those, but it's of course designed to not have to even take part).

 Orlanth wrote:
So making a promotional video on a carrier = Top Gun rip off?

Nah.

Making a bad video that seems to have taken its cues from the worst aspects of Top Gun is another story.

Please ask for more imagination, carriers are symbols of national pride and frequently highlighted by those with them. Its by no means an original idea from Hollywood being ripped off.

BTW China are very rapidly pacing up in military tech, their navy is no longer backwards. They have no less right to be proud of it than the US, and perhaps more because they can afford it.

Yeah...I'd say skijump decks aren't a great argument for a modernized navy.

 EmilCrane wrote:
Without wanting to steal Seward's thunder, yes. And any time you see a foreign air force claiming they downed an F-22 in an exercise look long and hard at the parameters of the exercise. For example, the Indian Air Force refuses to let the US use BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missiles in their exercises, basically taking away one of the biggest advantages the USAF has over any of its competition.

Pretty much.

 Fafnir wrote:
Pretty much. Dogfighting doesn't really happen anymore (although funny enough, apparently the F22 doesn't do to well in those, but it's of course designed to not have to even take part).

Oh, no, it's a damn good dogfighter. The best currently flying.

I figured as much. I've heard stories of veteran F-18 pilots going up against F-22's (in test's, not actual combat), and their abilities and expertise counting for nothing because the F-22's just take them out before the F-18 even see them!

And now I know that there's such a thing as a "Beyond Visual Range" missile, which we should refer to as the "Wallhack" missile, or the "Americans are cheating!" missile.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I figured as much. I've heard stories of veteran F-18 pilots going up against F-22's (in test's, not actual combat), and their abilities and expertise counting for nothing because the F-22's just take them out before the F-18 even see them!

Sometimes it counts.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now I know that there's such a thing as a "Beyond Visual Range" missile, which we should refer to as the "Wallhack" missile, or the "Americans are cheating!" missile.

You guys have 'em, too. Most air forces do.

 Seaward wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Pretty much. Dogfighting doesn't really happen anymore (although funny enough, apparently the F22 doesn't do to well in those, but it's of course designed to not have to even take part).

Oh, no, it's a damn good dogfighter. The best currently flying.

Oh. Well then it has that too.

I was just going off of reports that it had difficulty dealing with Typhoons during testing that managed to get into close range.

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh. Well then it has that too.

I was just going off of reports that it had difficulty dealing with Typhoons during testing that managed to get into close range.

Typhoons have definitely gunned it down. So have Rafales. Everything gets a kill on everything, eventually. Typhoons are no picnic in close, that's for sure, but I'd give the edge to the Raptor.

 Fafnir wrote:
Pretty much. Dogfighting doesn't really happen anymore (although funny enough, apparently the F22 doesn't do to well in those, but it's of course designed to not have to even take part).

Really? I remember hearing it had a M61 Vulcan incase of emergencies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I always wanted to be a fighter jet pilot. I was even planning on entering the navy to become one in high school. Until the recruiter said that because of my less then perfect vision I would most likely never actually fly. I gave up any hope for the military after that

Yeah, that's a load of junk. My vision before PRK surgery was terrible. I keep hearing they may even waive Lasik soon.

But out of high school wouldn't have happened either way. You need a bachelor's.

Well, I founds out several things since then. My friend who is in the military said recruiters both lie and occasionally bring their own prejudice into who they recruit. I was pugy back then.

 Seaward wrote:

Please ask for more imagination, carriers are symbols of national pride and frequently highlighted by those with them. Its by no means an original idea from Hollywood being ripped off.

BTW China are very rapidly pacing up in military tech, their navy is no longer backwards. They have no less right to be proud of it than the US, and perhaps more because they can afford it.

Yeah...I'd say skijump decks aren't a great argument for a modernized navy.

Well, almost every navy except for the US uses skijump ramps. I guess a ramp is a better choice for smaller carriers since a catapult takes a lot of space (iirc).
I don't really know much about aircraft carriers, but wouldn't a catapult + skijump ramp be even better?

