Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. Fundamental flaw in the premises of this scenario is Su-35 cruising at Mach 1.8 with full combat load of missiles and bombs. That just isn't going to happen. Even Mach 1 cruise with that load would suck gas at too fast of a rate to provide for a viable combat radius. The other fundamental flaw is the F-35 operating as an interceptor, which it isn't meant for. F-22 rules that roost, and you don't want to show the scenario for F-22 against any of the Su-27 variants.
    90
  2.  ANUSH SLAVEIKOV  I know most people don't have any familiarity with aerospace concepts, applied physics, and the environmental conditions that aircraft are normally subjected to, so I'll point out something you might not be aware of. As you increase in altitude, the air temperature gets very cold. At only 3000m above sea level, the air is already -5˚ C. At 7000m, it's roughly -24˚ C. 11000m, it's -56.5˚C Not only that, but the F-35 development program was subjected to the same Mil-Std protocols for arctic basing requirements, and is being stationed in Alaska as we speak, just like the F-22 has been for many years now. The F-35's RAM is more robust and weather-resilient than the F-22s, and F-22s have been operating from arctic conditions all this time. The truth is that any aircraft that is going to fly into the Geopotential of the tropopause needs to be able to operate in -56.5˚ C ambient air. This area is where the F-35 likes to be. Even in hot climates, once it gets into the higher altitude bands, it might as well be in the arctic because these are extremely low temperatures.
    17
  3.  ANUSH SLAVEIKOV  In the 4th decade of highly matured helmet-cued HOBS missiles, any time you see someone talking about dog fighting, you immediately know their level of familiarity with modern air combat. The truth is Cy-35C is flying blind against 5th Gen systems, and they know it.
    15
  4.  ANUSH SLAVEIKOV  UK and US also, with early lot F-35s that have since worked out that problem. There were delamination issues if they sustained the maximum Mach for certain periods of time. That was relayed to the ODT&E people, who solved it and incorporated the fixes into later production samples. No need to make it personal if you didn't learn about this.
    10
  5.  @jballaviator  Su-35s can't see F-22s or F-35s. Not even F-35s can see F-35s, whereas F-35s see Su-35s from hundreds of km away. Su-35 RCS is like an airliner. How will Su-35s deal with incoming missiles that use different guidance technology? You can only throw ECM at so many things. Are you going to fly the whole sortie dodging ghosts? Su-35 is one of the most capable 4th Gen ++ platforms out there for sure. In a 5th Gen fight, they are TGTs though. Maybe a bit harder TGTs, but still TGTs.
    9
  6. First mistake: "Limited air to air capabilities of the F-35." The F-35 is one of the 2 most capable air dominance fighters in the world. Indian Air Force said they were easily able to detect and track the J-20 from hundreds of km out. When we saw the airframe of the J-20 & stealth mentioned in the same sentence, there was a loud chuckle across the US aerospace industry from those who have worked on VLO technology for decades. J-20 seems to be more of Potemkin village for Chinese domestic propaganda to give the impression that they are keeping up with or exceeding the US. Have we seen any evidence of supersonic separation testing from the J-20? They also claimed they cracked the code of sensor fusion and interleaving within a few years, while not even having a 5th Gen engine for this aircraft yet. You gotta have the engine before the airplane. China did insert 3 spies as scientists into GE, Pratt, and Rolls Royce to steal as much technology as possible since they've been failing at innovation in jet propulsion for decades. Chinese missiles? Their copy of the Israeli Python 4 should be good, but nations who buy their missiles refuse to use it in combat so far. Our most recent example is the Indo-Pakistan battle of February, 2019. All the missiles fired were from Russia and the US. Indians claim one R-73 Archer face-shot an F-16C Block 52. Pakistanis deny they used AIM-120C5, even when India showed the missile debris with Paki contract code from Raytheon on it. Indians say multiple R-77 Adders were fired, while multiple AIM-120s were fired at them. All of the BVR exchanges were countered with CM and maneuvers/kinematics.
