Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Grid 88" channel.

  1.  @bakixavirists4561  USMC has been totally re-vamped and modernized with several major sweeping initiatives. They used to be very dated, driving around tanks, LAVs, doing OTB amphibious assaults like it’s WWII but with helicopter support and high maintenance Harriers flying CAS and Armed Recon in-depth, then GWOT happened and then Net-Centric Force modernization happened. Now they’re a data-linked force with F-35Bs and F-35Cs, Ospreys, M777 Precision Artillery, ditched the tanks, have lots of drones, have modernized Force Recon, added Marine Raider MSOBs 1, 2, and 3 for each Division, and are more agile, connected, and lethal as a result. Sounds like buzzwords, but is all true.
    2
  2.  @kisstamas7760  The facts are actually opposite of what you stated: Su-35 sales to China were $85 million per airframe. F-35A is $77.9 million Su-35 requires far more maintenance since it has 2 engines, outdated avionics, legacy hydraulic actuators, and Russian construction. F-35A has the lowest Maintenance Man Hours Per Flight Hour of any modern fighter in history averaging 4-6 hours. For comparison, the F-16 averages 11+ hours, and it has been the easiest modern fighter to maintain until the F-35s came along. Even the F-35B takes less MMHPFH than the F-16. F-35s have the lowest mishap rate of any modern fighter, even when you include the F-35B and F-35C. Flankers blow engines and catch fire regularly when not in war. During the past few months, Flankers have been shot down as if it were a sport, including Su-35S, Su-30SM, and Su-34M.
    1
  3.  @jirinas7442  Russia delivered 3 battalions of S-300PM to Syria by October 2018, according to Russian Defense Minister Shoigu. That's in addition to all their S-200, 2K12, S-125, and S-75 SAMs.
    1
  4.  @osanebiuche7476  F-35Is, F-35Bs, and F-35As have penetrated Iranian and Syrian Air Defense networks since 2018, delivered weapons on target in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Israelis have been shooting down stealth Iranian drones with their F-35Is.
    1
  5.  @osanebiuche7476  Ukraine is getting old US tech, and decimating Russia with it. US doesn't want to remove Assad, because the chaos that would ensue would be worse.
    1
  6.  Ghost9  Source for what?
    1
  7.  @Иван-ъ9о1п  F-35s weren’t even operational in 2015, so the F-35A and B overflights and strike missions into Syria have all been since Russians were in Syria with S-300 and Pantsir-S1, neither of which are useful against F-35s. Israelis have been striking targets in Syria with F-35Is for years now, and even deceived Syrian SAM Radars into thinking a Russian IL-20 EW aircraft was a flight of F-16Is. Syrians then targeted it and shot it down. F-35s have the safest flight record of any fighter in history so far. Over 651,000 flight hours and a handful of losses. We lost 519 4th Generation fighters in their first 10 years of service, with 189 fatalities. MiGs and Sukhois are much worse than that.
    1
  8.  @red_five1542  Su-35s have been deployed to Ukraine since your post and shot down. 18 Su-34s have also been shot down, along with 11 Su-30SM multirole fighters. None of the Flanker series have any real chance of closing with F-35s due to their inability to gain any type of situational awareness, while F-35s will have been tracking them the whole time basically. It’s an unfair fight before they get in the air.
    1
  9. A low-hour F-35 pilot has unfair and unprecedented advantages against the highest hour Su-35 pilot. There isn’t anything in his skill set that can help him defeat something he can’t see, while he’s being tracked from the moment he taxis out to the runway.
    1
  10.  @CaptainDangeax  F-35s have been winning in BFM more than not for years now against F-16Cs, F-15Cs, and even F-22s. Normally in BFM, new pilots lose the fight because they lose sight after 3-9 crossing with neutral merges. Since F-35 has fused sensors with 360 DAS and RF coverage, they always get a TGT designate box including rear scan with the helmet. This makes a low hour F-35 pilot extremely dangerous to a high hour (insert whatever fighter you want) pilot in BFM. In other fighters, there is no rear IR sensor coverage feeding into the helmet. This is one of the things that allows them to beat the Raptor in BFM, not that it really matters. Again, you aren't getting WVR of an F-35 unless they want you there. The AIM-9X BLK III is already a BVR missile now, so high aspect merges begin with multiple layers of BVR missiles being fired before even reaching WVR. Radars and IRST don't work outside of WVR against F-35s, so how are you even setting up?
