Russian jets violate Turkish airspace, Turkey warns of consequences

[caervek]

The stinger radar is still small and under powered

Depends what it's being compared to really, it's better than the frontal radar on most aircraft.

Your timing is also very optimistic, it assumes the SAM is launched as soon as the F-16 fires, which would be very very unlikely.

Normally yes but this isn't a normal situation, the S-400 batteries in Syria are there specifically to deter another attack by the Turks, their operators will be watching all enemy aircraft in the area looking for any attack so they can respond immediately.

You are also assuming the F-16 is just ~60km slant range from the S-400 launch point.

Actually I was assuming the F-16 was ~125km from the S-400, putting it ~80km from the Turkey/Syria border (80km being half the range of the top AMRAAM which was specified in the hypothetical sneak attack).

[Deleted]

Actually I was assuming the F-16 was ~125km from the S-400, putting it ~80km from the Turkey/Syria border (80km being half the range of the top AMRAAM which was specified in the hypothetical sneak attack).

Tell me what speed your misile have? 125km is a long distance.....and the F-16 only need to go 5-10km down to be under the radar horizon.

[caervek]

The west is generally a lot better about not engaging in "for show" modernization than Russia (and China) is, largely due to our democratic systems demanding more accountability and our military forces being professional.

I would actually argue the opposite, our capitalist system causes us to spend much more developing multiple planes by multiple low bidding companies when variants of one plane could cover most of our needs (a prime example being the UK buying F-35's for our carriers instead of our own naval Typhoons which would share compatability with our main jet).

To give a good example of this, instead of wasting $70 billion on the F-22 program the US could simply have updated the F-15, simply replace the engines with 3D vectoring ones, upgrade the computers/equipment and voila the result is an improved F-15 which would rival the performance of the F-22 (and exceed it in some areas). This would have saved hundreds of billions* and the US would still have the best plane in the world, hell it's 2016 and the F-22 still doesn't have a reason to exist, they are using them against ISIS (who have no air force or real AA capability) just so they can say they actually served a purpose.

*Without the F-22 the would be no need for the PAK-FA to counter it which means no need for the F-X to counter that.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell me what speed your misile have?

You actually asked that on the last page, but to repeat it's 4000 meters/sec, it will take the missile ~32 seconds to get to where the F-16 fired from at which point the F-16 will have travelled 13km away, the missile hits the F-16 ~3.6 seconds later unless it can evade/confuse it.

[Deleted]

You actually asked that on the last page, but to repeat it's 4000 meters/sec,

4000m/s!!! 4000/330 = that is mach 12.1 !!!! and you ignore that the misile have to acelerate, do you not see how unrealistic the number are....are you sure you do not confuse the number from a ABM version (who can get that speed thanks to a very high latitude there the air resistance is negligibly)

If you travel at mach 12.1 at low atidude you melt...

[muwatallis]

Therefore we should be friends with Moscow rather than the Turkey
(and they killed lots of Aussies in 1915).

Now this made my day. Has somebody asked you before, that "what the fuck were Aussies doing in Anatolia in the first place"? Australia is the other side of the globe in the southern hemisphere. If Turks were in the same position how would you react? You'd kill Turks, who came from the other side of the globe just to invade your country.

This is really a stupid example of patriotism.

[ringpriest]

The west is generally a lot better about not engaging in "for show" modernization than Russia (and China) is, largely due to our democratic systems demanding more accountability and our military forces being professional. Folks should be oo'd and ah'd by Putin's modernization and "unproven stuff" to a very limited degree. It's for domestic consumption.

...

Robert Gates put it best years ago when talking about China's military modernization and the hype surrounding it: by 2020, the US would have well over 500 Stealth attack and air superiority aircraft and China would have maybe twenty.

Let's not fall for hype from autocratic regimes that produce show pieces while the West produces meaningful military advancements.