    7
  7. Not even F-35B require that many MMHPFH. You're probably looking at data that includes early production aircraft, not Block 3, which have very low MMHPFH. F-35Bs and As have been or are currently engaged in combat operations in CENTCOM, and have been for at least one year.
    5
  8.  @adrianbundy3249  Why advertise? * Deterrence * Foreign Military Sales * Propaganda If someone isn't advertising but is developing game-changing military technology, they plan on using it. China has been broadcasting all sorts of domestic propaganda about the J-20 declaring it superior to everything ever made, even though it hasn't had time to work out all the issues and before it even has the correct engines. It's a MiG 1.44 airframe that was morphed with an after-thought stealth airfoil and surfaces. The amount of RCS-increasing seams and protuberances on the J-20 are laughable from a VLO perspective, let alone any attempts at IR sig reduction. Reflectivity and wave dissonance between the canards and other leading edges is detrimental to frontal RCS reduction, as are the strakes and moving vertical stabs. India has already detected J-20 at hundreds of km away. One has to ask if this is a flying Potemkin Village for both domestic and international deception. The sciences involved in making a true VLO supersonic combat aircraft are best understood within the US defense sector dating back to the U-2 & SR-71, followed by the F-117A, B-2A, and a laundry list of manned and unmanned jets most have never heard of.
    5
  9. Have you ever heard of: A-4 Skyhawk F-8 Crusader A-7 Corsair II Dassault Super Etendard?
    5
  10. Block 4 has four major increments. The existing hundreds of Block 3F JSF are absolutely combat-capable and have been engaged in various real-world deployments for years now. To describe them as prototypes is complete ignorance of the program.
    4
  11. Again, F-35 has superior supersonic performance to every other fighter other than F-22 and PAK-FA (not operational). F-35, when using internal stores for initial stage of air dominance campaign, has no limits on speed and maximum design speed. Any aircraft with external stores can't meet its maximum speed or cruising speeds because of the drag associated with all the additional aerodynamic drag. They can only dash to a designed stores category limitation established in the testing of those configurations. So all the premises about escapes and approaches, missile parameters, and closures are based on 1970s tactics again, with different planes, not the F-35. The F-35 has more speed available and super cruise (even though it was not designed for super cruise) than the F-15C, F-16C, MiG-29, MiG-35, Su-27, Su-30, and Su-35. The problem with the open source perspective of aviation aficionados when trying to compare the F-35 with other modern aircraft is that they often get fixated on stealth, while overlooking super cruise with full internal stores. They also overlook the ability of the F-35 to carry external stores, and for commanders to choose how to mix their strike package for the opening of the air dominance campaign. Example: A Task Force commander could structure his force of F-35s so that anywhere from half of them to 75% of them are carrying dirty. Guess what the external AMRAAM load out capacity of the F-35 is? 8, with the 4 additional internally. That changes tactics dramatically when you have 12 AMRAAMs per F-35A and even the USMC/UK B model. [IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/bbq5g.jpg[/IMG] While the initial stage is cluttered with certain assets that screw over your IADS sensors across the spectrum, the initial stage of approach of F-35 is flown dirty. Any defending MiGs or Sukhois that come into solutions get slavos of AMRAAMs fired at them, causing them to go defensive. You can shed your initial claws in the open as a dirty bird, then disappear from radar returns, with ground operators guessing where they are going based on last contacts, if they even had contacts. Now you have however many F-35s there were out there, with their 4 internal AMRAAMs for the closer fight, and super cruise capability.
    3
  12. The US has already been flying 6th Gen NGAD prototypes from 3 different companies since 2017. China has yet to demonstrate a 5th Gen engine, let alone total 5th Gen systems integration on J-20.