    1
  11. In a foggy cage match against Predator in his optical cloaking suit on with a long sword in-hand.
    1
  12.  @ChrisKardiake  All current JSF variants can carry 4x BVRAAMs internally. Has been that way from the start. The emerging Peregrine HALFRAAM doubles that load. Sidekick Weapons bay for F-35A and F-35C will add 1 more AIM-120C/D if you wanted to carry 6, or 4 and a JDAM. What really matters is the different type of missile pk you get with VLO intercept kinematics. If your fighter radar and IRST can't see the F-35 outside of 13-20km, you can be set up on with extremely brutal, unfair No Escape Zone parameters where there is no/too late of a warning before missile impact at max V0 for the weapon.
    1
  13.  @Chell_AV  Thank you for your kind words. For those who say stealth/Low Observable tech isn't important, they then have to explain why so much effort has been spent trying to reduce the RCS and IR signature on the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, and J-10C. Everybody wants first-look, first-shoot. A low RCS, low IR signature with highly-capable sensors and weapons provides that.
    1
  14.  @spartanx9293  One topic I noticed conspicuously missing from the PLAAF and RTAF air combat exercises was any mention of IRST. Gimbaled IRSTs in the nose are generally radar-slaved for initial cueing, so without a wide Field of Regard, trying to use them in a rapid BVR timeline seems extremely difficult for a single seat fighter with federated avionics architecture. Only the JSF with fused AESA/DAS/EOTS has such a wide and deep detection envelope, followed by the Chinese J-20, which copies the F-35 sensor scheme. The JSF pilot isn't a systems technician trying to collate data from a RWR, radar, & IRST like in a federated system with independent, parallel displays. They're using a simplified "sensor-fusion" approach in the later variants of Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen, while the JSF program seems to have picked up some of the Star Trek promises from the original ATF program (that were cut) and implemented them after a very difficult development period. They dropped the side-looking AESAs and AIRST from ATF because they knew that would escalate costs. The AESA it was getting was so capable anyway, so why do you need side AESAs and AIRST if you can't be seen already, have brutal kinematic advantages, and are able to snipe people out of the air with impunity? Rafale F3R dropped the IRST, while F4 is getting a new one. The baseline Rafale IRST/OSF system is unique among 4.5 Gen in that it has 2 IR/Optical spectrum forward-looking sensors that operate in different spectrums. The JSF series have 4 different IR sensors in the nose. Forward-looking and 2 side-looking DAS, plus the EOTS under the nose, which are all fused with the extensive RF sensor network including the AESA. The IR sensor capabilities of JSF are truly a generational leap over anything in 4.5 Gen. That gap is quite large.
    1
  15.  @michaelkeller5008  Another interesting thing about the initial tactics development of several generations of fighters. With the F-15A in the mid-1970s, they did initial tactics development out at Nellis since RF and aggressor units were there, along with actual MiGs north of there. Against the F-5E, the F-15A flown by combat-experienced pilots (F-4D/E guys from SEA), the F-15 had about a 1:1 exchange ratio, later about 2:1 in AIMVAL/ACEVAL. The F-22A initial tactics development at the same place in the late 1990s/early 2000s had basically an undefeated exchange ratio, no matter what they threw at it. The pilots for F-22 tactics development were all F-15C Weapons Instructor Course grads, high-hr, and even MiG-killers with real-world shoot-downs. They were very skeptical of the stealth technology even working. After their first sorties against multi-ship F-15Cs vs 2-ship F-22As, they came back huge believers because the F-15C drivers were never able to see them no matter what angles they set up intercepts from. One of the pilots described setting up head-on, from low-to-high, from high-to-low, oblique, left, right, didn’t matter. Keep in mind the F-15C at the time had the world’s best fighter radar and enjoyed a 104:0 A2A kill ratio against the MiG-29, MiG-25PD, MiG-23MF, Mirage F1, and MiG-21. The F-22s simply made mince meat of them and even did 2vs 12 with all 12 killed in 2 minutes, 22 seconds. The difference between F-35 and F-22 in A2A for threat air isn’t really measurable, since they just die without knowing why. Nobody is max-performing the jets for speed or using the supercruise anyway, so the raw performance isn’t as much of a factor as people assume. RCS and sensors with networking are what matter more.