I agree about the over-hype on the Su-35 and S-400 (the latter, in particular is, like the Patriot, a nice system for its role that gets hyped as the best thing this side of Voltron), but don't pat our military complex on the back so hard it chokes; because speaking of modernization for the sake of modernization and hype...
"Unready for War: America’s F-35 Gets a Bad Report Card" - incapable aircraft, more expense and delays, "cyberwarfare" vulnerabilities, and reduced capabilities. "This is what regret looks like for the Pentagon"

"New U.S Navy Ship Struggles in Test to Fend Off Attacking Boats"
"Breakdowns leave 2 of Navy's newest ships stuck in port"

The Milwaukee became disabled in the Atlantic when metallic debris was found in filter systems in the ship, causing a loss of pressure in lubricant to gears that transfer power from the ship's diesel and gas turbine engines to its water jet propulsion system.

The cause of the issue has yet to be identified, and an investigation continues, said Lt. Rebecca Haggard, a Navy spokeswoman.

Just a month after the Milwaukee mishap, its sister ship, the USS Fort Worth (LCS 3), is tied up at a dock in Singapore with what the U.S. Pacific Fleet calls "a casualty to the ship's combining gears."

All three of the Freedom-class LCS have suffered major systems casualties after very limited times at sea - these ships (and their also-problematic Independence-class LCS sisters) were the ones the entire Naval establishment, civilian and military alike, were dead-set on making a keystone of the 21st Century fleet, until Sec.Def Carter smacked some sense into them back in December (though we're still going to have too damned many of these harbor queens in the fleet).

Yes, we have traditionally been better at, "not engaging in 'for show' modernization" - but as we've become less democratic (and more corrupt), we've been going down very much the same path; both the F-35 and the LCS are being built for reasons that have far more to do with PR and greed, than with strategic needs and combat capabilities. And while there are factions in our government and military that oppose this direction, I fear they'll lose and that these trends will continue with future systems (where there's precious few bright spots, but a great deal of obvious rot).

[Kellhound]

Depends what it's being compared to really, it's better than the frontal radar on most aircraft.




Normally yes but this isn't a normal situation, the S-400 batteries in Syria are there specifically to deter another attack by the Turks, their operators will be watching all enemy aircraft in the area looking for any attack so they can respond immediately.




Actually I was assuming the F-16 was ~125km from the S-400, putting it ~80km from the Turkey/Syria border (80km being half the range of the top AMRAAM which was specified in the hypothetical sneak attack).

Its inferior to the radar on the F-16C for example.

They still cannot fire until they confirm the Turks have fired, that takes a few seconds. Shooting down a Turkish jet miles inside Turkey that did notinfact fire at a Russian aircraft would be, shall we say, a slight issue.

Most sources I have seen put it at 2000m/s top speed (~MACH 7), with a top target speed of 4000+m/s.

- - - Updated - - -

I would actually argue the opposite, our capitalist system causes us to spend much more developing multiple planes by multiple low bidding companies when variants of one plane could cover most of our needs (a prime example being the UK buying F-35's for our carriers instead of our own naval Typhoons which would share compatability with our main jet).

To give a good example of this, instead of wasting $70 billion on the F-22 program the US could simply have updated the F-15, simply replace the engines with 3D vectoring ones, upgrade the computers/equipment and voila the result is an improved F-15 which would rival the performance of the F-22 (and exceed it in some areas). This would have saved hundreds of billions* and the US would still have the best plane in the world, hell it's 2016 and the F-22 still doesn't have a reason to exist, they are using them against ISIS (who have no air force or real AA capability) just so they can say they actually served a purpose.

*Without the F-22 the would be no need for the PAK-FA to counter it which means no need for the F-X to counter that.

- - - Updated - - -



You actually asked that on the last page, but to repeat it's 4000 meters/sec, it will take the missile ~32 seconds to get to where the F-16 fired from at which point the F-16 will have travelled 13km away, the missile hits the F-16 ~3.6 seconds later unless it can evade/confuse it.

Thrust vectoring only comes into play when you need to but your nose onto the enemy at close range, that is rapidly ceasing to be an issue (look at the off bore site capability of the AIM-9X for example). The concept behind the F-22 is to kill the opponent well into BVR, where maneuverability becomes of marginal help. The Silent Eagle is a better buy than the F-35 though, as is the Block 52+ F-16 as a general purpose aircraft, but the F-35 has other reasons to exist (mainly to provide the USMC a Harrier replacement and provide the USN a stealth first strike capability).

