LMFS wrote:Havok, I do not want to further derail this thread about PAK-FA with wide ranging amount of subjects...
Then keep the discussion technical. That goes to
ALL of you. If you touch on another subject, I will respond to that redirection. Your choice.
LMFS wrote:I take the point that sensationalist claims about maintenance difficulties of 5th gen fighters are to be taken with a big pinch of salt, fair enough.
I am an engineer,...
It is surprising that you have not posted your objection, or at least precaution, to the forum on taking these articles without that pinch of salt.
An engineer is a bridge between the theoretical and the practical. What the theory said vs what the real world allows. The scientists says A, B, or C. Engineers takes in real world limitations and applies those factors into A, B, or C. The result is a car, a bridge, or an airplane, each product is a working example of competing and conflicting demands.
I left aviation because of family related issues. A relocation removed me from any employment prospects in aviation. I am now in semiconductor manufacturing, specifically Process Engineering, even more specific, Probe Functionality and Parametric testing of silicon wafers. I am directly involved in Intel's new non-volatile memory technology called 3DXP. It is a version of phase change memory (PCM). You can look up those keywords.
An engineer should draw upon his own investigative skills and instincts to have initial doubts about any claim, especially if he has no experience in the fields of said claim. But I do not expect that type of objectivity in this forum. Data is the lifeblood of engineers. I look at data all day long, from JMP to SPACE to even handwritten text. The test data of every single wafer crosses my desk and my dept says 'Yea' or 'Nay' on each wafer.
Without data, engineers are nothing. And by logical extension, any opinion made or accepted from another party in the absence of data also means -- nothing. Your profession do not allow you the latitude of taking in figures without supporting data. A janitor have that freedom. An engineer do not. When you chose to become an 'engineer', you take on certain moral and ethical responsibilities. Some of them have legal consequences, but most resides in your conscience and supposedly guide your thoughts. The absence of data in that article should have been a red flag.
YOU should have known that.
LMFS wrote:You are the service man so I would ask you, what the sortie generation rate relation is between 4th gen fighters (F-16 and F-15 to be more concrete) and that of a F-22. Put it this way: F-22 got axed at 187 units. From them, it seems no more than 120 are ready for operation at any given time (again, not sure by what exact metrics this is calculated). F-15s that were to be replaced are still in service for many years to come it seems. Many voices are heard requesting reactivation of the F-22 production because the existing units can not cope with the level of perceived threat. Do these claims hold merit in your opinion or is just politicians wanting more money?
The sortie generation rate is per unit per location per deployment. It is theater limited. Not for policy makers. If a unit in CONUS has a %90 generation rate, it has no bearing on policies in Asia, unless or until that unit is deployed to Asia or speculatively deployed to Asia, then policy makers can begin to use this piece of statistic.
Now...Ideally, every theater should have at least a couple of dedicated air supremacy units. But even US have limitations and one of those is financial. So the F-22 production was capped at 187 jets. There are calls for the resurrection of the F-22 production line because of the lack of immediately available F-22 units to meet perceived threats. I do
NOT dispute that argument. But that has nothing to do with an F-22 unit's FMC rate. If there are more F-15 units that have comparable FMC rate that can be deployed to more theaters at the same time, that still have nothing to do the fewer F-22 units that have the same FMC rate. The F-22's desirability is because of its perceived higher threat value to any in-theater air forces.
So just because there are calls for the resurrection of the F-22's production line, somehow that is a 'sign' of the F-22's inferiority in the area of air supremacy? That is not a leap of logic but a leap of faith made by many.
Merit...What kind are we talking about here?
Strategically speaking, meaning at the policy makers or theoretical level, resurrecting the F-22's production line make near-ideal sense.
But pragmatically speaking, meaning at the process engineering level, it does not. Remember, engineers have to take in real world limitations.
One of those limitations is that of workers availability. No matter what you see in the news, an aircraft, even an established front line version, is very much a hand built product in the same level as that of Rolls Royce autos. The experienced F-22 production workers are mostly retired.
Another limitation is technology. The F-22 is much more a modular aircraft than the F-15/16. So if we are going to resurrect the production line, we cannot produce the same jet. It would not make sense given at least 10 yrs have passed. Yes, I understand the last F-22 was delivered in 2012, but essentially, the jet's technology was locked in before that last model. If we are going to resurrect the line, in good conscience to national defense and to the men/women who must fly and maintain the jet, we must install newer, if not the latest, technologies into the new jets. This will raise the per jet cost. Can we afford it?