It's more modern than no carrier at all

 Seaward wrote:
And that's before you get into what really makes fighters dangerous in the modern world - radar, infrared search-and-track systems, countermeasures, electronic warfare suites, etc. The Chinese are way behind in all those areas.

Last I checked, Im pretty sure the fighter tech was the main recipiant of the last big chinese espianauge operation. From what I gathered they actually had access to quite a lot of the most modern stuff that the states had acess too.

OBS I cant be sure how much they did or didnt get, but there is a pretty damn big reason thats what they were going after.

There is also the factor that while they might have the tech, its proper implimentation/usage cant be stolen the same way.

 Seaward wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh. Well then it has that too.

I was just going off of reports that it had difficulty dealing with Typhoons during testing that managed to get into close range.

Typhoons have definitely gunned it down. So have Rafales. Everything gets a kill on everything, eventually. Typhoons are no picnic in close, that's for sure, but I'd give the edge to the Raptor.

Mmmmm. Dem delta-wings. As much as I love the Raptor, I think the Eurofighter is a 100% badass. And from what I've heard, the Rafale is no slouch, either. I've always wondered why the US has never looked into a style of fighter like one of those.

 mega_bassist wrote:
[Mmmmm. Dem delta-wings. As much as I love the Raptor, I think the Eurofighter is a 100% badass. And from what I've heard, the Rafale is no slouch, either. I've always wondered why the US has never looked into a style of fighter like one of those.

Because canards and low radar cross sections don't mix.

 Seaward wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
[Mmmmm. Dem delta-wings. As much as I love the Raptor, I think the Eurofighter is a 100% badass. And from what I've heard, the Rafale is no slouch, either. I've always wondered why the US has never looked into a style of fighter like one of those.

Because canards and low radar cross sections don't mix.

Ah, that totally makes sense.

Thank you!!!!! That was worth every second

 sebster wrote:
If it doesn't have homo-erotic volleyball, you don't get to compare it to Top Gun.

They had weight lifting and running on a beach, they tried


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It's more modern than no carrier at all

Yup. The step above throwing paper planes from the deck

 mega_bassist wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh. Well then it has that too.

I was just going off of reports that it had difficulty dealing with Typhoons during testing that managed to get into close range.

Typhoons have definitely gunned it down. So have Rafales. Everything gets a kill on everything, eventually. Typhoons are no picnic in close, that's for sure, but I'd give the edge to the Raptor.

Mmmmm. Dem delta-wings. As much as I love the Raptor, I think the Eurofighter is a 100% badass. And from what I've heard, the Rafale is no slouch, either. I've always wondered why the US has never looked into a style of fighter like one of those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart

There's this

And then notice how we haven't really done it since...

Looks a lot like the Avro Arrow.

Is that the old Soviet Carrier that they bought and were going to refurbish?

What is the point of skijump carriers? It seems like it would be really hard on the struts/wheel assembly.

Nicorex wrote:Is that the old Soviet Carrier that they bought and were going to refurbish?

Yes.

Breotan wrote:What is the point of skijump carriers? It seems like it would be really hard on the struts/wheel assembly.

Because building catapults is hard/complicated/expensive/bulky. It is a very Russian solution to the problem of how to get airplanes to take off in less than their normal takeoff distance. I am reminded of the story about how the US space program spent tons of money to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity, the Russians used pencils. Our method gets better performance but it's a heck of a lot more complicated.

Also I guess my ignorance of contemporary military aircraft is showing. I had been under the assumption that our current air power (at least from the Navy side of things) was about half a generation behind compared to the latest and greatest to come out of Russia or other EU countries. Wasn't the Joint Strike Fighter (before it became the project from hell with the magical moving performance numbers) designed to compete with the newest Russian MiGs?

 dementedwombat wrote:

Nicorex wrote:Is that the old Soviet Carrier that they bought and were going to refurbish?

Yes.

Breotan wrote:What is the point of skijump carriers? It seems like it would be really hard on the struts/wheel assembly.

Because building catapults is hard/complicated/expensive/bulky. It is a very Russian solution to the problem of how to get airplanes to take off in less than their normal takeoff distance. I am reminded of the story about how the US space program spent tons of money to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity, the Russians used pencils. Our method gets better performance but it's a heck of a lot more complicated.

