Could the Soviet Union have stood a chance against the US in a conventional war?

[Tierbook]

Aren't the F22 and F35 way ahead of anything the Chinese or Russians have?

Yup, F-35 is pretty damn techy, sure the Harrier could hover but it took concentration, the F-35B can do so with just a button.

[Ulmita]

F-35 is cheaper than the F-22. Serves more purposes as well.

Nahh dude we are talking about different planes then.

[Tierbook]

Yeah. I mean, the F-22 just does air superiority, ground attack, elint, and pilot anesthesia. The F-35 is an engine ejector, runway and deck defroster, employer in 44 different congressional districts, software testbed, decoy, drop-tank carrier, dogfighting target, firestarter, carnival ride, personal heater, surprise package, and high-stakes casino, all rolled into a single trillion-dollar program. (Oh, I hear it actually flies, sometimes, too.)

It flies or it hovers really depends on what it needs to do.

- - - Updated - - -

Nahh dude we are talking about different planes then.

F-35 has a unit price of 100mil, F-22 is 150 mil

[mmokri]

USA is 'Us Slaying Arabs'.
Theirs power is coming directly from theirs masters - Brits.
Theirs destination is demeaning weak nations like arabs right now. Like Brits were demeaning China and India.

[Tierbook]

USA is 'Us Slaying Arabs'.

We were beat to the punch by Russia.... granted you were invited into Afghanistan by the government to do so.....

[Nihilist74]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it already, but Tom Clancy wrote a really great book about World War 3 Russian vs America. Red Storm Rising. One of my favorite books. Would make an awesome long mini series movie.

[Kellhound]

Nah dude f-35 its that overpriced useless aircraft that its going to be less good than f-22. Its still in production and its cost keeps increasing lol

Funny thing, the F-22 is more advanced than the Su-35 even though it is older....

[Yvaelle]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it already, but Tom Clancy wrote a really great book about World War 3 Russian vs America. Red Storm Rising. One of my favorite books. Would make an awesome long mini series movie.

I might actually check that one out - I haven't read tom clancy since I was a kid (dad always had them lying around).

[Ulmita]

SU-35 is a 4+ gen and its the most advanced, and almost as good as the f-22.

They are designing their 5th gen as we speak (PAK-FA)

Still critics and military specialists say in a dog fight su-35 might come ahead =)
In any case, its not a crap aircraft (much better than the typhoon / eurocrap etc)


http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/17/su-35-le-bourget/
http://www.engineering.com/3DPrintin...-Air-Show.aspx
http://rbth.com/science_and_tech/201...ect_30639.html

[Packing an i5]

US would win. We have a superior air force and navy and more drones.

[mmokri]

SU-35 is a 4+ gen and its the most advanced, and almost as good as the f-22.

I think they all crap, they did not see real combat.

[Ulmita]

I think they all crap, they did not see real combat.

Why have any of the Americans seen any?

[Kellhound]

SU-35 is a 4+ gen and its the most advanced, and almost as good as the f-22.

They are designing their 5th gen as we speak (PAK-FA)

Still critics and military specialists say in a dog fight su-35 might come ahead =)
In any case, its not a crap aircraft (much better than the typhoon / eurocrap etc)


http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/17/su-35-le-bourget/
http://www.engineering.com/3DPrintin...-Air-Show.aspx
http://rbth.com/science_and_tech/201...ect_30639.html

The F-22 IS a 5th gen aircraft.
A dogfight means the pilot screwed up and the AEW screwed up.

The Su-35 is superior to Western aircraft in one way, price. That has been the one thing that gets it invited to fighter procurement competition.

[madokbro]

They were both major powers of the time, and conventional warfare between such forces had already stopped yielding decisive results with military tactics and understanding in general finally catching up to the level of technology available. Invading the Soviet-fucking-Union would likely hold no beneficial results, if US were to do it alone.

Even now, the amount of hard time pretty much any country with a slightly above-average military can give to a superpower makes major offensive operations against such foes near impossible to justify. You are guaranteed to lose way more than you can ever gain.

