PAK FA vs F-22A

[zero-one]

Fair points on all arguments icemaverick, but allow me to share my take.

The same applies to Vietnam. Look at how much trouble the North Vietnamese gave the US. Look at the Russians' experience in Chechnya. On the first go of things, they were defeated by a ragtag bunch of rebels in what they claimed as their own territory.

Well Vietnam and to an extent Afganistan against the USSR is what I would call a political victory not a military victory. The US and the USSR won all or nearly all combat operations in those wars. The only reason they "lost" was because of politics. Yes the Vietnamese and the were able to inflict heavy casualties but they were dominated in every single aspect. they did not win a single battle.

Just because one side is better armed and better equipped than the other does not assure a victory. There are many examples of a smaller, supposedly weaker force defeating a larger, better equipped one.

Most of those victories were political in nature, very rarely does an inferior force actually achieve a military victory specially in the modern era where tech becomes a force multiplier. The American revolution was probably one of the very few examples of an inferior force achieving military objectives against superior forces.

They also had better trained pilots, better funding and better equipment compared to their enemies.

Compared to other middle eastern countries maybe, but Iran and Israel might have something to say about that. However against the US, UK, and many NATO nations, their airforce and navy simply pales in comparison in every aspect.
there wasn't a single aspect where the Iraqi' AF had an advantage over the RAF let alone the USAF and USN.

The North Vietnamese also had no production capability but that didn't prevent them from giving the US forces fits.

But they had something better, heavy Soviet support which meant lost aircraft could be replaced, armaments could be restocked and best of all, we couldn't target their production facilities in the USSR, something that Germany didn't have the luxury of back in WW2

I don't think the Israelis really had any advanced aircraft in production.

Still far better than anything the Iraqis could produce themselves

It was never Iraq's objective to invade Washington.

Well thats the point, even if they could ship their whole military to Cuba somehow they would be slaughtered once they try to cross. The point was the sheer overwhelming military mismatch that the US possesed over Iraq, it was literally David against 100 Goliaths except David didn't have God on his side this time.

essentially turn it into another Vietnam for the US. They hoped that if they could turn it into a long drawn out war, the US public would lose its resolve.

yes that was the best they could have achieved, but like I said, Vietnam was just a political victory but a massive military defeat for the North.

They could have definitely score more kills of Coalition aircraft. They could have inflicted much heavier casualties.

yes they could have, but they had essentially no chance of winning, I don't think they even had enough missiles to take down all the coalition aircraft in the area.

Also, do not underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare. Besides the example of the First Chechen War, look at what the Afghans did to the USSR in the 80s.

Well Guerilla warfare almost always results in military defeats in the sense that you are not achieving military objectives, you're just pestering the superior force until a cease fire or peace talks results in what you are hoping for politically.

The Gulf War was decisively concluded in under 6 weeks. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

Agree, but again, my point is that they were simply far far far over matched. Would you say that Iraq was half as powerful as the USSR? or maybe even 1/3? I think it's actually closer to 1/4. but heres the thing, the US in 1991 was built to defeat the USSR even without NATO... So if you can destroy the USSR, surely a country thats 1/4th as powerful should be a no brainier, now support that with dozens of the most powerful countries and you see my point. They really had no chance.

[swiss]

I'd bet that AMRAAM and Meteor both have significantly higher RCS than AIM-9X and ASRAAM. They are larger and have larger fins and wings.

Thanks again hornetfinn for your informative answer. Lower as expected, at least from the frontal sector. With significantly higher, we talk about one order of magnitude?

No problem! I think people often overestimate the RCS effect of external stores, especially modern equipment and weapons. Sure they will increase RCS of F-35 or F-22 by huge amounts, but not so much for 4th gen aircraft as their clean RCS is way bigger. I'd say that a clean Block 2 SH has RCS of say 0.1 square meters. I'd guess that with 2 EFTs, 2 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9X and 2 JDAMs it will probably (my WAG) be something like 1 square meter from frontal sector (but with very large spikes from sides). Of course if it's fully bombed up with older ordnance, it will have much higher RCS. I base this on these calculated, simulated and measured RCS figures for weapons and EFTs. Also RCS reduction measures taken in advanced 4th gen aircraft would not make much sense otherwise. Far cry from VLO stealth aircraft, but better than older 4th gen fighters, which are likely at least 5 square meters from frontal sector with the same loadout (F-16 and Gripen might be slightly less though).