I heard a common rebuttal to that last part, because of Zero Gravity, Lead shavings or eraser marks can be bad, being more likely to breath in and get into the machines

 dementedwombat wrote:

Nicorex wrote:Is that the old Soviet Carrier that they bought and were going to refurbish?

Yes.

Breotan wrote:What is the point of skijump carriers? It seems like it would be really hard on the struts/wheel assembly.

Because building catapults is hard/complicated/expensive/bulky. It is a very Russian solution to the problem of how to get airplanes to take off in less than their normal takeoff distance. I am reminded of the story about how the US space program spent tons of money to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity, the Russians used pencils. Our method gets better performance but it's a heck of a lot more complicated.

Also I guess my ignorance of contemporary military aircraft is showing. I had been under the assumption that our current air power (at least from the Navy side of things) was about half a generation behind compared to the latest and greatest to come out of Russia or other EU countries. Wasn't the Joint Strike Fighter (before it became the project from hell with the magical moving performance numbers) designed to compete with the newest Russian MiGs?

I don't think the US has to be afraid of getting behind on airpower. The US navy's airforce alone is still far larger than the complete airforces of most other nations. The latest Russian and European designs may be able to match or outdo current US designs, but the US still has a decisive quantitative advantage. The US is also still in the lead on developing new (awesome but ridiculously expensive and complicated) technological gadgets.
IMHO, the Joint Strike Fighter should be scrapped though. The amount of money wasted on that is simply astonishing. For that money you could have had a huge load of less technological advanged but more cost-effective aircraft. You can get 7 MiG-29s for the price of a single F35B for example. The JSF is probably not even going to be that effective, as China and Russia will probably be able to counter it with new (cheaper) designs of their own anyways.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

Nicorex wrote:Is that the old Soviet Carrier that they bought and were going to refurbish?

Yes.

Breotan wrote:What is the point of skijump carriers? It seems like it would be really hard on the struts/wheel assembly.

Because building catapults is hard/complicated/expensive/bulky. It is a very Russian solution to the problem of how to get airplanes to take off in less than their normal takeoff distance. I am reminded of the story about how the US space program spent tons of money to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity, the Russians used pencils. Our method gets better performance but it's a heck of a lot more complicated.

I heard a common rebuttal to that last part, because of Zero Gravity, Lead shavings or eraser marks can be bad, being more likely to breath in and get into the machines

In Soviet Russia Space, pencil erases you!

Good for China. Looking to extend their air cover in the South China Sea, I suppose. Absent the US, is there any local powers to oppose them now they have half a carrier?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

Nicorex wrote:Is that the old Soviet Carrier that they bought and were going to refurbish?

Yes.

Breotan wrote:What is the point of skijump carriers? It seems like it would be really hard on the struts/wheel assembly.

Because building catapults is hard/complicated/expensive/bulky. It is a very Russian solution to the problem of how to get airplanes to take off in less than their normal takeoff distance. I am reminded of the story about how the US space program spent tons of money to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity, the Russians used pencils. Our method gets better performance but it's a heck of a lot more complicated.

Also I guess my ignorance of contemporary military aircraft is showing. I had been under the assumption that our current air power (at least from the Navy side of things) was about half a generation behind compared to the latest and greatest to come out of Russia or other EU countries. Wasn't the Joint Strike Fighter (before it became the project from hell with the magical moving performance numbers) designed to compete with the newest Russian MiGs?

I don't think the US has to be afraid of getting behind on airpower. The US navy's airforce alone is still far larger than the complete airforces of most other nations. The latest Russian and European designs may be able to match or outdo current US designs, but the US still has a decisive quantitative advantage. The US is also still in the lead on developing new (awesome but ridiculously expensive and complicated) technological gadgets.
IMHO, the Joint Strike Fighter should be scrapped though. The amount of money wasted on that is simply astonishing. For that money you could have had a huge load of less technological advanged but more cost-effective aircraft. You can get 7 MiG-29s for the price of a single F35B for example. The JSF is probably not even going to be that effective, as China and Russia will probably be able to counter it with new (cheaper) designs of their own anyways.

