Bird_Gunner45 said:
assuming it's a 1:1 fight (2:2, 3:3, etc)... Peer on peer, particularly in operations could very prove to be large numbers of OPFOR aircraft against far smaller numbers of friendly. Particularly in regards to Carrier based operations against a formed body of near peer aircraft. The Chinese in particular will have a fleet of Gen 5 aircraft similar to the F22 (not as capable, but close enough) and more capable than the F-35 (J20, J31).
Further, consider a PAK FA has 16 hard points compared to the F35s 11, has rear and front X band radar (35 only has front), a L Band radar, and a reported max detection range of a target 1m squared at 300km compared to the F35s 150 km.
Chinese and Russians would also have some sort of AWACS system, Ground based radar, etc to monitor where their and our aircraft are, so wouldn't be completely clueless as to the number of F22s, F35s, etc in the area.
Not to say that NATO cannot win, but playing the F35 up to be a supreme fighter isn't accurate either. F35 is a complement to the F22 and replacement for the Warthog and other F/B aircraft.
I'm sorry, but significant parts of your posts are based on highly inflated claims. I get the sense you've been reading Carlo Kopp's work, which has earned a high degree of contempt from professional defence analysts and military officials.
On a practical level... What conditions does the SH121 radar is able to target an aircraft at 300nm? (And what use is 11 pylons when that will vastly increase your RCS?) And how many PakFAs will be built compared to F-35s? While for most of these technical question the public can't get a truly accurate number (unless you work for DoD), there is plenty of evidence that suggests the Russian capabilities are significantly less impressive than officially stated, and they lag far behind the US military. Consider that the West has been pouring billions into radar, sensor and avionics development over the past twenty years ($56 billion on the F-35 alone), while the Russians have seen significant contraction. In real terms they probably saw over 70 to 80% of their defence funding dry up between 1990 and 1999. Technological development has lagged badly in a numbers of areas, and most of the Russian tier two producers in avionics closed shop during the lean years. These are critical for pushing technological development of radars and keeping costs down... there are hundreds of such producers in the west, who also straddle the civil and military markets.
Let me copy a segment of this year's IISS Military Balance which gives a sense of the issues involved:
The defence industry has been starved of
investment for some 20 years. It has a high proportion
of obsolete equipment and renewal is costly. The
domestic machine-tool industry has also severely
contracted and is no longer able to manufacture many
modern, advanced types, obliging arms factories to
import. There are acute shortages of younger skilled
manual workers and technical personnel. Even
in such a dynamic sector as the radio-electronics
industry, one-fifth of specialists are over retirement
age, including two-thirds of all doctors of science and
55% of science PhD candidates. Overall, the average
age of personnel at defence industrial enterprises is
46, and 48 in R&D organisations. Many enterprises
lack modern quality-management systems. There is
mounting evidence of serious problems in achieving
acceptable standards of quality and reliability,
exemplified by six costly failed space launches during
2011 and the first half of 2012, and the long delay in
accepting the new Bulava ICBM into service. There
are capacity constraints in some sectors, notably in
air-defence systems.
Moreover there is significant evidence that shows the quality of Russian electronics are not there. I would add to the military balance's discussion of the Bulava, the severe difficulties that the Algerian and Indian governments have had with their aircraft purchases.
A recent Indian government audit found that over half of the missiles bought by India were non-operational. Consequently, several countries have moved to replace their Russian avionics with Western versions... like India contracting Israeli Aircraft Industries for their Mig-29s upgrades. In reality alot of the Russian claims have been exploded in order to suggest significantly better performance than possible. Quite a bit of it is propaganda, in order to market their aircraft or drum up public support.
The Chinese are a different case. They don't have a fleet of 5th gen fighters yet, nor are there any indication that they will be superior at all. Chinese engine technology is decades behind ours; markedly inferior to Russian works (which is why they continue to buy Russian engines) which is inferior to western technology. I suspect that in 10 to 20 years they may be able to catch up... but its a difficult process; this it requires you to develop expertise across the entire range of systems. There is quite a bit of speculation that China's programs aren't going as well as people think; last year they decided to purchase the SU-35 from Russia... despite having two separate fighter programs ongoing.
None of this is meant to be flippant about the quality or capability of Russian or Chinese systems. I think they will be potent and require a serious level investment. However That's what the west has been doing, particularly with the F-35. It been pouring tens of billions into its radar and sensor development... which will continue past the IOC of 2017.