    1
  16.  @michaelkeller5008  "Remember when Swedish Gripen annihilated F-22 in Red Flag in 2015 using similar systems?" No, Gripens have never annihilated F-22s in Red Flag or any joint exercise. Gripen isn't even able to handle the Chengdu J-10C, which have done exercises against each other with nothing but A2A focus. J-10C with its large AESA, small frontal RCS, and PL-15 BVRAAM beats the Gripen in BVR and WVR. The J-10C is no match for the F-22A as it is out-classed by orders of magnitude in RCS, Raptor APG-77 smokes the Chinese AESA, and all the other systems that contribute to Raptor first-look, first-shoot while remaining unobserved. Then there's the EW aspect that is truly a different game in 5th Gen with cooperatively-linked AESAs, dozens of multi band RF sensors, and high power waveform manipulators using faster central processors.
    1
  17.  @michaelkeller5008  Typhoons from Spain and Italy, along with Italian F-35As did a Red Flag last year, all part of Blue Air. Red Flag isn't a fighter competition, but a massive coalition joint campaign-based series of missions that integrate all the air crews, maintenance, planners, search and rescue, special ops, aerial refuelers, AWACS, transport, and rotary wing assets together to fight against Red Air and Red SAM batteries as well. 5th Gen has totally changed things with Red Flag and opened up a whole new set of missions and possibilities.
    1
  18.  @pharmika  Low altitude TFR profiles have largely gone away due to the expanded envelopes of SAMs. F-35s fly in widely-dispersed formations so if there's a counter-air mission, they're denying use of terrain as a masking feature with wide area sensor coverage. Whichever F-35s are scanning the mountains share that data real-time with the rest of the formation. In short, there's no hiding. Rafale was designed for higher altitude profiles like all delta wings are, but also for good thick air performance with the canards.
    1
  19.  @pharmika  I’ve looked at the Rafale and don’t see any strengths it can play against greater strengths in the F-35’s corner in every relevant metric. You can take the best, most experienced fighter pilots in the world and pit them against very new F-35 pilots, and the outcome is still the same. This has been done already hundreds of times in Large Force Exercises, including multinational partners. That’s a huge indicator that something massive has changed with 5th Gen, which isn’t marketing hype, but an actual relevant term that means something. 5th Gen isn’t just Very Low Observables. It’s integrated systems, superior man-machine interface, fused sensors, interleaved sensors between ships, using LPI data links with line-of-sight secure/high transmission rates. On top of all that is superior combat-configured raw performance in climb rate, cruise speed, acceleration through the Mach, and maneuvering in the worst-case for when more VLO airframes become more common down the road. I actually do know many things about the capabilities of JSF and 4th Gen, since I’ve been in defense aerospace since the 1970s, spent several years studying the NATO Aerospace Engineering course material, and have a 741 page book on JSF written by all the lead systems engineers and some test pilots. JSF RF VLO systems have already evolved after Lot 4 into something different, reducing the RCS even more. Multibandwidth RCS reduction has been something people have been chasing for decades, but that certainly isn’t openly discussed since it’s pretty cutting edge. APG-81 isn’t the primary detection system on JSF. Primary early detection is totally passive in the RF spectrum, followed by different approaches to assessing contacts cooperatively using minimal RF emissions, very controlled LPI RF emissions, as well as IR spectrum cooperative TGT PID. The passive RF detection and tracking is far ahead of what people think, and overlooked by most amateur AvGeeks. They took the same approach from the F-22’s passive RF detection framework. Since F-22 and F-35 are VLO in the IR spectrum, IRST and OSF sensors don’t see any real discernible contrast until right on the edge or within visual range. There are some really good OSF photos from Rafale against F-22A showing this, even with the F-22A in afterburner. Seems like fantasy at first, until you understand how cold air is managed around the exhaust plumes, as well as surfaces. F-35 has LOAN technology integrated into the engine nozzles and around the engine to mitigate IR signature from engine heat, as well as coatings integrated with the RAM that cover several spectra of IR. The Super Hornet's APG-79 can detect 1m2 TGTs at around 134nm in just volume search mode, and 220nm for cued search. APG-81 is a superior AESA with higher TRM count, more processing power, better integrated cooling, and better freq hop/LPI modes, just for starters. This is where trying to understand a 5th Gen Fighter vs 4.5 Gen really sticks out. The AESA is not a separate sensor in the F-35. It’s part of the passive RF sensors distributed all over the airframe, part of the EOTS, DAS, and EW suite. It’s part of a closed-loop avionics architecture that performs a certain set of functions as needed, depending on what the pilot and wingmen are doing. The RBE2 is an excellent radar, the only AESA in operational service among the Eurocanards and well ahead of France’s peers who tried to develop the Typhoon together, and for that France should be recognized. It just isn’t on the same level of the integrated avionics on JSF. The short story is that a flight of JSF will always have first-look and first-shoot decisions against fighters who don’t even know they are there.