    3
  13.  @Sawbonespc  US fighter engine technology already exceeded the latest Russian and Chinese imitations in the 1980s. They're still trying to catch up with Improved Performance Engine capes from the GE F110-GE-100 & the PW F100-PW-229. We already surpassed those engines with the GE YF120 and Pratt F119-PW-100, as well as the F135-PW-100 & -400. There are substantial differences between a 5th Gen and 4th Gen+ motor.
    3
  14.  @adamtedder1012  Stealth isn't static, but evolves ahead of sensors. Stealth designs will be the baseline standard for airframe design moving forward, and this is exactly what you see from every company nowadays.
    3
  15.  @BertoxolusThePuzzled  Doesn't work like that. Within a single F-35, multiple sensors correlate data across different spectrums, mainly IR and RF. They then share that data with other F-35s, satellites, Maritime Patrol aircraft, UAS, surface vessels, and cross-check it all through their threat libraries. They do this on a narrow beam, LPI data link network that isn't seen by any other sensors. You can't trick the kill web.
    3
  16.  @BertoxolusThePuzzled  Fighter-to-Fighter data links date back generations. MADL makes AWACS basically obsolete once F-35s are airborne.
    3
  17.  @deankruse2891  And they still cruise faster, reach higher Mach, out-perform, and carry heavier relevant combat payloads while doing all of the above. Load an F-16CM or Super Hornet for combat, and they aren't doing any of that. Max V0 drops to barely supersonic or subsonic, depending on fusing, max g is limited to 4-5g, and the heaviest, most drag-inducing stores are their external fuel tanks. F-35 carrying the same weapons internally still flies to its max V0 and Ps, no performance restrictions at all.
    3
  18.  @anguswaterhouse9255  In the first 10 years of F-14 service, not counting the prototype crashes and fatalities, they lost 73 aircraft with at least 19 fatalities.
    3
  19. Another fundamental flaw is that you're showing tactics from the early 1980s that date back to the F-4D and F-4E, not even tactics used by F-15A and F-15C. Even F-16C tactics from the 1980s are more developed than depicted in this simulated skirmish. F-22 and F-35 are a whole generation ahead of that. For starters, you don't need to fly in pairs, but even if you do, you are working for an offset flight or duo from a totally different aspect of the CAP zone. With redundant means of communication not using active radar emissions, one group is able to provide targeting solutions for another, and you end up with missile launches from unexpected azimuths and elevations coming at you without a missile launch warning, because no active homing is being done until the very last terminal envelope of the missile salvo. If you survive that with evasive maneuvers, you are now wondering what is happening, where are the threats, have bled energy, while none of the threats have bled energy or showed themselves. They can also provide solutions for missiles that are launched from not only other aircraft, but from land or sea-based system. We've been pushing very hard for a huge generational gap starting in 1980 after USSR responded to the teen fighters with the Su-27 and MiG-29, and the US achieved that, while the USSR collapsed, then after about a decade, started trying to pick up the pieces and develop their Gen 4 birds into Gen 4+, while the US was already fielding Gen 5 F-22A and finalizing F-35 series. The numbers gap is huge as well, with the US having thousands of different Gen 4 fighters, 187 F-22s, and thousands of F-35s planned. Most realistic scenarios for Russian side or nations with Russian Gen 4+ fighters would be something like 10 to 1 or 20 to 1, not even including other assets we have. Any air battle challenging US supremacy would be over before it was fought.
    2
  20. Another problem I see are the pk numbers listed for the AMRAAM. You mentioned the general acronym "BVR" with stats from the Gulf War. Most of the BVR missiles fired in the Gulf War were AIM-7, which we don't use anymore. There is a huge gap in performance between the AIM-7M and AIM-120A, let alone the AIM-120D-4. Also keep in mind that unprecedented levels of development and cyclical testing have been transpiring for many years now with the highly maneuverable QF-16 drones we use, with extreme flight envelope parameters able to be tested on an airframe that has a lower RCS than either the MiG-35 or Su-30 and Su-35, with faster instantaneous turn rate. They have been able to test AIM-120D-4 and AIM-9X against these, then make programmatic changes to the architecture of the AIM-9X and AIM-120D. Most of the testing is done on BVR shots with AIM-120D, including advanced self-protection jamming and countermeasures used by the QF-16 to simulate the latest threat profiles of the MiGs and Sukhois.
