頁:
[1]
2
舊飛機是無法存活、無能和無用
本帖最後由 MightyDragon 於 2012-11-23 08:40 AM 編輯這篇文章的目的基本上只是最後一句： "... produce additional 600 F-22s, produce at least 100 Next Generation Bombers, and retire all legacy aircraft (F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, B-52s, B-1s) ASAP."，可以很容易地識別為受僱於武器商人的輿論推手 {:3:} 但至少是存在某些事實：舊飛機 （F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, B-52s, B-1s）無法應對中國和俄羅斯的下一代戰鬥機（PAKFA, J-31, J-20等），在其中F-16和F/A-18尤其是決定性的劣勢，不管是在超視距作戰的因素（雷達功率和範圍、電子對抗、最大速度、最大高度、雷達反射信號、熱信號）或視距內作戰的因素（推力/重量比、翼載荷比、電子對抗等），空中作戰完全是只有挨打毫無還手之力。想通過少量改裝的F-16就能夠對付中國第四代戰鬥機是不可能實現的夢想...
Source: Conservative Daily News
Original Title: Legacy aircraft are unsurvivable, impotent, and useless
By Zbigniew Mazurak on Nov 17, 2012 in National Defense and Military, Support the Troops
Despite China and Russia continually developing, producing, fielding, and exporting advanced fighters and Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) around the world, some anti-defense groups (e.g. POGO, NTU, the Center for American Progress, TCS) and their “analysts” who fancy themselves as defense issues experts, like Winslow Wheeler, Pierre Sprey, Larry Korb, Ben Freeman, and Mia Steinle, ridiculously claim that stealthy aircraft are unneeded and that old, obsolete teen series fighters (the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18) and obsolete bombers (the B-52 and B-1) can deliver air superiority and strike enemy targets safely.
They are dead wrong, and we should not be surprised, because virtually all people who propagate such ludicrous claims are anti-defense hacks who seek to weaken and gut America’s defense. POGO is co-funded by George Soros and was founded by self-proclaimed pacifist Dina Rasor, who said in 1981 “I find weapons repulsive”. Mia Steinle is an advocate of America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament.
So let’s see why their claims are utterly false. The two combat roles most frequently expected of combat aircraft are 1) air superiority and 2) deep strike/penetration.
Remember that even today, with most potential adversaries being equipped with advanced (or even upgraded legacy) Russian and Chinese SAM systems and fighters, which are proliferating globally, US aircraft would, in any plausible war, operate in heavily defended, heavily contested airspace defended by such SAM systems and fighters. This situation will only get worse in the future.
So let’s see how legacy aircraft would perform these two crucial missions.
Air superiority
The most common advanced fighters American pilots will encounter will be variants of the Flanker family (Su-27/30MKI/KI/MKK/MKV/33/35/J-11), the J-10 Sinocanard, and, beginning in the 2020s, the Sukhoi PAKFA, the Chengdu J-20, and the Shenyang J-31. Less likely to be encountered are MiG-35s and JF-17s, with zero orders outside Pakistan.
All US legacy fighters will be decisively outclassed by these aircraft.
The F-16 and the F/A-18 are decisively inferior to all of these aircraft in all parameters, including those relevant for BVR combat (radar power and range, countermeasures, max speed, max altitude, radar signature, heat signature) and those needed for WVR combat (the thrust/weight ratio, the wing loading ratio, countermeasures, etc. A partial exception is the Su-33 and older variants of the Su-30, which are not representative of the threat anyway. Moreover, the F-16 and the F/A-18 have little fuel capacity, allowing Flankers, the MiG-35, and the JF-17 to simply run them out of fuel or deplete their fuel reserves so badly that they’ll have to egress home, and then, shoot these American aircraft down.
The F-15 barely achieves parity against the Flanker family, being a little faster and flying at a higher altitude tham most Flankers and the J-10, but it has an even larger radar and IR signature than other legacy aircraft and is otherwise as inferior to the Flanker family and the J-10 as are the F-16 and the F/A-18.
These deficiencies cannot be overcome with upgrades. They are inherent to these fighters’ design.
A comparison of the F-16 to current and some prospective threat aircraft was made, and the F-16 was found to be decisively inferior on all counts to almost all competitors, except the Su-33 and, on a lesser scale, the Su-30.