[Mihalik]

F-35 has a unit price of 100mil, F-22 is 150 mil

The F35 unit cost depends on versions.

The F35A is projected at $125 Million
The F35B is projected at $157 Million
The F35C is projected at $143 Million.

Key word PROJECTED. Original estimates put the cost at somewhere around 100 million per unit. That about 10 cost overruns and 5 or 6 years ago. The projections increased by 50% since.

And the damn thing still won't fly.

Even if it does decide to fly sometime at a rather obscure future date, the platform is still a complete piece of crap. It's under gunned, too slow, lacks range, too unreliable, too expensive and the stealth systems and avionics are plagued by problems. Another problem that is rarely discussed and consistently omitted is that the airframe is very fragile and maintenance is extremely difficult, sometimes requiring the entire plane to be sent back to the factory to be almost completely rebuilt.

Certain DoD and Pentagon analysts estimate that the real unit cost will be in the range of 200 million dollars. Not to mention that none of the branches that are getting it, like it.

The Marines don't like it because it can't do what the airplane it is replacing does. The Harrier does (very well) close air support. The F35 is unsuitable and over complicated for that role. It's stealth component is useless in that environment, it can't carry a big enough payload and enough fuel to stay with the troops.

The Navy doesn't like it because it lacks range and payload. Which endangers the Carriers.

The Air Force has the least problems with it, at least officially, but according to most estimates the F35 is an inferior Air Superiority Fighter and is not a very good Fighter-Bomber. The Air Force variant is the cheapest and simplest variant because it lacks the vertical take off and landing component. Which means it's simply a shittier F22.

Vanity Fair had an excellent article on this entire Trillion dollar fiasco, and how it was created through the deregulation of the DoD procurement programs. It's worth a read. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2...ockheed-martin

[Kellhound]

The F35 unit cost depends on versions.

The F35A is projected at $125 Million
The F35B is projected at $157 Million
The F35C is projected at $143 Million.

Key word PROJECTED. Original estimates put the cost at somewhere around 100 million per unit. That about 10 cost overruns and 5 or 6 years ago. The projections increased by 50% since.

And the damn thing still won't fly.

Even if it does decide to fly sometimes at a rather obscure future date, the platform is still a complete piece of crap. It's under gunned, too slow, lacks range, too unreliable, too expensive and the stealth systems and avionics are plagued by problems. Another problem that is rarely discussed and consistently omitted is that the airframe is very fragile and maintenance is extremely difficult, sometimes requiring the entire plane to be sent back to the factory to be almost completely rebuilt.

Certain DoD and Pentagon analysts estimate that the real unit cost will be in the range of 200 million dollars. Not to mention that none of the branches that are getting it, like it.

The Marines don't like it because it can't do what the airplane it is replacing does. The Harrier does (very well) close air support. The F35 is unsuitable and over complicated for that role. It's stealth component is useless in that environment, it can't carry a big enough payload and enough fuel to stay with the troops.

The Navy doesn't like it because it lacks range and payload. Which endangers the Carriers.

The Air Force has the least problems with it, at least officially, but according to most estimates the F35 is an inferior Air Superiority Fighter and is not a very good Fighter-Bomber. The Air Force variant is the cheapest and simplest variant because it lacks the vertical take off and landing component. Which means it's simply a shittier F22.

Vanity Fair had an excellent article on this entire Trillion dollar fiasco, and how it was created through the deregulation of the DoD procurement programs. It's worth a read. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2...ockheed-martin

It really would have been better to buy more F-22s and F/A-18E/F/Gs and put money into UCAS. It was stupid to try to use one airframe for all the services.

[Tierbook]

It really would have been better to buy more F-22s and F/A-18E/F/Gs and put money into UCAS. It was stupid to try to use one airframe for all the services.

Ya but is suppose to last for quite awhile, 50 years based off their estimates which seem a bit high. Honestly at this point it's wait and see and hope it's pretty good.

[Kellhound]

Ya but is suppose to last for quite awhile, 50 years based off their estimates which seem a bit high. Honestly at this point it's wait and see and hope it's pretty good.