So just on these two items, the merits against the resurrection argument are already valid.
I will use semiconductor as example...
My former employer is Micron Tech. Micron have a history of keeping obsolete memory technologies in its knowledge repositories when its competitors purged theirs. Many of those obsolete memory designs have large die dimensions, which on a wafer real estate, affects cost and profits. Ergo, smaller dies means more dies per wafer which means lower cost and higher profits per die. But larger dies offers ruggedness and increased robustness of data retention. Further, the larger die provides excess space for other protective measures, like the kind NASA want to protect the memory core from radiation. So when NASA or any country's space agencies want some obsolete memory type because it suits their needs, Micron will be their only source. Micron will resurrect the production line, trains existing workers on the old technologies, and pass on appropriate costs to the customers.
Personally speaking, I do not agree with the merits for the resurrection of the F-22 production line. I support the merits
AGAINST the argument.
LMFS wrote:Why should I need being in the eastern front to understand the difference in scale and balance of forces to desert storm?
Well for them it was rather a massacre. Especially for guys like the ones killed in columns withdrawing from Kuwait.
This revealed a very shallow understanding of war in general. It is a video game type of understanding. It is irrelevant if the war is only between two countries or the sizes involved. As long as certain political objectives can be met only by fighting, there is a war. A 'conflict' is only a smaller scale of fighting, which is essentially a war anyway. A 'conflict' is usually when no territories are involved. Minor temporary border crossings are not counted.
Who says a war has to be of commensurate forces? What general would match one-to-one? If anyone does prefers, he should not have been a general in the first place.
In Iraq, the coalition took over the entire country. So what if we brought superior technologies and tactics? Do we not have responsibilities to our own sides to bring swift victories?
As for the Iraq forces that were on the run and were attacked by us, what did I said to you about asking questions of events?
FYI...The Geneva Convention
ALLOWS that attack. According to the GC, withdrawing forces are still legal combatants. The only time you get protected status is when you literally laid down your arms
AND make clear your intention of surrender. The phrase is "
hors de combat". Out of combat. A 'massacre' is an inflammatory word, not considered by the GC regarding who is a legal combatant and who is protected from killing.
If you are in a tank, that make you a legal combatant, therefore qualified to be killed. In order for you to be in protected status, you must:
1- Abandon your weapon
2- Make clear intention of surrender
3- Stay away from other instruments of war such as a tank, aircraft, or gun emplacements.
Item 3 actually falls under Item 1, but I separated for clarity. The reason is that I cannot tell if the tank or gun emplacement is loaded or not. So for me to
NOT shoot you, stay away from such devices. The only exception is for ships as we cannot reasonably expect sailors to abandon ship to surrender. The ship is their lifeboat, in a manner of speaking.
The fact that you brought this event up is perfectly in line with the mentality of this forum, which is to minimize everything the US does. Iraq was not a 'real' war like WW II. Therefore, the new tactics and technologies are nothing special compares to what Russia can do, right? Laughable.
You do not want the deviate from the main point of this discussion? Then do not bring shit like this up, especially when it is clear that you have done not even basic research on it.
LMFS wrote:Again, Irak stood no chance against US, not one. They didn't even try to avoid your build-up in the region, imagine how scared they were.
Saddam Hussein certainly thought he could. Again, if you want to deviate, I can accommodate.
[quote="LMFS"]Look at yourself, throwing your opinions in the PAK-FA thread a Russian Defence forum. How long did you serve with the Russians? How many research institutes have you worked in there?
[quote]
Wait a sec...
Am not the one who made opinions about things based upon no data. I
RESPONDED to you guys. Not only that, I responded based upon experience.
The PAK is a
DIRECT competitor to the F-22, therefore, I recognized that it is inevitable that you guys will make certain claims in favor of the PAK in comparing against the F-22. In the same vein, you guys should recognize that if you make claims that either defies the laws of physics or approaches so, expect challenges to your claims.
Back in the 1950s when the laser was under development, Theodore Maiman and Irnee D'Haenens were working on their own project and won the race. Maiman published and all he provided was the ruby crystal, a photo of the completed device, and general ideas of how they made the laser. That was all the other scientists needed to create their own ruby laser and verified Maiman's accomplishment.
I do not need to have direct connections to the PAK to recognize when you guys are in theoretical errors. Not just on the PAK but to many peripheral issues, such as aviation maintenance.