    2
  21. USN has been flying F-35C since 2010. IOC was 2019.
    2
  22.  @Sawbonespc  I'm agreeing with you and supporting your assertions with quantifiable data.
    2
  23.  @jefferyfeng1778  F-35 mishap rate is minuscule compared to any other fighter design. Chinese and Russian mishap rates are so atrocious, the governments censor them so their people don't know how often it happens. In contrast, I can look up every single combat aircraft mishap in the US down to the date, code, and exactly what caused it. In China? "Most grorius peopres sterf fighter can vanquish ar opponents!!!"
    2
  24.  @jefferyfeng1778  There still won't be a government publication as to cause of the mishap, fatalities, or anything indicative of failure. In the US, we have transparency in this area to a fault. Some of our most sensitive programs have been exposed when pilots have died flying them, including General Bond in a Red Eagle MiG-23 in 1984.
    2
  25.  @BertoxolusThePuzzled  Chinese chips aren't allowed in anything close to JSF. There are very tightly-controlled supply side companies who make chips for DoD. China can't even make them if they tried. Boards, TRMs, and SCs in JSF subsystems come from US, Canada, and UK.
    2
  26.  @BertoxolusThePuzzled  Sensors: JSF sensor web is so revolutionary, that they are often tasked like dedicated spy planes normally would be used, and can swing-role during that at any time during the sorties. Costs: Nowhere near the $300 Billion acquisition budget has been spent yet, let alone anything approach a Trillion. The click-bait articles talking about over now trillion are estimates for the entire life of the program through the year 2073. The US has only acquired roughly 500 JSF out of 790 delivered so far, and our program of record is 2,456 airframes between all 3 services, while the total program of record just keeps growing with foreign customers and partners. Not even 4th Gen fighters are engaging in much WVR combat due to Helmet-HOBS missiles, which earlier generations of don’t work against JSF. JSF maneuverability is superior to almost all combat-configured fighters of the world if they decide to not use their missiles and try to engage in a 1950s-era guns fight, which hasn’t been done since 1979. Climb rate and acceleration in F-35s is superb especially in the subsonic regime, and not that different than a Block 50 F-16C in supersonic regime. F-35s are far more lethal than any modern fighter within visual range at night, including the Typhoon or Rafale or F-22. NODS are integrated into the HMDS, so you don’t have to remove things like JHMCS and then attach NODs like in legacy fighters. UK Typhoons are getting an integrated Digital NODs/Helmet-Cueing Helmet Sight, but have nowhere near the 360 coverage of JSF, so they would be at a great disadvantage WVR at night against F-35s. Russians and Chinese don’t have anything like this and lag in those areas considerably. JSF is an important component set in a multi-nodal network, and is the first fighter-shaped aircraft in history to deploy a space-sensor reaching suite. The JSF networked sensor web detects, tracks, and PIDs low earth orbit objects, which is one of the most overlooked things about its capabilities. The F-35s minus all of that are still far superior to 4.5 Gen fighters because they don’t bolt on the necessary combat systems, they have the best fighter AESA in the world, the best multi-seeker 5.5 Gen combined IRST capability with the frontal DAS fused with the zoomable EOTS, which is fused with the AESA and RF passive sensors, and their fuel fractions surpass legacy fighters considerably. All 4.5 Gen fighters are the actual relative garbage to JSF. I can break down the accurate and relevant math if you’ve made it this far.