If the US uses F-15s, F-16s, or F/A-18s (or a mix of these types) against modern Chinese or Russian fighters, the vast majority of them will be easily shot down from long range with radar-guided, infrared-guided, or anti-radar-homing BVR missiles such as variants of the AA-12 Adder. The large radar signatures of these aircraft will make it easy, and if they use their radar, they will also be easily detectable for IR detection systems. Furthermore, flying at higher speeds and altitudes than the F-16 and the F/A-18, Russian and Chinese fighters can send their missiles farther than these legacy American aircraft can.
The few F-16s and F/A-18s that would survive the BVR slaughter would be disposed of by the Russians or the Chinese easily in WVR combat, as both types have much higher wing loading ratios, much inferior T/W ratios, and much weaker climbing capability than any forementioned threat aircraft except the Su-33, found today only in Russian Naval Aviation.
The F-15 would fare much better against pre-PAKFA, pre-J-20 fighters, owing to its high (by today’s standards) T/W ratio of 1.15:1 and a relatively low wing loading ratio (385 kgs/sq meter), but will be decisively outclassed by the PAKFA, the J-31, and quite possibly, also the J-20.
Deep strike/penetration
While the F-15 might stand some chance of surviving in air to air combat against Generation #4.5 Russian and Chinese fighters, it stands no chance whatsoever of surviving in any airspace defended by any advanced SAM systems, or even so much as upgraded legacy Soviet SAM systems like the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, and SA-6.
The SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, and the mobile SA-6 were widely exported by the Soviet Union and (together with upgraded domestic variants) still remain in wide use around the world, including in North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Moreover, the SA-6 Gammon, being mobile, can easily implement “shoot and scoot” tactics, waiting for an incoming aircraft for hours, concealed, then shooting and relocating promptly. It can relocate in minutes rather than hours or days. Moreover, its powerful radar is hard to jam, and so are the radar of even legacy Soviet air defense systems such as the SA-2, SA-3, and SA-5, as shown during the Vietnam war against a variety of nonstealthy, unsurvivable aircraft, some of which (e.g. B-52s) still remain in service. Even when the US military developed countermeasures such as the primitive AGM-54 Shrike counter-SAM missile and jammers, the Russians and the Viets easily developed counter-countermeasures such as more powerful radar, passive anti-radar guidance for SAMs (instead of using radar), and other measures. Thus, throughout the Vietnam war, including during Operation Linebacker II, American losses in aircraft and pilots were significant.
Today, neither jamming nor anti-SAM missiles are effective measures any longer. Modern SAM systems have radars too powerful to be jammed, even with the Navy’s Next Generation Jammer (let alone the ALQ-99), and anti-SAM missiles such as the AGM-88 HARM can be easily shot down by point-defense counter-PGM systems such as the Tor-M1 and the Pantsir-S1, both of which have been exported globally and protect long-range anti-aircraft SAM systems, as well the latter systems themselves.
This means that the only way to survive in any airspace defended by such systems is to be undetected, i.e. stealthy. This requires all-aspect, multi-band stealthy aircraft.
All American legacy aircraft (including the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, AV-8, B-52, and B-1), as well as Generation #4.5 European fighters such as the Typhoon, the Rafale, and the Gripen, stand zero chance of surviving in such airspace. They would be easily detected, even from a long range, by the radar of any air defense systems, even the most primitive ones such as the SA-2 and SA-3, and shot down mercilessly.
Jammers might jam the radar of legacy SAM systems such as the SA-2 and SA-3, but not that of modern systems like the S-300, S-400, S-500, Tor-M1, Pantsir-S1, and HQ-9. Moreover, passive anti-radar homing missiles, even variants of the SA-2 and SA-3 missiles, can home on the emissions of American jammers and thus shoot the aircraft carrying those jammers down, as the Viets repeatedly did during the Vietnam War.
As Jamestown’s Dr Carlo Kopp writes:
“China’s air defense system is maturing into the largest, most capable and technically advanced in Asia, and will be capable of inflicting very heavy attrition on any aircraft other than upper tier U.S. stealth systems. Until the U.S. deploys its planned “New Generation Bomber” post-2020, the United States will have only 180 F-22 Raptors and 20 B-2A Spirit bombers capable of penetrating the PLA’s defensive shield. This may not be enough to act as a credible non-nuclear strategic deterrent.”