The F-22 exists to provide air supremacy, which it does. Even the Silent Eagle cannot equal it for BVR. Why just be a little better when you can be an entire generation better? Even improved F-15s would entice others to build a better aircraft, and it would be easier to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree about the over-hype on the Su-35 and S-400 (the latter, in particular is, like the Patriot, a nice system for its role that gets hyped as the best thing this side of Voltron), but don't pat our military complex on the back so hard it chokes; because speaking of modernization for the sake of modernization and hype...
"Unready for War: America’s F-35 Gets a Bad Report Card" - incapable aircraft, more expense and delays, "cyberwarfare" vulnerabilities, and reduced capabilities. "This is what regret looks like for the Pentagon"

"New U.S Navy Ship Struggles in Test to Fend Off Attacking Boats"
"Breakdowns leave 2 of Navy's newest ships stuck in port"

All three of the Freedom-class LCS have suffered major systems casualties after very limited times at sea - these ships (and their also-problematic Independence-class LCS sisters) were the ones the entire Naval establishment, civilian and military alike, were dead-set on making a keystone of the 21st Century fleet, until Sec.Def Carter smacked some sense into them back in December (though we're still going to have too damned many of these harbor queens in the fleet).

Yes, we have traditionally been better at, "not engaging in 'for show' modernization" - but as we've become less democratic (and more corrupt), we've been going down very much the same path; both the F-35 and the LCS are being built for reasons that have far more to do with PR and greed, than with strategic needs and combat capabilities. And while there are factions in our government and military that oppose this direction, I fear they'll lose and that these trends will continue with future systems (where there's precious few bright spots, but a great deal of obvious rot).

The LCS is not a ship the Navy really wants, it is one they need and can afford, though we would have been better off building new FFG-7s or going with a MAKO or similar design. It was never intended to be a major combatant, but to free the big boys up to perform critical missions.

[ringpriest]

The LCS is not a ship the Navy really wants, it is one they need and can afford, though we would have been better off building new FFG-7s or going with a MAKO or similar design. It was never intended to be a major combatant, but to free the big boys up to perform critical missions.

The Navy wants the LCS so hard it's taken being publicly slapped upside the head by the Secretary of Defense to make them loosen their grip on it just a little.

The LCS cost over half a billion each, and maintenance costs are actually higher than they'd be on a larger frigate (in no small part because the LCS cannot handle much maintaince organically, but also because the LCS is a POS). The French have been building an equivalent vessel (technically, superior - since theirs actually works), the GoWind 2500, for less than half the cost of an LCS - they also have a full-on multipurpose frigate for the same cost range. (Russia also has a slightly less capable design that's even cheaper.) For what we're spending on the LCSs, we could also have done major upgrades to the Perry's, and had a proven platform to work from (instead of the failing LCS hulls).

The LCS doesn't free up jack - it's got no endurance and can't fight its way out of a paper bag (much less the Persian Gulf - even the brain-dead Saudi playboys have figured out it sucks); instead of "freeing up the big boys" it needs babysitting; of course that's only if any admiral is dumb enough to deploy it - right now it can barely sail, let alone accomplish anything else (and likely never will be any good at any of the jobs it was purported to do). It does succeed admirably at a few things though: funneling more tax money into contractor pockets, while guaranteeing retirements for current admirals, command slots for future line officers, and spreadsheets that have big numbers under 'combatants'.

[Kellhound]

The Navy wants the LCS so hard it's taken being publicly slapped upside the head by the Secretary of Defense to make them loosen their grip on it just a little.

The LCS cost over half a billion each, and maintenance costs are actually higher than they'd be on a larger frigate (in no small part because the LCS cannot handle much maintaince organically, but also because the LCS is a POS). The French have been building an equivalent vessel (technically, superior - since theirs actually works), the GoWind 2500, for less than half the cost of an LCS - they also have a full-on multipurpose frigate for the same cost range. (Russia also has a slightly less capable design that's even cheaper.) For what we're spending on the LCSs, we could also have done major upgrades to the Perry's, and had a proven platform to work from (instead of the failing LCS hulls).