    1
  20.  @זהסודי-ה7מ  It’s not correct . The first F-15 victory against a MiG was June 27, 1979, using the Python-3 IR HOBS missile.
    1
  21. Have you ever heard of a concept called Low Probability of Intercept/Detection Radar? It's literally one of the foundational operating principles of AESAs. In addition to reducing, (not increasing) peak power output from the antennae TRMs, they frequency-hop around their relevant spectrum at insane cycles per second to avoid triggering any RF detection sensors. That's if an F-35 pilot even chooses to actively search & track in RF spectrum. The AESA is fused with over a dozen other frequency-wide sensors embedded in the F-35 so it really gets its first hits passively. F-22 is the same way. Those passive RF systems have almost 2x the detection range in the RF spectrum compared with the AESA. The moment any signature emits from your aircraft in both RF and IR spectrums, you risk populating yourself into the new kill web with JSF. If F-35 gets a hint of anything, the super-computing brain directs other passive sensors to pay particular attention to those directions/contacts, and does everything within its power to know what's out there, cross-referenced with a vast threat library that has up-to-date signatures of all known threats. The pilot manages signature carefully to gain weapons-grade tracks, and sets up for an unfair, unseen VLO approach, while staying out of the detection envelopes of the threats. So unlike a 4th Gen encounter, mutual awareness does not happen in BVR at any point until the threat system detects an active missile seeker within a few seconds before impact. That's the extent of the threat pilot's awareness of anybody else out there. You need an entirely new airplane with a more saturated and multi-spectral/wide bandwidth sensor suite, with more processing power. Good luck with that.
    1
  22.  @miketheman4341  Guys in Ranger Batt have done more reps in CQM and CQB because they don’t have to train for any of the UDT and Combat Swimmer skill sets, none of the VBSS, and don’t have to do as much methods of insertion training that is very time-consuming. 2 main aerial methods of insertion in Battalion are rotary wing and Static Line Airborne. If a kid joins at 17-18, they will still go through 6 months of Infantry OSUT, 2 months of RASP if they make it straight through, and 3 weeks of Airborne school before going on PCS leave in-between Benning and Hunter AAF, Ft. Lewis, or staying at Benning for 3rd Batt. Once they show up, they go right into training cycle with tons of CQM, CQB, rotary wing, fixed wing, and specialized training pre-deployment, then deploy somewhere for a JRX, JRTC, Jungle Ops, Desert, the UK, Thailand, etc. You see a very rapid climb in maturity in Ranger Regiment because guys that can’t perform are booted out quickly via RFS or injury. When you witness how a Squad or Platoon of Ranger Batt guys execute SUTs vs SEALs, it’s night a day. I’ve done OPFOR against both and deployed among CJSOTF or other composite units of each, and it’s just a brutal harsh reality that Rangers are far more competent in CQM and CQB, IADs, and SUTs. I would never want to face them with live ammo. SEALs I would happily face day or night, and skull-drag them with the kinds of guys I was used to running with. They were very lax/undisciplined with their SUTs and it showed.
    1
  23. @miketheman4341  Incorrect. The vast majority of SEAL training is dive, hydrographic Recon, underwater demo, and method of insertion focused. A lot of tasks they hate doing (water). Ranger pipeline training starts with 6 months Infantry OSUT, 8 weeks of RASP suckfest, SUTs, breaching, demo, flat range work/CQM, and CQB, and Airborne School. Within SEAL Platoons, they have to keep training on all the waterborne and maritime operations that are specifically tied to support of USMC Amphibious operations, as well as maintaining free fall proficiency, which is very resource, time, and risk-intense-especially doing water jumps. Rangers go into cycle of more flat range work, demo, CQB, Rotary Wing, and Fixed Wing Ops/Airfield Seizure. Ranger Regiment has one of the most capable, longest pipeline Tier 1 units as well that is relatively-unknown.
