Why We Need A War - 5th Generation Fighters

Recommended Videos

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
For the uninitiated: 5th generation fighters are the most advanced aircrafts, designed to incorporate numerous technological advancements, including all-aspect stealth even when armed, Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR), high-performance air frames, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theater of war in order to achieve an advantage in situational awareness.

So far, there has been only one 5th generation fighter in service: USAF's Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Its stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, combined with air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities renders it the most lethal fighter in the sky right now. Each of these cost $150 million, and there is a ban on its export (even to its closest allies).



Unfortunately, it has been killed, and replaced by the F-35 Lightning II. The replacement low capacity multi-role fighter is single-engined and designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition." It will have 3 variants - one for the USAF, one with STOVL capability and one carrier version. But it's also less maneuverable than air superiority fighters 50 years old, has no super-cruise capability, can carry only 2 A2A missiles in its internal bay, and costs $130 million each. This will be NATO's primary fighter in the coming decades.



Now, the Russians have crashed the party with the Sukhoi PAK FA T50. Still in the prototype stage with the airframe and new NPO Saturn engines being tested out, the T50 is the only aircraft that can possibly match the F-22. With an unusual canard configuration, fully movable V-Tails, vertical S-shaped intakes leading to exhausts placed far apart (increasing coupling effect) and 3D thrust vectoring, it's much more agile than the F-22, albeit with a higher RCS. Also it's being fitted with IRST optical/IR search and tracking system, which the F-22 lacks. It won't be in production till 2015, and will cost an estimated $100 million each. Will be sold to India and other various countries, like Vietnam.



Finally, here's China's answer. Back on 11th January, they revealed their 5th generation fighter: the Chengdu J-20 Black Eagle. Admittedly, it will have nothing compared to the F-22's speed, agility or stealth (though probably will be comparable to the F-35 and F-18 variants). But it is a large aircraft with a greater weapon payload and increased range, and will probably fulfill the role of a super sonic long range interceptor, strike fighter, reconnaissance aircraft, electronic attack platform etc. If the Chinese can actually procure it, USA will have to rethink its entire military strategy of a possible strike against China.



We really need an all out war right now to see who wins! :D
But apparently, as that's too much to ask for, I ask you: hypothetically, if all these projects are completed without a hitch, which region d'ya think will end up having the upper hand in ariel combat?

EDIT: Since it's not apparent to everyone, when I was asking for an all out war, I was being sarcastic.
 

Lightnr

New member
Jan 8, 2009
150
0
0
None of them - in nuclear fallout everyone is a looser. Something that ensures we *hopefully* will never see wars like WW1 and WW2 again.
 

martin's a madman

New member
Aug 20, 2008
2,319
0
0
Economics trumps all.

Killing each other is bad business.
But, I think it is a bit silly to speculate on the performance of any of these aircraft against another one unless someone is an aerospace engineer, or technician with intimate knowledge of them all.
 

AmrasCalmacil

New member
Jul 19, 2008
2,421
0
0
Lightnr said:
None of them - in nuclear fallout everyone is a looser. Something that ensures we *hopefully* will never see wars like WW1 and WW2 again.
Both America and Russia have non nuclear weapons that they could use to devastating effect without messing the entire world up, it's why they were developed.

Russia's are bigger though. Twice as big, as I recall, able to take out a fairly big chunk of any given city area.
 

mb16

make cupcakes not bombs
Sep 14, 2008
692
0
0
this is why i still say the Euro-fighter, F15, etc... are better in todays world as most people you are going to be shooting will be in a cave so a air superiority fighter is useless.


few notes on the f22 and Euro-fighter:
In stealth mode the f22 is more stealthy, but as soon as it turns on its radar the Euro-fighter is harder to lock on (smaller in size and heat sig)

quote from lead engineer on the f22 "vulnerable to rain"


the taranis from BAE
 

thethingthatlurks

New member
Feb 16, 2010
2,102
0
0
Intercept fighters have been useless since Vietnam. No point in developing them imho, at least not if long range missiles are an option.
 

Nightmonger

New member
Jul 1, 2010
147
0
0
Well I would say the EU would loose right off the bat due to less resources available to it as an entity so as such it will inevitably have less aircraft
This leaves a fight between the the 3 if the fight happened as is now then I would go with the F-22 no question it's more or less finished and has had more testing than the other two however this could be outweighed by a greater number of aircraft from Russia dye to cheapness . However if it is the best all round fighter of the lot then china wins due to a larger platform meaning a higher versatility in what it can do.

So In conclusion there is no conclusion! :p
 

BE4T

New member
Jan 8, 2011
34
0
0
I'm interested in what North Korea has as far as weaponry. If a war is ever going to start any time soon, N. Korea would be the one to start it.
 

Private Custard

New member
Dec 30, 2007
1,920
0
0
mikozero said:
the J-20 is a bomber
oh its partly based on the stolen F-35 plans but it's way to big to be a fighter
if they plan to use it for anything it'll be as a tactical first strike aircraft like the F-117
Agreed, it's fucking massive. It'll also probably break just after the years warranty is up, like everything else made in China! Check this page and keep scrolling.

http://bbs.rednet.cn/thread-24610276-1-1.html

Anyway, what about 4.5 gen aircraft such as the typhoon? Extremely low radar cross-section, brilliant avionics, more agile than anything mentioned in this thread so far........and far prettier. If you're going to war, may as well look good too!