    2
  27. In this scenario, you would have protective cover of F-22A for the F-35A, who would be the strike package, with follow-on air dominance after ATG mission complete. F-22A flights with F-15C flights would be more realistic for the offensive CAP coverage. Numerical superiority combined with drastic training advantage for the attackers results in rapid eradication of Flankers that choose to enter the CAP skirmish area and parameters, as F-35A and F-15E prosecute the ground pound mission. You also have B-1, B-2, and Navy cruise missile flights entering the airspace at low altitude, with flexible mission profile and targeting based on the evolution of the battle. Primary targets for the cruise missiles include SAMs, radars, airfield, and C3 nodes. There is another entirely overlooked US capability that we won't discuss online, but it overwhelms the enemy radar and sensor picture of the airspace in both the electronic and actual RCS parameters, while cruise missiles and penetrators ingress towards their targets.
    1
  28.  @khandimahn9687  Yup. Since that post, I've become more aware of the climb rate and higher altitude performance, along with their networked sensor suite. They have better sensors in F-35s than any other fighter or interceptor in the world, and share the data with each other in near real-time. It performs well in that role, even though it was never envisioned as an interceptor. NATO rotates them through the Iceland ADIZ interceptor mission regularly from multiple nations and has for many years now.
    1
  29. "Originally designed as a jack of all trades." False "Can't pull 9g, only 7g." Name a single carrierborne fighter that does 9g (hint: none can) "Fly circles around with TV" False Russia and China have never demonstrated continuous ops with TV equipped fighters from carriers, nor have they ever done an airshow with combat-configured Flankers, not that it matters. Nobody is trying to fly onto WVR Helmet-HOBS WEZ for obvious reasons. F-35C has 100nm+ longer combat radius than the F-14D did. Not sure what you're talking about regarding loitering. It outperforms every carrierborne and most land-based fighters in range. IR signature is tiny on JSF. Notice how people close to JSF program say VLO, not just RF stealth? IR signature is a huge factor in VLO. You aren't going to see JSF on IRST at long range as long as they stay subsonic.
    1
  30.  @NesconProductions  F-35s demonstrate TVC-like performance without TVC, due to thrust placement relative to the H-stabs. There are very few actual deficiencies with JSF. Legacy aircraft have far more deficiencies and the mishap rates to prove it.
    1
  31.  @NesconProductions  Russia isn't fielding missiles with 2x the range of AIM-120. AIM-120D has the longest confirmed intercept of any AAM, even longer than AIM-54C. Russia barely got R-77-1 AAMs into service over the past few years, with no known performance record on it. Even if they had a superb LRAAM, it can't track what it can't see, while the huge RCS Flankers are tracked from take-off. They have lost 5 Su-30SMs, 1 Su-35S, and 9 Su-34s over Ukraine. From missile wreckages, COTS US, Taiwanese, Japanese, French, and German electronics make up their missile guidance systems, including their new hypersonics.
    1
  32.  @NesconProductions  F-35s are VLO relative to IRST. F-117A shoot-down (1 out of 1200+ combat sorties) had nothing to do with IR signature, but within visual range RF signature. IR SIG on F-117A is tiny. It wasn't SA-6, but SA-3 volley fire. They flew the same predictable routes 3 nights in a row, didn't have EA-6B support that night. F-35s don't need EW support, and see SAM sites well in-advance. There aren't applicable lessons from Yugoslavia for F-35 really.
    1
  33.  @NesconProductions  USAF openly announced the new AIM-120D intercept record earlier this year, without stating the range, but that it was the longest demonstrated intercept in history. My background is rooted in this field dating back to the 1970s, with places like AFFTC, White Sands, China Lake NWTC, Eglin AFB, and Point Mugu common to our permant assignment and TDY schedule. PL-15 is supposed to be longer reach, but there haven't been any demonstrated or published tests with those missiles claiming realization of their theoretical ballistic profiles. The Russians did finally reveal that in testing upgrades to their MiG-31BM and its BRAAMs, they shot down another MiG-31 accidentally during the tests, but it was nowhere near the maximum WEZ. China just states that their missiles have better motors and guidance systems than the Russian garbage they have been sold (RVV-AE). China also licensed Israeli SRAAMs with the Python-3, which is an extremely deadly WVR IR HOBS missile for sure.
