Military Aviators: Russian, American, or other?

[WildCat]

I'd think that the stealth and supercruise capabilities of the F-22 would make it superior (all other things being equal) to the Russian fighters which have traditionally relied on speed and maneuverability.

With stealth and supercruise, you get to the target quicker and undetected. Saving money won't be very beneficial if they don't survive the first combat mission.

 

[Wildy]

Yes, but the link posted in the OP dealt with NG preparedness. Hence Wildy's and my confusion.

Yay. Someone explained what I should have explained before I saw this.

 

[Garrette]

Yes, but the link posted in the OP dealt with NG preparedness. Hence Wildy's and my confusion.

I do not know how that happened. Before hitting "Submit" I previewed the post and checked the link from there.

In any case, this is the article I was trying to link, assuming it works this time.

Apologies for the error and confusion.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Much obliged. I appreciated the smoke in the Su; it highlighted the maneuvers.

Aye. The vectored thrust capability and the canard (like the Saab) allows for some neat combined high angle of attack maneuvers that are (in the hands of a good pilot) quickly unstalled. Modern jet aircraft are being designed so be spin and stall proof, where they can be, to the point that the Navy's T-45 jet trainer is not much good for spin training.

I assumed as much; hence my mention of stand-off.

More than that, I think is to do with Command and Control (as noted by another) and use of non Mark I mod O eyeballs to visually ID hostile targets.

That's my assessment, too, but my non-military colleagues think the cool flying means we've lost the skies.

They are falling for a sales pitch. Well, air shows are sales shows, in some cases. PT Barnam was right.

They wouldn't have to cancel many of those to sweeten my retirement pot...

As you know, different pots of money . . .

I was unable to get the raptor video to play, not sure what happened there, glad others could answer up for you.

DR

 

[Daylight]

BVR is a more likely engagement geometry.
DR

Initially yes. But like Vietnam there would be a friendly fire incident and some desk genius would create an ROE of visual identification before weapons free. Stealth probably will not do you much good at that point.

 

[Daylight]

For a pure dogfighter the X-31 pretty much set the standard being able to able to point it’s nose anywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlR2rb5ouT8

It would be great is they adopted the X-31 paddle technology or MATV to the F-35.

Downside to all these high alpha maneuvers you see at the airshows is they are only good for sales at the airshow. In a real dogfight bleeding off all your energy makes you easy pickens for the other guys wingman.

 

[egslim]

Initially yes. But like Vietnam there would be a friendly fire incident and some desk genius would create an ROE of visual identification before weapons free. Stealth probably will not do you much good at that point.

The only way to ensure BVR engagements is to have vastly superior detection and communication ability. With a brand new aircraft design or against a minor power without AWACS capability that condition is likely to be met.
But Russia is already planning to develop a fighter competative with the JSF:

The future aircraft must meet generally accepted criteria of a future fighter plane such as supermaneuverability, low radar and infrared signature, and supersonic speed.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/fbis/NewJointFighter.htm
This was in 2001. With current oil prices development funds won't be an issue. With both sides using low observable aircraft there will be close range engagements.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Downside to all these high alpha maneuvers you see at the airshows is they are only good for sales at the airshow. In a real dogfight bleeding off all your energy makes you easy pickens for the other guys wingman.

Yep.

Thatch Weave for fifty, Eddie.

DR