    1
  24.  @miketheman4341  All JSOC elements are small. RRD used to be just a Detachment like LRSD, then got expanded into a Company-sized element like LRSC. RRC Pipeline is longer than OTC or ST6 training, and more extensive due to the man-tracking. It's more like OTC + Man-Tracking in the Pacific. If you're a civilian with zero relevant experience in this space and haven't been around any of these units, It's best not to comment on them. I've deployed with and done OPFOR against most of the ones being mentioned. CAG was the scariest from an OPFOR perspective because one minute everything is quiet, the next minute our guys were flex-cuffed & hooded on an MH-47 flying away in the night. Rangers were the next, someone you don't ever want to face in SUTs, to include the jungle. We spent literally 28 days doing OPFOR against every Platoon & Squad in 2/75 in Panama, and they fire & maneuvered on us, chasing us down like pit bulls on cocaine. Doing OPFOR against SEALs at JRTC / Fort Polk and Ft AP Hill was like clubbing rich ROTC cadets who had all kinds of Gucci gear, but sucked at SUTs. They got compromised trying to conduct Point Target Recce all the time, because they planned their rotary wing insertions too close to their OBJs. It was like they watched Hollywood B Movies for their planning. Not kidding.
    1
  25. Rafale is not capable of more mission sets than F-35s, although Rafale is one of the most versatile swing-role fighters ever built. F-35s can do every mission set that the Rafale C and M can, plus several more: VLO A2A OCA/DCA VLO Intercept VLO penetration strike VLO anti-ship VLO D-SEAD Electronic attack Cyber attack ABM ISR VLO maritime patrol For O&M costs, the single engine airframe with prognostic monitoring and compartmentalized FLCS is more reliable, requiring less maintenance. F-16s require 9-11 MMHPFH typically. F-35A is 4-5 hours, the lowest of any modern fighter, and that includes all of its sensors and EW, unlike 4th Gen with their podded systems.
    1
  26.  @filterfivepro  F-35A/B/C hourly costs including personnel can be viewed in the 2022 DoD Comptroller report. They're all about $13,000/hr. Norway's Air Logistics Chief said F-35A costs them €11,000/hr to maintain, same as their F-16CMs. Unit cost for F-35As is half of Rafale F4. Unit Program Costs are €60-80 million more for Rafale as seen in the recent contracts for India. No matter how you look at the Financials, Rafale costs more to acquire, operate, maintain, and arm.
    1
  27.  @TheFinnmacool  Have you looked at comparative MMHPFH stats for all 3 JSF vs legacy fighters? Even the F-35B is significantly less than the F-16. F-35A is about 5hrs F-35B is about 7 F-35C is about 6 F-16C is 11 F/A-18E is 14 F/A-18F is 19 F-14A was 40-60
    1
  28. SF go through the SFLCs at Bragg as part of the Q. Only in very rare cases might someone from 18 series go to DLI. Language proficiency on any given ODA is generally very poor. Exceptions are guys who are English as a 2nd language speakers and LDS missionaries. SF used to be a lot better at this in the early days (1950s-1960s) because of all the Lodge Act dudes who came from Europe and went into 10th Group. It’s generally a joke now that involves mention of “ B C D” on whatever language proficiency test is being discussed so you get paid.
    1
  29.  @SuperSy99  Charlie Beckwith hated SF. He was levied to SF, which he immediately recognized would kill his career. Read his book. But then something different happened where he went and did exchange with the British SAS. He returned from his SAS exchange and immediately said that the US should have a unit like that. If SF was so great, why did he as an SF officer start pushing for something like SAS? SFOD-D was a deceptive naming convention, and you can see this with the fact that SF competed against Delta with Blue Light. SFOD-D answers to the JCS, not the SF Regiment. 2 totally different chains of authority, one of which is almost directly to the NSC, the other being way down the line with a vast bureaucracy that gets in the way of operations as a rule.
    1
  30.  @Greasy__Bear  No. Photos of video of Russian Air Force losses in Syria are all over the net, collected and reported by Oryx Report. It’s OSINT.
    1
  31.  @WontSeeReplies  Of course fighters carry weapons. Water is also wet. Now talk yourself through the detailed sequence how an Su-35 formation is going to use their PESA Radars and R-77-1s to get into parameters against Omnirole VLO fighters with .0005m2 RCS, with tiny IR signatures, while the Su-35s have 2-5m2 frontal RCS and huge IR signature. They're dead before getting airborne, might as well not even take off.