It will be obsolete by 2025 and withdrawn by 2035 like all other manned aircraft I'm betting.

[Mihalik]

On topic.

What period Soviet Union?

During the 1950's to early 1970's the Soviet Union was either technologically ahead of the U.S or at minimum matching the U.S. NATO air superiority wasn't a thing yet as MiGs of the era outmatched many NATO jets. It was with the coming of the F14's, F15's and Panavia Tornado's that NATO air superiority has become so pronounced. While the soviets kept building great MiGs their Avionics, Radars and Missiles started falling behind. They also couldn't build as many Jets, Helicopters and Bombers as NATO.

There was also a divergent ideology between NATO and the Soviets when it came to force projection. NATO obsessed over Air Superiority. While the Soviets appreciated the value of Air Power, they didn't think that would win wars, this based on previous experiences from WW2, Korea and Vietnam. So they built Tanks. Lot's and lot's of Tanks.

The idea was simple. Build as many tanks as humanly possible. Put the infantry into APC's so they can keep up with the Tanks, then flood the enemy, over run them. Capture as much ground as fast as possible.

NATO and Soviet strategies also differed in implementation. The Soviets lived by the maxim "The best defense is a good offense." They knew they couldn't invade the U.S, so they never bothered with it. They only had to win in Europe. Kick NATO out of Europe and they are set.

NATO on the other hand relied on the defensive tactic of trading ground for time. Let the Russians penetrate, then once they are playing on NATO ground, use defense and air power to destroy the Soviet armor. NATO also ruled the seas.

It was also during this period that the U.S developed planes like the A10 Thunderbolt "Warthog", which is a flying Frankenstein designed to kill tanks. Also attack helicopters like the Apache which was first and foremost designed as tank killer. The Harriers were also excellent at ground attack.

So if a Nuclear exchange is out question. Pre 1970's there was a very good chance the Soviets would have won, through brute force. Post 1970's technologically and economically they were too far behind NATO to actually beat NATO. After an initial quick advance they would have been very quickly shred by Allied air power.

[Kellhound]

On topic.

What period Soviet Union?

During the 1950's to early 1970's the Soviet Union was either technologically ahead of the U.S or at minimum matching the U.S. NATO air superiority wasn't a thing yet as MiGs of the era outmatched many NATO jets. It was with the coming of the F14's, F15's and Panavia Tornado's that NATO air superiority has become so pronounced. While the soviets kept building great MiGs their Avionics, Radars and Missiles started falling behind. They also couldn't build as many Jets, Helicopters and Bombers as NATO.

There was also a divergent ideology between NATO and the Soviets when it came to force projection. NATO obsessed over Air Superiority. While the Soviets appreciated the value of Air Power, they didn't think that would win wars, this based on previous experiences from WW2, Korea and Vietnam. So they built Tanks. Lot's and lot's of Tanks.

The idea was simple. Build as many tanks as humanly possible. Put the infantry into APC's so they can keep up with the Tanks, then flood the enemy, over run them. Capture as much ground as fast as possible.

NATO and Soviet strategies also differed in implementation. The Soviets lived by the maxim "The best defense is a good offense." They knew they couldn't invade the U.S, so they never bothered with it. They only had to win in Europe. Kick NATO out of Europe and they are set.

NATO on the other hand relied on the defensive tactic of trading ground for time. Let the Russians penetrate, then once they are playing on NATO ground, use defense and air power to destroy the Soviet armor. NATO also ruled the seas.

It was also during this period that the U.S developed planes like the A10 Thunderbolt "Warthog", which is a flying Frankenstein designed to kill tanks. Also attack helicopters like the Apache which was first and foremost designed as tank killer. The Harriers were also excellent at ground attack.

So if a Nuclear exchange is out question. Pre 1970's there was a very good chance the Soviets would have won, through brute force. Post 1970's technologically and economically they were too far behind NATO to actually beat NATO. After an initial quick advance they would have been very quickly shred by Allied air power.

The last really good MiG was the 17, the 19 was good as well. The 21 was not actually that great of an aircraft.

Tanks? No doubt US tanks were outclassed until the M1.