The only Western aircraft which can survive and prevail in such airspace are the F-22, the B-2, and the planned Next Generation Bomber (if its designers follow stealth shaping rules).
And before you ask: “what about counter-stealth radars?”, the fact is that such “counter-stealth radars” cannot detect the F-22 from more than 15 kms, and cannot detect stealthy bombers at all. Stealthy bombers are too large for “counter-stealth” radars’ wavelength (which is barely 2 meters for the best CS radar, the Nebo SVU; other CS radars have even smaller wavelength) to be detected, and the F-22 can easily stay out of the tiny detection envelope of such systems (with their 15 km radius) while still delivering its munitions to the target. And, with supercruise ability, it’s too fast for enemy SAMs to shoot down.
But nonstealthy aircraft would be easily detected by both counterstealth and conventional radars from a long distance. Any airspace protected by any such radars is off-limits to them.
The only feasible course of action is for the US to produce additional 600 F-22s, produce at least 100 Next Generation Bombers, and retire all legacy aircraft (F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, B-52s, B-1s) ASAP....<div class='locked'><em>瀏覽完整內容，請先 <a href='member.php?mod=register'>註冊</a> 或 <a href='javascript:;' onclick="lsSubmit()">登入會員</a></em></div><div></div> 美國與中國不一樣，美軍為了向國會伸手要錢，都會誇大敵方的威脅，就算沒有敵人，也會塑造一個出來。中國為了要合理化共產黨的統治，需要中國崛起的假象，所以用盡各種手段吹牛，算是大躍進思維的延續。
言歸正傳:開帖者的點評沒有切中要點。因為美系戰機的最大優點，就是持續不斷的演進。F/A-18與F-16的早期型當然在今天已經落伍了，但是最新的F/A-18E/F與F-16 Block60都是非常先進的，甚至洛馬提供給印度的F-16I構型，還與歐洲戰機/飆風戰機/Su-35一起競標，雖然最後沒有拿到訂單，由法國飆風勝出，但是Su-35還比F-16I早出局。這就代表新一代的F-16是可以與次世代的戰機一起競爭的。
特別是未來的F-16都會開始加裝機載型的先進相位陣列雷達與AIM-120C7甚至AIM-120D、AIM-9X，與預警機的數位資料鍊，內建的新型電子反制系統，新版的藍盾吊艙，戰力不容小覷。對比很會玩空中雜耍，但是電子系統甚至被印度人打槍，硬要把Su-30MKI換在西方裝備的可悲事實。就能知道未來鹿死誰手恐怕還在未定之天呢?
順便說一句，美系戰機在服役20年以後，通常都會進行「中期壽命提升計畫」，好大修機體並跟上時代腳步，有趣的是俄系戰機通常服役20年以後就等著報廢，像中國這樣任一款戰機都要服役三、四十年的國家，也罕見戰機中壽計畫，真是有趣。...<div class='locked'><em>瀏覽完整內容，請先 <a href='member.php?mod=register'>註冊</a> 或 <a href='javascript:;' onclick="lsSubmit()">登入會員</a></em></div> 可是舊飛機可以拿來當作神風特攻隊耶
這方面日本可說是能手喔 台灣不能山寨戰機
美國又不提供關鍵零組件供台灣組裝戰機
台灣只能用凱子價向美國買戰機
身為台灣人的我真是恨鐵不成鋼 {:7:} 我覺得那是刻板印象吧
舊飛機有舊飛機的用途 像是B52因為可以發射戰斧巡弋飛彈 所以還是老而彌堅
F-18 F-16維修費用也比F-22便宜許多
所以不是老了就無用<br><br><br><br><br><div></div> PAKFA, J-31, J-20 要形成戰力還需要時間
而這些飛機 已經成軍了
等到PAKFA, J-31, J-20時 美國可能早就做出更好的飛機了 大陸的舊飛機不是改裝成無人機嗎.為什麼說沒用.讓敵人的飛彈要打也不是.不打也不是 璿云 發表於 2012-11-23 06:33 PM static/image/common/back.gif
大陸的舊飛機不是改裝成無人機嗎.為什麼說沒用.讓敵人的飛彈要打也不是.不打也不是 ...