In creating a low radar observable platform, there are three rules to consider:
1- Control of
QUANTITY of radiators
2- Control of
ARRAY of radiators
3- Control of
MODES of radiation
They maybe be called 'rules', but they are more like guidelines. You cannot violate these rules, only on how
OBEDIENT you are to them. Degrees of application.
So when you compare the F-15 to these rules, you can say the F-15 is less obedient to the rules while the F-22 is more obedient. The B-2 have a higher degree of obedience. The sphere has the highest degree of obedience to them and that is why the sphere is a radar calibration shape.
Am not making this up. Keywords search for you: 'radar calibration sphere'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1
Did you know this fact from this forum before this discussion? If not, why not? I thought this forum is filled with people smarter than Americans.
The PAK is no different. These are real physics and not even Russia can defy them. So when you guys make claims that defies the laws of physics and common sense, have the honor of admitting when you are wrong.
LMFS wrote:Ok, it is about being a robot, I know. Only issue is humans are not robots. Tell your fellow veterans having massive psychological problems and committing suicide by the thousands (is this again being exaggerated?). It is only convenient to have people capable of killing irrespective of the reason, but green berets fed up of training jihadists and USAF pilots having to close their eyes to tanker columns kilometres long smuggling ISIS oil in Syria beg to differ. They cannot work like robots anymore.
We can deviate further from the technical discussions of the PAK, since you like to do so...
The effects of combat on the mind is usually after the battle. What you failed to grasp is that motivation for a war and technical skills of combat are
EQUALLY important. The only difference is
WHEN each is applied.
Before any campaign, the troops must be properly motivated. Call it propaganda or indoctrination or brainwashing if you like. But understand that you are no different than US. But once you are in battle, the technical skills of combat must take over your mind and body, whether you are an infantryman or a pilot. The actions you execute must be robotic in nature, like it or not. You cannot afford to think about magazine replacement. That should have been covered in Basic Training.
Bringing up PTSD is nothing but a cheap ploy in your part to cover up that fact that you are wrong about war and combat in general principles. It is a distraction.
LMFS wrote:And you still continue struggling. Not mocking what you say but I see you have no interest in discussing any of my points, fine.
Sure we struggles, but we do it with more data and experience. That is the difference and it will keep US ahead.
As far as your points goes, you guys are more interested in points about the F-22, as in how to make it look bad or even inferior, than to illuminate the technical aspects of the discussion. I may not have posted much, but I observed enough to patterned out the behaviors.
LMFS wrote:Again, not everything will be always like DS. Not even close, do your research.
Again...I never said that it is.
Your error is that you think we rests on the successes of DS. We do not and have not. Much -- not all -- of DS we laid aside as no longer appropriate for our next concept of warfare. A lot came from new technologies. A lot came from the fact that others will create countermeasures to what we did.
For example...
Before DS, the world never really saw how GPS guided weaponry will perform at large scale. But now we moved to non-GPS assisted tactics because we know that some future adversaries may employ GPS countermeasures.
LMFS wrote:Regarding your experience with RADAR detection of UAVs: what do you think US will do to counter enemy stealth then? Low RCS cruise missiles and UAV already exist in Chinese and Russian inventories. I am sure you have something in mind to counter them, right? Or do you simply trust they will produce useless crap?
The highlighted is why I do not take you guys seriously. Simply because you do not take US seriously.
Even though I am no longer in aviation, I still have active duty friends, particularly at Nellis AFB, home of an F-22 wing. Am not going to reveal on the Internet the technical tactics of how we have effectively defeated 'stealth' from anyone. I will
NOT say silly statements like 'Believe me' or 'Trust me'. Am
NOT asking anyone to take my words for it. You can call me a liar all you want and it would not bother me one atom's worth.
I am an 'Old Crow'...
http://www.crows.org/
Wait...You did not know that an organization dedicated to Elect. Warfare exists?
So put your engineering mind to work. The US created the first 'stealth' platform. Since the F-117, there have been three more advancements while of the rest of the world, only two countries have the resources to try, and both of them are struggling. The US continues to be the leader in radar technology. Now you just found out there is an organization dedicated to Elect. Warfare and one of its members is talking to you.
Absolutely you guys should be confident that the US do not know how to defeat 'stealth'.
LMFS wrote:Yes, if you outspend the rest of the world in military is because you make use of it. Geopolitics is all about access to resources and a global scale military is there to grant access to resources on a global scale. If you don't see this then I sincerely give up man
I can also argue that granting such access is a good for the rest of the world. Something certainly Russia cannot say.