I think something like one order of magnitude difference in RCS between AMRAAM and AIM-9X sound about right, but that's just a guess.

And again, thanks a lot.

[element1loop]

... Would you say that Iraq was half as powerful as the USSR? or maybe even 1/3? I think it's actually closer to 1/4. but heres the thing, the US in 1991 was built to defeat the USSR even without NATO... So if you can destroy the USSR, surely a country thats 1/4th as powerful should be a no brainier, now support that with dozens of the most powerful countries and you see my point. They really had no chance.

It's so much more than even that, Z1, you forgot something that's rather big ... the reserve force.

The US and also Allies (plus ad-hoc coalition forces} only deployed a smallish subset of their total airforce capability for ODS.

But the Iraqis had their entire proficient war force present, and all their SAMs and IADS.

I hear people confidently voice the (absurd) presumption that US and Allied air power has shrunk, is tired, lacks maintainence, is overused, is too old, is outdated, is vulnerable to the usual suspects force, and western air power is a feeble shadow of ODS potential. They have no grasp of the current potential.

12 years later Sadam buried MiG25s - he got it. But PAK-AF has a shot? They really don't get it.

[icemaverick]

Most of those victories were political in nature, very rarely does an inferior force actually achieve a military victory specially in the modern era where tech becomes a force multiplier. The American revolution was probably one of the very few examples of an inferior force achieving military objectives against superior forces.

I don't think we completely disagree here. I agree with you that there is little no chance that Iraq could have defeated the US in an all out war. But in the real world, most wars are about achieving political objectives. It's not just about scoring the most kills and annihilating the enemy.

If Iraq could have drawn the Coalition into a long, drawn out war, it's entirely possible that the citizens of the Coalition nations would have lost their appetite for the war and their politicians would be pressured into signing a ceasefire. That would have been a victory for Saddam Hussein. Even if Iraq suffered heavier casualties and lost more aircraft/tanks/artillery/SAMs etc., they would have achieved their objective.

Going back to the example of the First Chechen War, Russia had overwhelming military superiority over the Chechen rebels. It wasn't even close. Even though Grozny was completely leveled while Moscow remained mostly untouched, in the end it was a victory for the Chechens because the Russians gave up and agreed to a peace treaty; the Chechens achieved their political objectives.

Compared to other middle eastern countries maybe, but Iran and Israel might have something to say about that. However against the US, UK, and many NATO nations, their airforce and navy simply pales in comparison in every aspect.
there wasn't a single aspect where the Iraqi' AF had an advantage over the RAF let alone the USAF and USN.

There wasn't a single aspect where the North Vietnamese had any advantage over the United States. There wasn't a single aspect where the Afghans had any advantage over the USSR. There wasn't a single aspect where the Chechen rebels had an advantage over the Russians. Yet in all of these conflicts, the inferior force was able to achieve its political objectives while the more powerful force gave up.

yes that was the best they could have achieved, but like I said, Vietnam was just a political victory but a massive military defeat for the North.

The North Vietnamese accomplished their objectives while the United States failed to achieve its objectives. South Vietnam was annexed and Vietnam became a communist nation. The point of war is to achieve political victories.

If Iraq could bog down the US and Coalition and force them to withdraw, it could have kept Kuwait and therein achieve a major political victory. This is exactly why Saddam Hussein chose to fight even though he was outnumbered and outgunned. He believed that he could achieve a political victory.

yes they could have, but they had essentially no chance of winning, I don't think they even had enough missiles to take down all the coalition aircraft in the area.

What if the Coalition was forced to operate under constant duress? What if the strike packages were constantly harassed? What the if the Iraqis had scored a number of air to air kills? They wouldn't have a chance of completely destroying the Coalition, but they would have had a great chance of making them quit.

Well Guerilla warfare almost always results in military defeats in the sense that you are not achieving military objectives, you're just pestering the superior force until a cease fire or peace talks results in what you are hoping for politically.

But you acknowledge that this is a still a victory for the guerrilla force.

Agree, but again, my point is that they were simply far far far over matched. Would you say that Iraq was half as powerful as the USSR? or maybe even 1/3? I think it's actually closer to 1/4.