    1
  32.  @divoulos5758  Russia doesn't have the resources to equip and man relevant OPFOR fleets of dissimilar fighters to train against, and never did. The best they got was one F-5E from South Vietnam in the 1970s, and their imitation Eagles MiG-29 squadron that would travel around the country in the Soviet times. As dumb as public school-trained kids are in the US, the US has never suffered a brain drain in our entire history. Opposite is true, where geniuses like Nikola Tesla immigrated to the US to pursue their technological and scientific advancements. Russia has suffered an average of 2 major brain drains per generation since 1917, so that now their population is dumber than at any time in history. 1. Revolution 2. Civil War 3.Holodomor/Execution of Kulaks 4. Great Patriotic War 5. Krushchev collapse to the cities, massive drop in birth rate 6. Long-term recession 1970s 7. KGB coup early 1980s 8. Gorbachev weakness with Glasnost/Perestroika 9. Total collapse of government/economy/military 10. Yeltsin years chaos, birth rates declining, scientists fleeing 11. Putin mobilization backfire with hundreds of thousands of prime age males and women fleeing. The US has produced over 1045 5th Gen fighters in the past 25 years. Russia has produced 6.
    1
  33.  @Greasy__Bear  The AESA in the F-35 isn’t the primary initial detection system, and neither is the APG-77 in the F-22. There are passive EW sensors that see electronic emissions first, then cue the other sensors to those targets. The pilots manage how much signature they want to emit in RF spectrum. APG-81 and APG-77 absolutely are very long range detection and tracking-capable AESA Radars, with farther effective range than AWACS because AWACS have to stay away from the skirmish zones due to vulnerability. AWACS are less and less a critical C4 node due to the emergence of 5th Gen. People talking about AWACS as a central node for C4ISR are thinking in 1970s-1990s metrics pre- Link-16 JTIDS. F-22 IFDL (Inter Fighter Data Link) is miles ahead of JTIDS, and F-35 MADL is miles ahead of IFDL. The gap between ATF/JSF and 4.5 Gen is huge. Iraq had 768 tactical combat aircraft and were better trained and experienced than Russia will ever be (Iraq fought Iran for 8 years, and the Iranians had F-14A/AWG-9/Phoenix, F-4Es, F-5E/F, AIM-7E4, AIM-9J, AIM-9P). East Germans were the best Air Force in the Soviet Union, followed by the Poles. Russians are defunct and have been for generations-not even a remotely-competent air power. We’re talking about an Air Force that practices firing rockets into the mud for their Large Force Exercises even to this day-total tards. They were handicapping China with those LFEs too, as PLAAF thought that’s how you do LFEs. After Chicoms got exposed to a small LFE with Royal Thai Air Force, PLAAF switched gears and started actually learning. Russian Air Force would be curb-stomped by any of NATO nations in Air-to-Air. This is why NATO is trying to keep the Ukrainian conflict limited to Ukraine, because a humiliating defeat by Russian forces vs NATO would increase the likelihood of them letting loose with nukes.
    1
  34.  @divoulos5758  To give another set of answers to your questions though, the US built several fighter weapons schools in the 1970s and 1980s and regional aggressor squadrons to provide dissimilar air combat training for operational units around the world. That means huge portions of the USAF, USN, and USMC were specifically dedicated to acting as aggressors or adversaries, emulating threat tactics, radio procedures, and emissions. The Soviets never did this because they believed their own propaganda about how much better their fighters were, and that their pilots were blessed with some type of innate skill from the patrimony. If you read Vladimir Kondaurov’s book, he talks about flying the captured F-5E against the MiG-21 and MiG-23, where the F-5E beat them both in BFM repeatedly, and they had to report this personally to the Moscow Central Aviation Research Bureau with great apprehension. The F-5E was a low cost fighter the US sold to poor nations who weren’t authorized to buy top-line US technology, and the Russians knew it. The F-5E handily beat their top-line fighters at the time, even though all their data said the MiG-21 should have beat the F-5. With Red Flag and TOPGUN, the US maintains fighters that emulate Russian threat capabilities. We have already established an F-35A Aggressor Squadron at Nellis AFB recently to emulate emerging Chinese and Russian threats. That’s how serious the US takes aggressor trainers. We have more F-35A Aggressors than Russia has Su-57s, for example.