The LCS doesn't free up jack - it's got no endurance and can't fight its way out of a paper bag (much less the Persian Gulf - even the brain-dead Saudi playboys have figured out it sucks); instead of "freeing up the big boys" it needs babysitting; of course that's only if any admiral is dumb enough to deploy it - right now it can barely sail, let alone accomplish anything else (and likely never will be any good at any of the jobs it was purported to do). It does succeed admirably at a few things though: funneling more tax money into contractor pockets, while guaranteeing retirements for current admirals, command slots for future line officers, and spreadsheets that have big numbers under 'combatants'.

Again, the Navy wants it because thats what they can get. Give them the budget and they would buy more destroyers. Foreign designed warships are not politically popular, so that is a non-starter. I actually dont care for the LCS. I would rather the Navy had bought National Security Cutter based Patrol Frigates.

Many missions the USN performs dont require a combat rated ship. Counter narcotics, anti-piracy, freedom of navigation, and show the flag operations dont really rate anything more than a patrol ship.

[ringpriest]

Again, the Navy wants it because thats what they can get. Give them the budget and they would buy more destroyers. Foreign designed warships are not politically popular, so that is a non-starter. I actually dont care for the LCS. I would rather the Navy had bought National Security Cutter based Patrol Frigates.

Many missions the USN performs dont require a combat rated ship. Counter narcotics, anti-piracy, freedom of navigation, and show the flag operations dont really rate anything more than a patrol ship.

They've literally been offered more money to do whatever they want (along with more aircraft and other goodies), in return for reducing the size of the LCS purchase and the Navy is still fighting with SecDef over it (and given than he'll be gone in under a year, they may win); and heavens forbid that actual national defense considerations trump "what's politically popular" (nice shorthand for 'billions in contractor pork' btw).

Part of the giant mess that is the LCS comes from the Navy's insistence that it be able to do more than "presence" missions - it costs so much because it's supposed to handle sub-hunting, minesweeping, surface warfare and more in addition to showing the flag and the like - and as the Navy recently found out (to screams of dismay and whining worthy of der Trump himself) the LCS can't even deal with small boat swarms effectively (so pirate-hunting can be added to the ever-growing list of "stuff the LCS can't do" which also includes gems like "not break down" and "remain on station").

For what we're spending on the LCS, we could have an equivalent number of indigenous multi-role frigates that cost less to operate - the LCS is a leap too far, trying to build a future warship that the tech didn't exist for, and then doubling down repeatedly on failure. Much as with the F-35, there is a real need for something like the LCS, but with a key difference: it needs to actually work (and having a cost proportional to actual utility would be nice too - the LCS is a logistics disaster the likes of which haven't been seen since Churchill decided to attack the Dardanelles).

[Ulmita]

The amount of science fiction shit popping out our fellow American posters is mind boggling. I don't know even where to start, or if i should even try.

[Kellhound]

They've literally been offered more money to do whatever they want (along with more aircraft and other goodies), in return for reducing the size of the LCS purchase and the Navy is still fighting with SecDef over it (and given than he'll be gone in under a year, they may win); and heavens forbid that actual national defense considerations trump "what's politically popular" (nice shorthand for 'billions in contractor pork' btw).

Part of the giant mess that is the LCS comes from the Navy's insistence that it be able to do more than "presence" missions - it costs so much because it's supposed to handle sub-hunting, minesweeping, surface warfare and more in addition to showing the flag and the like - and as the Navy recently found out (to screams of dismay and whining worthy of der Trump himself) the LCS can't even deal with small boat swarms effectively (so pirate-hunting can be added to the ever-growing list of "stuff the LCS can't do" which also includes gems like "not break down" and "remain on station").

For what we're spending on the LCS, we could have an equivalent number of indigenous multi-role frigates that cost less to operate - the LCS is a leap too far, trying to build a future warship that the tech didn't exist for, and then doubling down repeatedly on failure. Much as with the F-35, there is a real need for something like the LCS, but with a key difference: it needs to actually work (and having a cost proportional to actual utility would be nice too - the LCS is a logistics disaster the likes of which haven't been seen since Churchill decided to attack the Dardanelles).

The political angle is from the politicians, not the military. The jack of all trades concept came about because the Navy cannot afford dedicated platforms anymore in sufficient numbers. I would much prefer a 600 ship Navy with dedicated ASW, ASuW, and mine warfare ships, as would the Navy.

There is no doubt the consolidation of the US defense industry has reduced quality and increased costs per unit as well.