    1
  34.  @NesconProductions  Regarding VLO in RF spectrum: This isn’t a static technology and as materials science and programmable meta materials evolve, it sets the pace for sensors as reactionary systems, not proactive. It has been that way ever since the Germans fielded RF stealth characteristics on their U-Boat masts during WWII against British bombers rigged with early airborne RADAR systems. That also spawned the first RWR systems. Already within the JSF program, they have adopted a new RAM that is superior to the RAM used on Lots 1-3, and in conjunction with RF-transparent Carbon Fiber structures, their RCS values dropped below the F-22’s. JSF pilots, when interviewed by a retired career F-16C pilot and Fighter Weapons Instructor, said they can’t see each other even with their insane sensor capabilities, but they can look up and see Low Earth Orbit satellites.
    1
  35.  @NesconProductions  Regarding IR VLO: An Australian Air Force Hornet pilot on exchange in the US at Nellis flying F-15Cs said that with the CATM-9 IR seeker cued with JHMCS, he could not get either to acquire the F-22A in Within Visual Range Fox 2 fights. JSF leaps ahead of F-22 in the IR VLO department, taking many lessons learned from F-117A and the Raptor toward that space. Legacy IR missiles are useless against JSF and ATF. You need dual-seeker Focal Plane Array missiles, but you won’t ever get into parameters for them, so they are pointless.
    1
  36.  @NesconProductions  Regarding range: The terminology we use in Defense Aerospace relative to fighters is "combat radius" or "mission radius", which is a very flexible metric dependent on many variables. F-35C combat radius averages 100nm+ longer than the F-14D, which had more fuel efficient engines than the F-14A if setting up a low-speed BEARCAP patrol around the Carrier Battle Group. Not only can and does the F-35C exceed that perimeter by 100+nm, but it also brings long-range strike back to the CVN that was lost with the A-6E and A-7E retirements decades ago. We lost that with the adoption of the Hornet and Super Hornet, though the SH has longer radius than the baby F/A-18s do. For the strike mission profile, evading threat SAMs and their radars significantly reduces a legacy fighter’s strike radius because of multiple heading and altitude changes along the profile. F-35s don’t do this anywhere near as much since they compress the threat MEZ and detection bubbles dramatically. F-35C especially has roughly 20,000lb of internal fuel, which no single engine fighter has ever had. For comparison, an F-16 is 7,000lb internal, while Super Hornets are 14,700lb and 13,760lb respectively for E and F models. The F-35C carries all that fuel without any aerodynamic drag penalty, whereas all other 4th Gen fighters carry EFTs pretty much on every mission profile. Russian and Chicom carrier-borne fighters have to take off with limited internal fuel and weapons, otherwise they can’t get safely airline off the deck (no catapults). They are a pathetic joke in comparison to the USN CVNs.
    1
  37.  @NesconProductions  They are literally the most trouble-free fighters in service. MMHPFH and readiness rates demonstrate that, along with safety. Everything else is less available and more prone to mishaps.
    1
  38.  @NesconProductions  Russian pilots talk over open text Radio, no brevity codes, non-secure today over Ukraine and in their air defense fighter squadrons who frequently violate neighboring airspace and are recorded. They simply don’t have anywhere near the training, culture, or repetitions in using whatever limited weapons they claim they have. A basic F-35 squadron work-up new pilot who has been there for 6 months would skull-drag a senior Sukhoi pilot in BVR, and AIM-9X Block II+ with HMDS levels the paying field in the WVR fight that wouldn’t happen anyway. If the WVR fight happens at night, a nugget pilot will prevail over a senior Sukhoi driver quite easily. It’s just an unfair fight. Daytime, guns only 1v1, 1950s-era constrained fight for gamers who like to BFM for fun? Sure, evenly-skilled pilots should do better in the Flanker. See how many decades of capability we have to erase to get to that point though?