How powerful were the Chechens relative to Russia? How powerful was the USSR relative to the Afghans? What happened in those wars?

but heres the thing, the US in 1991 was built to defeat the USSR even without NATO... So if you can destroy the USSR, surely a country thats 1/4th as powerful should be a no brainier, now support that with dozens of the most powerful countries and you see my point. They really had no chance.

The USSR in the 1980s was built to defeat NATO. Surely a bunch of mujahideen in Afghanistan would have no chance, right? What about the Chechen Rebels? Sure Russia wasn't as powerful as the USSR but it still had an incredibly well-equipped military. The North Vietnamese had Soviet backing but the USSR never directly got involved in the war and they still managed to bog the US down and ultimately achieve their political objectives.

My point is that for the US the crush Iraq so thoroughly was very impressive. Yes, no one really believed that Iraq would invade Washington or even destroy most of the Coalition forces. But there was the possibility that Iraq could have inflicted heavy losses on the Coalition and make them give up.

Instead, Iraq was completely and utterly dominated. Everyone (including the Russians and Chinese) were very impressed with how decisive the victory was. In fact, this prompted them to change their doctrines. Even the American commanders were pleasantly surprised with how well everything turned out. They expected a much harder war and thought we would suffer much heavier losses.

[mixelflick]

I greeted the troops coming back from the gulf in 1991. Made me so proud to be an American, and those guys so appreciated it. Complete surprise. After they landed they were brought to a hanger. The doors swung open and.. cheering Americans saying thank you. Still gives me goose bumps..

The advent of precision guided munitions, cruise missiles and especially stealth seemed to completely revolutionize warfare. Accordingly, Russia and China have followed suit, and North Korea learned a powerful lesson: Unless you have a trump card, the US can and will impose "regime change" if you're deemed "bad guy".

What amazes me is how long its taken the Russians to catch up. I saw a lot of dumb bombs in Syria. A lot of them. They have a lot of precision weapons (on paper), but outside of some cruise missiles, I didn't see much else. I realize dumb bombs still have their place, but am I off base here?

The Russians seem to be real slow to adopt laser, IR, TV etc guided munitions? With respect to the PAK FA/SU-57, I see again a lot of paper weapons, especially air to ground. I know their BVR air to air stuff is suspect, but presumably the R-77 and a new generation of ultra long range anti-AWACS air to air missiles will rectify that..

[icemaverick]

I don't think you're missing anything. The Russians are slow to adopt smart munitions because it requires a lot of time, money and other resources to develop them. Russia basically lost more than decade of R&D after the collapse of the Soviet Union and they were already falling behind the West in the relevant fields. Russia's economy was completely in the tank until the late 90s/early 2000s. Even though it has since improved, Russia's GDP is still less than that of Italy.

In addition to lack of money compared to the West, Russia is also not a big player in the high tech sectors. Their economy is heavily dependent on natural resources and they are not a major player in the fields of IT, microprocessors, software, telecommunications, materials science, optics etc. In order to develop such cutting edge weapons, a country needs a large talent pool of highly skilled professionals and Russia simply has a smaller supply than Western countries.

When you combine that with the fact that dumb bombs are also significantly cheaper than smart bombs, it's no surprise that Russia is still using the former.

[juretrn]

Russia basically lost more than decade of R&D after the collapse of the Soviet Union

R&D really wasn't that much of a problem - at least when it comes to basic research - they've got lots of really talented folks in the natural sciences.
The main problem for them is first and foremost production capability.
They were far behind in all of the high tech production fields even in the 80's - remember the impact those Toshiba 8-axis CNCs had on their subs.
Then think about the semiconductor tech they've got avaliable in their Zelenograd fabs - even their best stuff are some old hand-me-downs from TSMC. Or the production of modern composites, or modern metallurgy, you name it.
Basically, the exact opposite of Germany. There's a reason Germany is the world's biggest producer of production tools/machines, and Russia isn't.

[rheonomic]

R&D really wasn't that much of a problem - at least when it comes to basic research - they've got lots of really talented folks in the natural sciences.

The Russians have always sucked at moving basic research to TRL 9.

When you combine that with the fact that dumb bombs are also significantly cheaper than smart bombs, it's no surprise that Russia is still using the former.

сопутствующий ущерб? что это, товарищ?