• Archive through February 21, 1999 February 21 - 11:24 pm

Just a clarification,

The 5000 cruise missile that I said the USAF can fire against Russia are conventional one, NOT NUCLEAR ARMED. Hence their total destructive power is equivalent to 5000x500kg HE at most. 5000x250kg is more realistic. 1250 to 2500ton of tnt isn't that horrible , the russian can take it.
They would still rather send 600 MIG-25/31 to disrupt NATO air force CAS and SEAD operatin than sending them to chase after the cruise missile or B-52 or B-1B. They still have 4000 MIG-23/27 and Su-15 to hhunt the B-1B and B-52. The MIG-23/27 is NOT effective against F-15/14/16/18. Its is more productive to use them to hunt the B-1B and B-52instead. The MIG-25/31 and SU-27 can be more productively be used to destroyed the F-15/14/18/16 than hunting those slow B-1B and B-52 that isn't the core threat in a conventional war. There are still 10000 SAM launcher to help reduc ethe destructive power of the B-52 and B-1B.

Aardvark
regards

The mach 3 thing was to prtect myself. Earlier I doubted claims of the F-22's low speed and I think everyone thought I meant it had a speed of Mach 3. I was just trying to say the speed is at least Mach 2.

The Ramjet properties of the spike I already know about. But still, the SR-71 takesoff, refuels and burns. Almost the entire way. No fighter can be deployed that can achieve Mach 3 and still be very useful. NOT enough fuel. Maybe it could peak above Mach 3, but then it would be very useless. Sure it could go refuel but for an interceptor, if the planes are not intercept on the first try, rarely will the plane get a second chance.

I think B-52's would be used against ground targets in Europe, and B-1's and B-2's would have to job of attacking Russia. And the tatics used against Saddam would be used against Russia. Since war is so unpredictable, this copuld completely cripple the Russian military or it would all be too late as Russia had sent 10- 15 million to tak ethe rest of Europe, and still have 5 million to protect Russia (or whatever their plans were) despite Western tech advantages I believe Russia would stillbe able to atleast take Europe. But then crossing the oceans would be a different problem.

And I believe ww3 would be conventanal also, until one side is about to win. Then the odds are too great for a nuclear attack. Why the Cold War was cold? Both sides knew victory would certainly bring defeat.

And yes Russia has a lot of Fighters, even still today. American planes may have been better but it is still unknown whether or not Technology would over come the numbers.

This is why we still can argue. Yes the F-22 is the best, but would almost doubling the number of planes and buying EF, Rafale's or other planes be a better deal? or a combination of types of planes? Far too many questions for a few to answer (I guess that's why AFs spend millions and tons of people resources to answering this question, and they almost always come up with different answers.)

Aardvark,

I agree that in a war scenario your objective would be to destroy as many enemy aircraft as possible. The U.S. approach is to attain air superiority and then proceed to destroy the enemy aircraft while they are still on the ground. Probably easier said than done against a capable enemy (like the Russians).

Well, Aircraft do have to ground at one point or another, mainly to rearm(refueling isn't a problem anymore, unless the pilot falls asleep in the cockpit). I think the U.S. Will simply overwhelm an enemy with JSF's and F-22s, making Russian/Enemy planes fire missiles and miss(using a combination of Stealth and ECM) and then when the russian/enemy planes ground, use bunker busters to blow up the hanger that the plane is in. It is an effective tactic, because it means a large number of planes will be grounded shortly after the start of the war(much like in Iraq).

Mike

I agree with teh last 2 posts, but refueling is a very vunerable time for both the planes involved

Hi, I heard that USAF wanted to by 100 new KH-31(or something like that), but the deal was cancelled once US pressed on Russia for arms technology spread all over the world (Russians cancelled the deal). I wonder if that is true and if yes then why would USAF want 100 missiles if they got thier own. The amount shows that it was not done simply for studying them. It looks like those missiles got an edge. Can someone enlighten me on this issue? Thanks.

Well 100 missiles is not many, and I think a number that low would be for studying, as a force cannot be supplied by 100 missiles. Even old Sparrows are left over because missiles are bought in large quantities. Does the missile have an edge over what the US CAN produce? No. The US can have almost anything it wants because it spends the most money. But, there may be advantages which would be cheaper to steal than to develope, then the US could improve on the Russian design. Also, the weapons may be bought for studies on whta Russian equipment is really capable of, not the disinformation all countries report of their arms. The US buys as much equipment fromother countries can for this purpose. Recently the US bought 21 MiG-29 planes from a former block soviet country to stop IRAN from getting these planes which had nuclear capability. But a seconary benefit is the fact that the US now has MiG-29's for testing and studying. Maybe the RED forces at Red Flag will also start to fly Russian equipment(Haven't heard anythign about this but I doubt it)

It is true that the US Air Force did try to purchase 100 Kh-31A's. The official purpose was to use them as aerial targets to test our anti-missile systems. I'm kind of confused now because well I'm pretty sure Russia refused the deal, I am absolutely positive that I have seen a picture of a manned QF-4 launching one. I suppose the picture could have been doctored though. Sorry about that, I thought I could help, I guess not. I'll check for you.

There is a ramjet powered HARM being investigated by the Navy called the AARGM. It looks something lik FMRAAM. There is a picture in Volume 36 of World Airpower Journal.