US Air Supremacy threatened?

1'st of all- it is not! 2- yeah it is not easy to be on a "winning street" all the time as all allies (most without any technological contribution) expect latest supplies; 3- there are some good bits coming through out from Russia and China, but to say that production will be as successful @ the same time- nonsense- too many "half baked" projects requires load of investments etc as well...
 
Well, the video are comparing future gen 4++ fighters with US F-15,s..

A few thoughts.
The double didgit SAM threat WAS a threat untill one realized that stealth fighterbombers could quite easily punch a hole in the coverage before flying attack aircraft through the gap in the systems.

F-35 should play an important role in defeating airdefences just as the F-117 did in it´s time.
The gap between the two never became a reality as was a realistc fear when double didgits were new.

MHO
//KJ.
 
Lets see, Russia and china developing state of the art weapons.............ok, they sell them to whoever wants to buy them................whats new? they are better than ours? maybe, but I doubt it.
 
The only nation that can rob us of air superiority in the forseeable future is the E.U....Or Aliens...
 
Czin said:
The only nation that can rob us of air superiority in the forseeable future is the E.U....Or Aliens...
Click to expand...

Or increasing cost of aircraft per unit, coupled with Congressional slices in defense spending, Idc if it is not happening now, because what really is the point of focus is what may happen in the future. And the pricing and availiblitly of foreign anti air munitions, and the technological gap between "their" munitions and our munitions capability.
 
Czin said:
Propellor driven planes have always been better turners than jets. Methinks the Red baron's plane would be able to turn circles around an F-22.
Click to expand...
I have seen a replica Fokker DR1 fly in combat maneuvers, and last year I saw a F22 Raptor out of Hampton at the NAS Oceana air show, and I have to agree since I saw a DR1 do things a modern jet can't do without dropping out of the sky
 
Since we are no longer building anymore F-22s, and are instead focusing on the generalist F-35, which unlike the F-22 was built to be a jack of all trades, while the F-22 was made to be a master of air to air combat, I can see that we might have problems in the future. You can't build a vehicle that can do everything as well as your level of technology dictates is possible, but you can build a vehicle that can do a certain few tasks as well as your current level of technology will let you.
 
A Can of Man said:
The F-16 has done that admirably.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the F-16 is in my book, the best looking airplane ever built. I really like the look of single-tail finned planes a lot more than I do double tail finned. What is the advantage of two tail fins over one again? And if there is any advantage, is it really significant enough for the U.S and Russia to stop developing anymore new single tail finned fighters?
 
Czin said:
the F-16 is in my book, the best looking airplane ever built. I really like the look of single-tail finned planes a lot more than I do double tail finned. What is the advantage of two tail fins over one again? And if there is any advantage, is it really significant enough for the U.S and Russia to stop developing anymore new single tail finned fighters?
Click to expand...
The F-16 was initially designed with twin tails! You can see what remains where the speed brakes are! The rails back there are strong enough to secure twin tails to. Having a top speed of Mach 1.6 at 30,000-ft. meant the single tail would be sufficient for its needs.
The advantage of the twin tail it provides greater stability at high speeds (Mach 1.5+) and high altitudes. It provides greater rudder control or authority. Also, at high angles of attack (AOA) twin vertical stabilizers are also better.
 
Yea but I haven't seen a F-16 that needs twin tails yet, Navy planes have twin tails for low speed maneuvering, we have to have them for carrier take off. only the lighter aircraft have been able to leave a flight deck with one vert stab. or the ones with really big wing surface areas
 
wolfen said:
Navy planes have twin tails for low speed maneuvering, we have to have them for carrier take off. only the lighter aircraft have been able to leave a flight deck with one vert stab. or the ones with really big wing surface areas
Click to expand...
Remember the F-4 Phantom 2? It only needed one vertical stabilizor but, the stabilizor was long. Its AOA upon landing on a carrier also, was low.
 
AVON said:
Remember the F-4 Phantom 2? It only needed one vertical stabilizor but, the stabilizor was long. Its AOA upon landing on a carrier also, was low.
Click to expand...


of course I remember the Phantom 2, that replaced my aircraft the phantom 1, I was a AD in the Navy my first engine was a R2800, off an AH1D ina reserve unit at NAS Norfolk, after that I went F4's and them F-14's then helicopters.
The phantom doesn't count as it didn't need more than 1 vert stab, reason being is it also didn't need wings, the Phantom series is living proof that I can make my kids skateboard fly at mach 2 if I put a big enough engine on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top