If the various governments involved would just go ahead and post the results of years of Red Flag operations, all these questions could be answered without firing any weapons!
 

Brawndo

New member
Jun 29, 2010
2,165
0
0
The countries the US could realistically go to war with in the next decade:

Iran
Syria
North Korea

All of these nations are still predominantly flying MiG-21s and other Soviet shit from the 1970s. 5th generation fighters are overkill given the technology and pilots of hostile nations


BE4T said:
I'm interested in what North Korea has as far as weaponry. If a war is ever going to start any time soon, N. Korea would be the one to start it.
We would wreck them in a war. North Korea's military might be massive, but they are still using mostly 1950s and 60s Cold War equipment. They have some newer stuff from China as well as some homegrown modernization of old Soviet equipment, but most of it cannot match US and South Korean technology. For example, when comparing main battle tanks it's not even a contest: M1A1 Abrams (US) and K2 Black Panthers (South Korea) are far superior to T-72s, T-64s, and their Chinese versions that the North Koreans would field.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
Private Custard said:
mikozero said:
the J-20 is a bomber
oh its partly based on the stolen F-35 plans but it's way to big to be a fighter
if they plan to use it for anything it'll be as a tactical first strike aircraft like the F-117
Agreed, it's fucking massive. It'll also probably break just after the years warranty is up, like everything else made in China! Check this page and keep scrolling.

http://bbs.rednet.cn/thread-24610276-1-1.html

Anyway, what about 4.5 gen aircraft such as the typhoon? Extremely low radar cross-section, brilliant avionics, more agile than anything mentioned in this thread so far........and far prettier. If you're going to war, may as well look good too!



If the various governments involved would just go ahead and post the results of years of Red Flag operations, all these questions could be answered without firing any weapons!
I understand they were planning to install Saturn engines due to reliability issues of Chinese engines, but changed plans later because they overcame those issues - anyway, it'll be a long haul before this beast goes to the production line. Without Russian help too - the Chinese kinda pissed them off after they stole the Sukhoi Su-33 designs.

Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut
 

Ham_authority95

New member
Dec 8, 2009
3,496
0
0
As the 9/11 terrorists proved, some flying lessons and a pair of box-cutters can do leagues more damage and fear than any fighter jet.

The things you've posted are nothing more than the latest hi-tech military dick-waggle.
 

Wadders

New member
Aug 16, 2008
3,796
0
0
Brawndo said:
The countries the US could realistically go to war with in the next decade:

Iran
Syria
North Korea

All of these nations are still predominantly flying MiG-21s and other Soviet shit from the 1970s. 5th generation fighters are overkill given the technology and pilots of hostile nations
Yeah, I hate to say it, but this.

From a UK point of view, the only country that might even be a threat to us is Argentina (if they attack the Falklands again) and in that unlikely event, and even with our Air Force and Navy in their weakened state, we'd still send them packing before they even reached the islands, as far as I understand it. Even then we're getting the JSF.

I cant see any of these fighters really being put to the test in the conceivable future, they're overkill against who we're fighting now, and who we might be fighting in the future. In short, they're pointless, air-to-gound is more important.
 

Private Custard

New member
Dec 30, 2007
1,920
0
0
Raiyan 1.0 said:
Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut
I've always loved that one, thoroughly mental!

With regards to the J20, have you paid close attention to the engines? There's absolutely no attempt to give them a stealth profile at the exit points. Look at the back end of an F-117A or Raptor, they're seriously styled to reduce the radar cross-section even more.

The J20 has ordinary engines.......two giant great glowing targets. It's an OK effort, but they can do better!

EDIT: Just though I'd mention, as I'm quite proud of it, that I took that shot of the typhoon above. Two days in Wales, waiting!
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
The US, we usually tend to have air superiority in our wars. WWI was fairly balanced in the air, but we were using French planes. WWII and on, we have used our own tech to pwn all. From the P-51 Mustang, to the F4 in Vietnam, to the F-16, and now the F-22.
 

Stabber1010

New member
May 3, 2009
99
0
0
JinxyKatte said:
Lightnr said:
None of them - in nuclear fallout everyone is a looser. Something that ensures we *hopefully* will never see wars like WW1 and WW2 again.
I am currently bored with the mundane monotony of every day life and ever so slightly wish I could live in a post apocalyptic world. Spend my time wondering around. Looking for food and having the occasional sword fight.

Yep those will be the days.
Apparently, if you survive the first two weeks you should be good. GL with those first two weeks though.

As another poster said, this is (for the most part) a military thing where everyone says they have the best X.

Now, if we developed X wings...
 

Jaime_Wolf

New member
Jul 17, 2009
1,194
0
0
Raiyan 1.0 said:
We really need an all out war right now to see who wins! :D
I don't believe you actually want a war to start (I'm at least hoping) and I imagine you just think this is a charming or witty way to frame your pose.

It's not.

There is absolutely nothing funny or cute about this suggestion. War kills people. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of it being possible to justify war, war should never be desirable for its own sake. I understand that people like to geek out over weapons, aircraft, et cetera, but ideally that takes the form of interest in the equipment itself, not in seeing it put to use killing people.