We factor in the price of the pilots when determining the value of aircraft as well... Sure, you can get 7 Mig-29's for 1 JSF, but your going to lose 6 MIG pilots for every JSF pilot (random numbers, not hard data). In my eyes, that it worth the cost.

Breotan wrote:What is the point of skijump carriers? It seems like it would be really hard on the struts/wheel assembly.

I don't know that it's any harder on the plane than non-skijump carrier aviation, which tends to be hard on planes in general. Landing on a carrier is way rougher on the gear than taking off, anyway.

As for the point...it's a lot cheaper, it's a lot simpler, and it requires less training of flight deck crew. Shooting planes off the deck via cat is a complicated dance. You need to know how much power to use, thus you need to know how much each individual plane weighs with its current payload, you need to have 20 year-olds accurately relaying that information every single time, etc. Not to mention you need to know how to fix the cats themselves when they inevitably go down,

 dementedwombat wrote:
Also I guess my ignorance of contemporary military aircraft is showing. I had been under the assumption that our current air power (at least from the Navy side of things) was about half a generation behind compared to the latest and greatest to come out of Russia or other EU countries. Wasn't the Joint Strike Fighter (before it became the project from hell with the magical moving performance numbers) designed to compete with the newest Russian MiGs?

Nah. The Super Hornet's competitive with any adversary currently flying. I'd argue it's better than most. And even the legacy Hornet isn't exactly a slouch in an air-to-air engagement.

And no, the JSF was designed primarily as a mud mover, but it was certainly built with air-to-air capability. The goal was to design it to compete with Russian MiGs (actually, most likely Sukhois, as MiG is a money pit that produces nothing much of note these days) of the future. It won't have much if any trouble with anything currently flying over there.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
IMHO, the Joint Strike Fighter should be scrapped though. The amount of money wasted on that is simply astonishing. For that money you could have had a huge load of less technological advanged but more cost-effective aircraft. You can get 7 MiG-29s for the price of a single F35B for example. The JSF is probably not even going to be that effective, as China and Russia will probably be able to counter it with new (cheaper) designs of their own anyways.

Well, let us know when they start work on them. The PAK FA will definitely not be up to the job, and the J-20 I have serious doubts about as well.

As for the point...it's a lot cheaper, it's a lot simpler, and it requires less training of flight deck crew. Shooting planes off the deck via cat is a complicated dance. You need to know how much power to use, thus you need to know how much each individual plane weighs with its current payload, you need to have 20 year-olds accurately relaying that information every single time, etc. Not to mention you need to know how to fix the cats themselves when they inevitably go down,

Is it connected to the Russian Navy's long standing adversarial relationship with ice covering their ships?

 LordofHats wrote:
Is it connected to the Russian Navy's long standing adversarial relationship with ice covering their ships?

No. It's connected with the fact that nobody aside from a few in their navy saw much need for carriers. They knew if conventional war ever started up again, they'd be going through Europe, not trying to get across the Pacific. They also knew we'd be responding in Europe, not trying to launch an invasion across the Pacific.

The USSR had no real need for carriers. They built them to keep up with the Joneses, basically, so they didn't put a lot of time or effort into making them the best possible. They slapped flight decks onto cruisers and navalized some old planes and called it a day.

Seaward, out of interest have you ever visited China?

Quite looking forward to the Fairford Air Tattoo here in the UK this year - the US is back after missing last year, and I've heard they are trying to get the Chinese to attend.
Not sure if this is actually going to happen though, or what stuff they are likely to bring if they do.

 Pacific wrote:
Seaward, out of interest have you ever visited China?

Nope, why?

Quite looking forward to the Fairford Air Tattoo here in the UK this year - the US is back after missing last year, and I've heard they are trying to get the Chinese to attend.
Not sure if this is actually going to happen though, or what stuff they are likely to bring if they do.

Yeah, I don't think the Chinese do a lot of air shows. On the plus side, while I don't know if Fairford's one, I do know the F-35's supposed to do two appearances in the UK this year. And actual demos, not static displays or fly-bys.