    1
  35.  @divoulos5758  Russia suffered multiple massive brain drains during the Soviet Times. They also select pilots largely from sons of pilots. 50% of East Germans could not perform in NATO/West German fighter squadrons due to GCI focus from Russians. USAF Fighter Weapons Instructor Courses are basically PhD-level programs, rarely discussed. TOPGUN is a short course in comparison. Large Force Exercises are what really help elevate the skill level of units working together. The Russians suck at that and always have.
    1
  36.  @جمهورية.القطيف.المستقلة-1  Russia has never demonstrated such a claim. Just trying to prove operational status with their MiG-31s resulted in one MiG-31 shooting down the other. They're retards. The longest demonstrated A2A missile kill was with AIM-120D, even longer than AIM-54. But let's pretend Russia has missiles with ranges that you have claimed. Now talk through the TGT detection, tracking, and PID sequence for me when the RCS is .001m2 or less at those ranges. Russia has never made a very capable A2A BVR missile. There is 1 A2A combat record in the last 70 years of A2A missile development from an Iraqi MiG-25PD that fired on an F/A-18C from high closure rate into edge of visual range. That's it. US BVR/Radar guided missiles have over 200 kills in actual combat.
    1
  37.  @جمهورية.القطيف.المستقلة-1  You never heard of Project Pluto in the US in the 1950s, which was the first nuclear-powered cruise missile. Russian sources claim R-37M has a max effective range of 200km, with a 40-70km No Escape Zone against 4th Gen fighters. Russian BVR missiles have been a huge overstatement historically, with almost no combat record. They rely on grey electronics purchased from appliances and video game consoles, which have to be stripped of the processors and Integrated Circuits, since Russia can’t make the level of chip quality required. This might also explain why a MiG-31 shot down another MiG-31 during tests with the R-37M. Look at the history and technical exploitation of Russian electronics. They make garage, minimal/non-capable missiles, then advertise them like they are unmatched. They are a joke in this space and have been for decades.
    1
  38.  @АлександрШершнёв-р6с  In the US defense community, we've heard only how much better Russian missiles are. That way the defense contractors can scare Congress into paying for newer US missiles. When we got our hands on hundreds of these missiles, most of them turned out to be garbage. We tested them against non-maneuvering target drones and they failed repeatedly. The one exception was the R-73 HOBS missile, which actually worked, but it's a close range IR missile copied from the AIM-9G and VTAS.
    1
  39.  @АлександрШершнёв-р6с  The "photo" of an F-22 in Syria was a fake made by a retarded Russian kid, and quite an obvious one. It's sad people still believe that hoax, but understandable. In reality, F-22s conducted over 700 intercepts of Syrian MiGs and Sukhois, unobserved. They also flew into Syrian SAM Radar coverage regularly while dropping JDAMs and SDBs on High Value Targets. They also bombed Wagner mercenaries in 2018 during the Battle of Khasham.
    1
  40.  @АлександрШершнёв-р6с  You don’t need any nationality to see the fake image of some model airplane against a strange white cut-and-paste background to know that it’s a fake. Simply apply basic visual analysis and compare it to the known form factor of a real F-22A as seen from above. What you could tell right away from that model was that the wing tips and tailplanes did not match those of a real F-22. The symbology of the IR display was really strange too, not what you should see when using the IRST in zoom mode. Notice that the Russian Air Force did not recognize or substantiate those silly posts from an amateur who doesn’t know the difference between the tail and nose of an aircraft.
    1
  41.  @АлександрШершнёв-р6с  Was it claimed to be through the display from an Su-35 using OLS-35 IRST? If so, it wasn’t an F-22. Thoroughly debunked. There are some pics of the Rafale’s OSF display showing actual F-22As both in afterburner and military power, which are extremely low contrast images against the background. F-22A has extensive IR concealment stealth technologies integrated into the airframe and engines. In reality, a 2-ship of F-22s aren’t going to let an Su-35 near them, while they will be observing the Su-35s the entire time. There isn’t anything the Su-35 can do about it because they have such a huge RCS and IR signature. This is applied physics, not patriotism. Su-35 has excellent range and endurance with no need for external fuel tanks, and a reduced RCS compared to the Su-27 due to extensive use of composites and Radar blockers in front of the engines, but the RCS is still so large as to not matter in the long run. Radar blockers help defeat certain Positive Identification (PID) features of modern Radars, but 5th Gen work around that with multiple data point analysis of the airframe using passive sensors and LPI AESA modes, with data-linked image sharing between ships. If anything looks like a 1970s 4th gen design, it is easily detected, tracked, and PID’d from significant Beyond Visual Range distances. These are the rules of the road, and why Russia began work on the PAK-FA.
