Does our air power have no rival?

He may have been mistaken rather than lying as the DH 108 made the first supersonic flight by a Jet powered aircraft & one that took off under its own power as opposed to an air launched rocket powered aircraft.

oh well then i hope its a smaller bomb then

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Actually, the U.S. was never neck-and-neck with them. Our superior technology made it seem so, but in reality, their training was a whole lot better, their aircraft in many respects superior, and their numbers simply greater. In a war, we would've lost. Big-time

I'll only elaborate if you want me to. Otherwise, I want to keep this a discussion on our possible rivals only.

Comparing the US to the Soviets is easy in hind-sight, but I have to disagree with you. It may not have been neck-in-neck, but it was close enough to hurt (and mind you, we wouldn't have been the only losers if there had been a war. Nuclear or otherwise). Besides, as it turned out, the Soviets could ill afford to support such military might. Thus the collapse of the USSR. They lost the war, and history records that fact.

As for whether they still pose a threat, of course, even with their extremely old technology they can pack quite a punch. Though they are at the disadvantage even more so than they were in the Cold War to benefit from it. Thus it'll never happen unless Putin is crazy. Though with resumed flights, he's certainly up to something. Still, Russia would be unable to use anything other than their mothballed fleet/planes as upgrading or putting forth new craft would be impossible with their economy.

That being said, if Iraq has proven anything, it's proven that military might isn't enough. Well, actually Vietnam taught us that lesson, but we didn't learn it the first time. -_- Then there is Somalia, which should of given us a stern warning about Iraq. Ah well.

Originally posted by bbfreak
As for whether they still pose a threat, of course, even with their extremely old technology they can pack quite a punch. Though they are at the disadvantage even more so than they were in the Cold War to benefit from it. Thus it'll never happen unless Putin is crazy. Though with resumed flights, he's certainly up to something. Still, Russia would be unable to use anything other than their mothballed fleet/planes as upgrading or putting forth new craft would be impossible with their economy.

There is nothing wrong with the Russian economy of 2007. Putin has managed to eliminate Russia's debt completely. How has Putin done this?

Oil & Gas.

Russia has massive reserves of fossil fuels and only lately has been using those reserves not only as an economy booster but also as political leverage on former soviet/satellite states as well as parts of western Europe.

Regarding Russia's technology and it's "mothballed fleet/planes" you couldn't be farther from reality.

The Russian air force is acquiring some of the most sophisticated 4.5 gen within visual range fighters, with 3D vectored thrust and 5th gen stealth fighters are just a few short years away.

Until the Russian 5th gen gets here, their 4.5 gen fighters may not be ready to engage Raptors in beyond visual range, but with Russian A2A missile technology (which is top notch) they can certainly mix it up within visual range with the formidable Raptor.

Quite right, the Russians are now receiving new production Su-34's into service as replacements for the Su-24 Fencer and at the MAKS show recently they showed the Su-35 publically for the first time and this is to replace the fleet of Su-27's now in service from 2009 . This is *not* the Su-35 that we have previously seen but a new version in which they have re-used the designation, for a reason that I cannot fathom.

The pick up of the Russian economy is allowing the aerospace industry to move forward in several areas. New equipment production for the air force is one, civil projects like the Sukhoi Superjet (naff name) are another, and progress towards a flying Pak Fa is a third.

Originally posted by waynos
This is *not* the Su-35 that we have previously seen but a new version in which they have re-used the designation, for a reason that I cannot fathom.


The pick up of the Russian economy is allowing the aerospace industry to move forward in several areas. New equipment production for the air force is one, civil projects like the Sukhoi Superjet (naff name) are another, and progress towards a flying Pak Fa is a third.

-> no doubt they are using so many designations to confuse the CIA/MI6 etc.


-> Yeap, for example I read yest that the Russians have state funded half of a new chip FAB plant on 45nm (current Russian ones typically run at prehistoric etch sizes of 250mm or so). While by the time its out industry standard will be 32nm (maybe 25) its a massive leap for them [they are skipping out 6 generations in doing this!].

Expect that to (eventually) have a significant impact on the standard of electronics going into Russian military technology - particularly in heat sensitive areas.


[edit on 3/10/07 by kilcoo316]

Three cheers for Russia!!!

Hip Hip Hoorrayy!! X 3
A round of vodka shots on the house!

Now where's that 5th gen fighter-thingie..