    1
  39. The AMRAAM stands on the shoulders of the AIM-7E and AIM-7M SAHR missiles, which have been used extensively in SEA (most A2A kills in SEA were AIM-7E, much more than AIM-9). AIM-7M A2A kills account for most of the USAF F-15A/C record as well. 24 of the 32 F-15C A2A kills in Desert Storm were with AIM-7M. Israelis have used the AIM-7F against Syria with great effect. The most notable thing about the AIM-7 is that it has been almost always employed Within Visual Range after a merge. The AIM-120 is superior to the AIM-7, with lighter weapon weight, improved self-illuminating seeker, countermeasures, better rocket propellant behavior, and better agility for maneuvering targets. It has displayed a better Pk in operational use against 6 x MiG-29, 1 x Su-22, 1 x MiG-25, and 1 x J-21. In contrast, the R-27 BVR missile that predates the R-77 has a terrible Pk record. At best, it's Pk is 4% if we include a proximity fuse detonation near an Eritrean MiG-29, that continued to fly and crashed upon landing attempt. The US/NATO tested the R-27 extensively after gaining dozens of them from the East Germans. Against non-maneuvering and maneuvering drones, it almost never hit the targets in live-fire tests from the MiG-29A both off the coast of England and Florida. This is the legacy that the R-77 is based on, and attempts to improve upon.
    1
  40. They're not skipping it.
    1
  41. Super Hornets have been experiencing an increasing rate of catastrophic engine failures, including total losses and fatalities. Too much weight to haul with those small motors I think. We didn't see that much at all on baby Hornets.
    1
  42. ​ @zszs100  The US had 4 different 5th Gen motors in 1991 from which to choose for ATF. China still hasn't demonstrated late 1980s 4th Gen gas turbine technology milestones achieved with the P&W F100-PW-229. One of the leading causes of Chicom fighters exploding and suffering total airframe loss has been blades letting loose from turbofans in the J-11 and J-10 series. These are problems the US was having with the F-111A, F-14A, F-15A/B, and F-16A/B 50-60yrs ago. It's why we had the engine wars in the 1980s and overcame that mountain of a challenge. What Generation engine is a WS-10 or WS-15 if Xi banned Chicoms from publishing MTBF/MTBO?
    1
  43. @elcoshayuyodrsimi3000  The U-2, A-12, SR-71, and F-117A weren't seen by the public for many years even after their operational service. A-12 was never seen by the public until long after retirement, sitting in display areas. HAVE Blue was never seen by the public.
    1
  44.  Ernest Hemingway  Yes, US fighter engines have been better than Russian engines since the F-86F. Russia had a British engine given to them (as a token of English hope in a peaceful future), which the Soviets mass-produced for the MiG-15. The MiG-15 had a better thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-86A-D models as a result. Brits had been working on jet engine tech before the US, as had the Germans. The results? The US pushed ahead with the Century Series (F100, -101, -102, -104, -105, -106, -110, -111) fighters, advancing turbojet engine technology with the J57, J75, and J79, then ushering in a new era of afterburning turbofan fighter and bomber engine tech with the TF30 in the F-111 & F-14, as well as the GE F101 in the B-1A. This later evolved into the Pratt & Whitney F100 and GE F110 afterburnung turbofans, which became the basis for the world-class Improved Performance Engines for the F-15, F-16, & later F-14A+/B/D. If you track Soviet fighter engine technology from the 1950s through the 1970s, you had the R15, R25, & R35 Tumansky motors for the MiG-25, MiG-21, & MiG-23, all of which were turbojets. The US already was using operational F-111A and F-14A fighters with afterburning turbofans by the late 1960s(F-111A), early 1970s(F-14A). As the 4th Generation optimum bypass ratio F100 and F110 motors matured in the 1980s with DEEC, we already solicited GE and Pratt for the next generation engines for the ATF, which