    1
  42.  @nickawai4881  F-117A didn't exist during the Vietnam War.
    1
  43.  @poopman3172  The Su-35 doesn't come close to F-35 in any important metric, and actually costs more. Many years ago now, China paid $85 million per airframe for Su-35s. F-35A has been as low as $77.9 million. If you were to launch 10x Su-35s with the best pilots in the world up against 2x F-35As with new, low-hour pilots, the 2 F-35s would erase the 10 Su-35s in a few minutes. There isn't anything they can do about it in EW, BVR, or EOVR parameters.
    1
  44.  @ramirezyzz6748  F-35s don't need anything from AWACS. AWACS has nowhere near the regional SA that JSF has.
    1
  45.  @ramirezyzz6748  Yes, AWACS don’t have the detection range that JSF do collectively, because they have to maintain stand-off distance from threat weapons and interceptors. As soon as the F-22A started playing in Large Force Exercises (LFEs), AWACS no longer had the edge on initial detection, TGT sorting, PID, etc. AWACS controllers would come over the net and give BRA for 4 contacts, F-22s would come back and call out what each contact was, and what altitude they were at down to 100ft. AWACS is lucky to get distance within +/- 19nm and 3000ft Flight Level, can’t PID in most cases. F-22A can count their weapons. JSF can tell what their estimated fuel state is, what airfield they launched from, what type of sub-variant fighter they are, weapons, etc. JSF get initial cueing from any number of ISR nodes, including themselves, then that fused data is shared over the MADL net so that every JSF operator on the net sees the same thing, even if they are beyond their sensor range. This includes low earth orbit satellites, airlines, fighters, bombers, tankers, drones, SAMs, tanks, APCs, trucks, ships, and even sub-surface platforms. JSF are like a networked hive of spyplanes, that are also VLO fighters, stealth strike/attack, Electronic Warfare nodes, and stealth anti-ship fighters. JSF is really a 5.5 Gen system of systems that link allies in ways that have never been done before.
    1
  46.  @ramirezyzz6748  Joint Strike Fighter series, F-35A, F-35B, F-35C, F-35I.
    1
  47.  @fork9001  They have lost so many Flankers in Ukraine, it’s shocking really. 5x Su-30SM, 1x Su-35S, and now 11x Su-34M. Latest one appears to have been shot down by friendly fire. There are also 2 unidentified Flanker losses on top of that, one a 2-seater with video of pilots descending in parachutes. Ukraine barely even has an Air Force, and Flankers are dropping like flies. Meanwhile over Syria, Israeli F-35Is have been shot at well over 100 times with no intercepts.
    1
  48.  @fork9001  Yes, I was agreeing with you. Ukraine withdrew a lot of their fighters into Romania, but they have lost: 11 MiG-29 4 Su-27 8 Su-25 11 Su-24M 1 UID MiG-29 or Su-27
    1
  49.  @carlantaya175  The money for those is called-out in the defense budgets over the past few years. Billions have been spent already, totally separate from JSF program money.
    1
  50.  @MDP1702  The Rafale development benefitted from all the years and hundreds of millions of $ of RDT&E that went into the F404 with GE. US GE and France have worked together for decades on the commercial airline engine sector as well. We typically start engine development in advance in the US as new fighter programs are being researched, so that by the time prototype airframe designs are being cut, the engines are ready. There were 4 different types of new generation engines available for the ATF program, for example, one of which was far ahead of its time (GE YF120 variable cycle motor). We've been working on the 6th Generation motors quietly for the past decade or more, and they are currently flying in the 6th Generation prototype(s). These are ADVENT 3-flowpath motors with variable cycle geometry, alloy-ceramic composites, with advanced manufacturing techniques even compared with the F-119 & F-135, neither of which have been remotely duplicated by any other nation. The YF-119L & N, and YF-120L & N were ready after extensive ground testing in the late 1980s. Rafale would benefit from an F414 IPE type motor with 26400lb thrust each, giving it better climb rate than the Typhoon, but there aren't a lot of complaints about Rafale performance. My youngest son and I were building a rudimentary Rafale model last night.
    1