Originally posted by waynos
...and this is to replace the fleet of Su-27's now in service from 2009

Where did you get this information from? Russia has not ordered Su-35's (any version) for mass production. It will likely be offered up for export by Sukhoi however the RuAF will likely not order it. Yes their economy and military industrial base has improved again but I doubt they can afford to replace the Flanker fleet with both the Su-35 and the PAK-FA; Simultaneously producing one and developing the other. Besides the demand on the industrial and economical sectors it makes little sense practically.

reply to post by WestPoint23


I got it from a MAKS report but then twisted my own misunderstanding into it.

You are right, the Russ AF has not ordered any, it is the replacement for the Su-27/30 etc in the global market, not the domestic air force. Sorry.

Originally posted by innkue
The US has bigger numbers, thats all. RAF is highest trained AF, at least we can identify enemy targets from friendly targets.

That is pretty low of you. And the RAF does NOT have the highest trained AF. That goes to the US. What I find interesting and intriguing is the uneducated brits who think they have the best trained everything. What a delusional world you lot truly live in..

Originally posted by West Coast
That is pretty low of you. And the RAF does NOT have the highest trained AF. That goes to the US.

Ooooohhhhhhh - you may have opened a can of worms there.


I'm sure our resident Brits and Israelis will take you to task on that one!

I think most of the well established AF's can now boast of 150-200 hours of flight time per pilot annually.
The key is the quality of training imparted.That depends on experience AND up-to-date exposure.

Westcoast; I'm not in the military and so my opinions on training aren't worth the screen they are written on, however your comment did remind me of a documentary I watched on the Gulf war where one part of it was focussed on the differences between UK and US forces, the general consensus was that while the US forces were much more numerous and better equipped, the UK forces were more efficient, flexible and professional, in broad terms. To highlight this point a clip was shown of UK forces disembarking from a C-17 in Saudi Arabia where every man knew his job and got straight on with it with no fuss and a clear sense of urgency, a very efficient and impressive arrival and then cut to a USAF C-17 arriving in which the soldiers on board thought they were on a training exercise in Arizona!

Isolated incidents for sure, but it was funny as hell.

I think the whole air combat arena is going to have a huge change in the next 8-15 years as UCAV's actually start coming out in big numbers. It will be the biggest change in air warfare since the Jet age. Imagine all those trained gamers being able do air raids from halfway around the world. It will change the whole dynamic of air to air fighting.

Are you going to build one new manned figher or 20 UCAV/'s for the same money?

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I'm sure our resident Brits and Israelis will take you to task on that one!

Statistics and facts don't lie, the US does have the largest, well trained, well equipped, most combat experienced Air Force, Naval and Marine Aviation in the world. Anyone who cares to dispute it can proceed to make their case...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Statistics and facts don't lie, the US does have the largest, well trained, well equipped, most combat experienced Air Force, Naval and Marine Aviation in the world.

I'm not going to try and make the point, because at this point I don't particularly care to argue it at this point. All I was wondering, is do you have any stats and facts that aren't US-performed?

Originally posted by Darkpr0
...do you have any stats and facts that aren't US-performed?

What do you mean "that aren't US-Performed"? As in facts about other forces not related to the US?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What do you mean "that aren't US-Performed"? As in facts about other forces not related to the US?

Well, as in facts and statistics that did not come from a US-performed survey of the operations around the world. I personally would say it a bit biased to see a United States survey that says that the US has the best Air Force in the world in every domain. Therefore, I'd like to see someone else saying that they are, indeed, the best. I don't particularly feel like arguing whether they are or not, because that argument never goes anywhere.

Opinion pieces whether written in the US or elsewhere are not a necessity for judging effectiveness. And statistics whether reported by a US based agency or someone else do not lie. In any case I also don't care to argue about whether the USAF is the "best" AF or not. Simply that it is, and has been for quite some time now, one of the best trained and the most experienced. Look at all the factors which determine this and the case is clear…

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Opinion pieces whether written in the US or elsewhere are not a necessity for judging effectiveness. And statistics whether reported by a US based agency or someone else do not lie. In any case I also don't care to argue about whether the USAF is the "best" AF or not. Simply that it is, and has been for quite some time now, one of the best trained and the most experienced. Look at all the factors which determine this and the case is clear…

There is an old adage, which runs something like this ........

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"

Trusting statistics from any source is a sure route to trip up and regardless of where they come from and their supposed independence, I am loathe to believe anything of the sort.

WP, your statement that "the USAF ..... is, and has been for quite some time now, one of the best trained" is perfectly fine and indisputable. Anyone can argue who top dog might be, but it is a purely subjective argument and will lead nowhere.

KW