USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Countries: Forget it, Burkina Faso, Michigan is still the worst.
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
If you would like to bet on a fight between the Russians and the US I am in for whatever amount you say. Hell I will give you odds. Hell even our outdated stuff is a decade better than Russia. I will take Top Gun era weaponry over whatever the hell Putin saber rattles with.
He pulled this same crap with Obama and a bunch of people I knew got all worried. Then it started to leak out the stuff they were willing to commit and they all realized it is a friggin bluff. He is all about intimidation and hoping to scare people into submission. He is also smart enough to not be Hitler.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
I'm not worried. I'm just saying I think our stuff is more vulnerable to complete failure, because it's too complicated and it's so over-engineered. Soldiers love simple guns that don't jam; arms dealers love complex guns with a zillion expensive parts that constantly need servicing. Because all our wars for fifty years have been against a fat kid wading in the shallow end of the pool, the arms dealers have won every approval and appropriations fight with the connivance of their implicated politicians.
The Russians are a fraud, no doubt at all. But a semi-competent force is very likely our equal, given long enough supply lines. And the problem with that is our leaders are so crass and corrupt the instant things take a turn they will cover their ample buttocks by escalating.
I'm not afraid an enemy will harm us, I'm afraid our own ineptitude will precipitate an extinction event because our last 50 years of political leaders are from a moral and intellectual vacuum.
The Russians are a fraud, no doubt at all. But a semi-competent force is very likely our equal, given long enough supply lines. And the problem with that is our leaders are so crass and corrupt the instant things take a turn they will cover their ample buttocks by escalating.
I'm not afraid an enemy will harm us, I'm afraid our own ineptitude will precipitate an extinction event because our last 50 years of political leaders are from a moral and intellectual vacuum.
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
Go home Russia, you're drunk.
I got curious about Russia and looked it up. It’s a town called Oymyakon (pop 500) that’s in between two valleys, which causes the unusual climate. It only has liquid water because the pressure is enough to keep it flowing without freezing.
And a few weeks ago they had temps of -140F.
Proud2baLaker
Master of Science
Also its over in Siberia so hard to compare to the rest of Europe.
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
That too. I figured it was Siberia, but that it would be a random weather outpost, not an actual town.
One additional thing to note on Russia. Their air force fighter pilots get 1/4 - 1/2 the yearly flight time US Air Force pilots get. Sure, they love their big demonstrations at air shows or over Syria, but the fact is their air show pilots are just that - Ivan 6-Pack can't fly like that. And the SU-57s they flew over Syria and Ukraine a couple of years ago as a big show of force didn't even have weapons systems installed (they weren't ready), nor do they have the engines they were designed to work with (they stil aren't ready).
China gets more air time than Russia, but not a whole lot (and still, much less than US fighter pilots).
China gets more air time than Russia, but not a whole lot (and still, much less than US fighter pilots).
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
So basically, Russia's F-35.
aparch
Well-known member
Their pilots sound an awful lot like the ground troops patrolling their potemkin villages in Crimea.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Except the US still has the F-22 that gets flown basically every day (and I can vouch because I see them every day).
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
I assume if there is ever a great power air war again the side with the oldest operational post-WW2 aircraft will win, since the other side will have their entire air fleet grounded after a couple sorties by being finicky, broken, or out of some tiny but necessary part.
It'll be like Battleship, with us pulling exhibits from Udvar-Hazy because nothing else can get off the ground.
It'll be like Battleship, with us pulling exhibits from Udvar-Hazy because nothing else can get off the ground.
Last edited:
Well, they're years behind even that. The F35A seems to be doing fine, it's mainly the C variant that's at issue. And the weapons systems and telemetry aren't at issue in the 35.
Well, there's a reason both the US and Russia are still maintaining and updating 4th gen fighter fleets. For one, you don't always need stealth or the capabilities of 5th gen fighters. The USAF is still updating the F15 and looking into possibly updating the F16 as well. The Navy plans to use the F/A18 alongside the 35 for at least many more years. They're substantially cheaper to produce and require a fraction of the maintenance.
Russia keeps updating their 4th gen fleet as well. The Mikoyan company is more or less mothballed so they may not get much more out of the 29 and 35 fleet (and the 31 was rendered too expensive 25+ years ago), but Sukhoi is still pumping out the SU27 family (the numbering/naming convention gets murky as they're constantly updating things... what's the real difference between an SU30 and 35?)
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Is the Su-57 behind the F35 in capabilities, or just in the production cycle?
Also, are we reaching a ceiling where the marginal return on pushing avionics is so low it's better to just pump out a few more of the existing generation? Is the 5th generation the last generation that's really worth it (except as a jobs program obviously)?
Also, are hypersonic air-to-air missiles just going to turn all of these into incredibly expensive fireworks the instant anyone uses them? Seems like we might have that WW1 situation where all the cutting edge capital ships never leave port because one $15 sub can kill them.
Last edited:
I think the 57 is behind the 35 in capabilities, and most definitely on production. The 57 engines aren't finished and there's no timeline for them (Russia says one thing, analysts say they're lying... the usual). Russia has invested heavily into BVR AA tech, but as far as I'm aware they're still catching up to where the US was in the 1990s. I know Russia is claiming that the 57 and the future SU75 are totally networked and have better radar than the 35, but most analysts seem skeptical of that too.
I don't honestly know much about the hypersonic missile tech. It isn't new by any stretch. Russia is crowing about it like it's some wild new thing that they're way more advanced than the US. They may actually be ahead of us, but on one hand I'd be surprised, and on the other hand... so what? They don't really change the game much beyond being a possible vague threat to carriers (which, to be fair, since the US seems hell bent on building bigger and bigger... targets). But again, I'm not super knowledgeable about the subject.
In actual news, the USS Abraham Lincoln is deploying with USMC F35Cs, so I guess that confirms they're operational.
https://news.usni.org/2022/01/03/ab...231167233&mc_cid=44dfe76b59&mc_eid=2b9555b06e
The "C" variant is the carrier model. No VTOL. "B" is VTOL, and I think is operational? So this makes all three versions fully combat-ready. That's good!
https://news.usni.org/2022/01/03/ab...231167233&mc_cid=44dfe76b59&mc_eid=2b9555b06e
The "C" variant is the carrier model. No VTOL. "B" is VTOL, and I think is operational? So this makes all three versions fully combat-ready. That's good!
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Are the VTOLs for the Marines? I get the impression they are for extraction, not insertion (you can't parachute out).
I think the Marines will be the primary users for the B version, but the functionality adds so much weight and... stuff that VTOL ends up limiting performance in a big, big way. Also, the B version is technically capable of vertical takeoff, but only with limited fuel and virtually no payload - it's more of a landing thing. Honestly I think you either design a fighter specifically with vertical takeoff as a requirement and key design feature, or you don't bother. There's a reason the Harrier is about the only long-standing VTOL fighter.
The requirements on the F35 were always fantastical pipe dreams, but on the bright side the A and C variants promise to be insanely good fighters in their own rights.