飛機維修成本比飛彈大很多
其實只要拖出來放置在地面上當砲灰
這就是很好的戰術 中國戰機性能/能量強 但請先把j-20 j-31 組成戰鬥編隊再說 babymomo911 發表於 2012-11-23 08:54 PM static/image/common/back.gif
飛機維修成本比飛彈大很多
其實只要拖出來放置在地面上當砲灰
這就是很好的戰術 ...
這種戰術可能只有台灣在使用.這確實可以精準的消耗大陸的導彈.舊飛機用廢鐵資源回收的價格.可以耗掉幾百萬美金的導彈.放在地上讓GPS容易定位.大陸導彈就不會用來對付高價值目標...<div class='locked'><em>瀏覽完整內容，請先 <a href='member.php?mod=register'>註冊</a> 或 <a href='javascript:;' onclick="lsSubmit()">登入會員</a></em></div><br><br><br><br><br><div></div> 依照這講法~
東南亞及東北亞的天空應該是中國的天下了.......{:3:}{:3:}{:3:}
本帖最後由 拿AK的螞蟻 於 2012-11-25 11:50 AM 編輯
又是一篇中國的飛機好棒,是不是要給你拍拍手?
人家的"舊飛機"至少成軍好幾年了,飛機該有的問題大多都解決了,而且多國使用,有一定的好口碑
中國的新飛機才出來沒多久,難道飛機的小毛病都沒有嗎?要嗆至少等到中國的新飛機成軍在來嗆! 拿AK的螞蟻 發表於 2012-11-25 11:48 AM static/image/common/back.gif
又是一篇中國的飛機好棒,是不是要給你拍拍手?
人家的"舊飛機"至少成軍好幾年了,飛機該有的問題大多都解決了 ...
唱衰舊飛機的又不是我你向我拍拍手幹甚 {:3:}
對於不懂看內文又敢回覆的人仕們的勇氣我只有敬佩之意 ;P...<div class='locked'><em>瀏覽完整內容，請先 <a href='member.php?mod=register'>註冊</a> 或 <a href='javascript:;' onclick="lsSubmit()">登入會員</a></em></div> MightyDragon 發表於 2012-11-25 11:54 AM static/image/common/back.gif
唱衰舊飛機的又不是我你向我拍拍手幹甚
對於不懂看內文又敢回覆的人仕們的勇氣我只有敬佩之意 ...
你的內文不就是新一代對上前一代飛機有著極大的優勢?
現今美國成軍幾年的F-22都有缺陷了,還沒成軍的中國.俄羅斯（PAKFA, J-31, J-20等）就都沒有問題?{:12:}
神兵利器就算強大使用上有限制的話,效果還是大打折扣(昂貴的造價.耗時的維護.數量有限等等)
新飛機雖然強大,可不是就都沒有問題的,不然這些舊飛機早該淘汰了,就不會使用好幾十年了{:3:}...<div class='locked'><em>瀏覽完整內容，請先 <a href='member.php?mod=register'>註冊</a> 或 <a href='javascript:;' onclick="lsSubmit()">登入會員</a></em></div> 本帖最後由 拿AK的螞蟻 於 2012-11-25 12:54 PM 編輯
照你提的題目是舊飛機是無法存活、無能和無用
那中國的J10.J11等舊飛機 是否該好好淘汰當廢鐵?幹嘛至今還做改良和服役?
舊飛機無法應對美國的下一代戰鬥機(F22.F35),在其中J10和J11尤其是決定性的劣勢，不管是在超視距作戰的因素（雷達功率和範圍、電子對抗、最大速度、最大高度、雷達反射信號、熱信號）或視距內作戰的因素（推力/重量比、翼載荷比、電子對抗等），空中作戰完全是只有挨打毫無還手之力。想通過少量改裝的J10就能夠對付美國第四代戰鬥機是不可能實現的夢想...
...<div class='locked'><em>瀏覽完整內容，請先 <a href='member.php?mod=register'>註冊</a> 或 <a href='javascript:;' onclick="lsSubmit()">登入會員</a></em></div><br><br><br><br><br><div></div>
頁:
[1]
2