were the YF120 & YF-119. The YF-120 actually was a generational leap ahead of the YF119, but still needed to be worked out since it was an adaptive/ variable cycle motor with fan stage placement modulation. We can also look at the SR-71 & its unparalleled Pratt & Whitney J58 afterburning, compressor bleed turbojets. Russia has never duplicated anything remotely close to the SR-71 & its engines. As we look at the IPE fleet of GE & Pratt motors in US and coalition fighters, they are the gold standard in performance and reliability. In contrast, the Lyulka/NPO Saturn AL-31 motors in the Su-30MK are described as FOD-sensitive, maintenance-intensive engines that last maybe half the advertised service life. Russia continues to work on trying to develop a new generation motor for the Su-57, & upon demonstrating an Su-57 at MAKS, one of the motors exploded with flames shooting out the rear in front of all of Russia's observers and customers. Where Russia is currently at is producing attempts at 1980s tech the US skipped over. This was the VISTA/STOL/MATV programs of the late 1980s/early 1990s where test F-15s and F-16s were fitted with IPE core engines, but with 2D and later Multi-Axis Thrust-Vectoring nozzles controlled by an integrated DFLCS with FADEC so that the engines contribute to pitch, roll, and yaw along with the DFLCS. The 3 driving forces behind US experiments with this technology were: 1. STOL for runways in Europe or any theater where runways might be attacked 2. Super-Maneuverability 3. Optimum Supersonic Maneuverability We chose to invest in this tech in the ATF Lockheed variant, not on legacy 4th Gen fighters. The JSF variant that won the competition didn't need TV since it has thrust well ahead of large tail surfaces.
    1
  45.  Ultra Centrist Citizen  US media is anti-US military since Mockingbird went fully into effect, as it was penetrated by NKVD and KGB and used like a Trojan horse against us. If you believe there is Russian fighter engine technology superior to the US, go ahead and name it.
    1
  46.  @AA-xo9uw  Yup. F-35s in all 3 services have been operational for years now, including multiple combat deployments with kinetic operations across their mission sets, yielding capabilities that haven’t been realized before.
    1
  47. Meteors on NATO F-35A/Bs are going to be devastating. The NEZ for off axis VLO approach with the Meteor is scary, especially with how F-35s deal with NCTR.
    1
  48.  @KB4QAA  The Navy is adjusting to the fact that the 5th Gen Strike Fighter they wanted is performing Fleet Air Defense better than any dedicated Fleet Defender, while simultaneously being able to act as a long range fires TGT detection and terminal guidance platform, that also networks with P-8A Poseidon ASW aircraft and RQ-4C Triton drones, surface fleet vessels, and USMC F-35Bs, to form a vast sensor/shooter kill web.
    1
  49. All the BVR AIM-120C5 and R-77 missile shots in the February air battle resulted in no hits. The MiG-21 Bison face-shot an F-16D at 6 miles, then got shot in the rear as he was trying to egress. Some sources say it was an AIM-120C5 that got him, while others say it was AAA.
    1
  50. @Kartik Puri Pakistani Air Force saw the counter-ambush approach by the 2 MiG-21 Bisons, vectored 3 F-16s towards them, who also saw them with their radars. Both air forces fly modern AWACS made by SAAB and Israel. Why understanding is that the Su-30MKIs did fire R-77s at F-16s, and F-16s definitely fired AIM-120C5s at them, because India recovered AIM-120C5 debits on their soil with Foreign Military Sales contract codes to Pakistan. Pakistan just started lying about everything out of the gate though. First it was 2 Indian fighters that they shot down, with 2 Indian pilots in custody. India said we only are missing one pilot. Pakistan said they used JF-17s to shoot down the Indian fighters, and that no F-16s were used. Then they stopped talking about the 2 pilots in custody and released Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman.
    1