Câu trả lời cho những ai mơ hồ về công nghệ của F22

Câu trả lời cho những ai mơ hồ về công nghệ của F22

Rebuttal to "you''ve got to believe in the F/A-22"BY: Carlo Kopp, Strategypage.com
02/28/2005

Jim Dunnigan''s argument presented against the F/A-22A is not robust, and his criticism of Gen John Jumper entirely unfair.
The crux of Jim''s argument centres in the case he is making about the obsolescence of China''s fleet of combat aircraft. Unfortunately describing the PLA-AF and PLA-N fleet of yesteryear, and the legacy types still flown, maketh not for a realistic projection of the PLA''s capabilities of 2005+.
China has been involved since 1991 in the largest sustained arms buying spree since the Soviet surge of the late 1970s and 1980s, buying out what amounts to the crown jewels of the Russian technology base.
At the top of China''s focus has been the aim to build up a fleet of long range air superiority fighters second only to the US Air Force fleet of F-15C/E.
Current orders and deliveries of directly purchased Su-27SK, Su-27UBK and Su-30MKK and Su-30MK2 sit around 150 aircraft. Concurrently China has contracted to licence build 200 Su-27SK locally as J-11s. That order is being renegotiated now so the latter 100 are more capable Su-27SMK, or possibly a more potent variant. Russian sources last year projected that China''s aggregate buy of Sukhoi fighters could top 500 aircraft by 2020.
For comparison the US Air Force operates cca 400 F-15C and 200 F-15E.
The Sukhois are a half generation beyond the F-15 in basic technology, and carry almost as much internal fuel as the F-15E without the penalty of CFT drag. The Sukhois are more agile than the F-15 and have much larger radar antenna bays providing much better long term upgrade potential for BVR combat.
To arm the Sukhois China acquired Russian R-73/74 Archer, R-77 Adder, R-27 Alamo and reports indicate the latter included the X-band anti-radiation homing R-27P/EP model, designed to home on an opposing fighter''s radar.
China has also acquired the Russian Kh-31 Krypton series anti-radiation and counter-ISR missile, and is claimed to have licenced it as the YJ-91.
Russian Kh-59 standoff missiles, equivalent to the AGM-142, have been acquired, as well as KAB-500/1500 series smart bombs - laser, TV, IIR and GPS/inertial variants are all now available matching the US Paveway and GBU-15.
The Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback is reported to be on China''s shopping list, it is a more capable bomber than the F-15E and approaches the punch of the F-111.
The Su-27/30/J-11 is being supplemented in a high low mix by the Lavi-like J-10 fighter, soon to enter production. It is apt to be powered by the same AL-31F engine as the Sukhois. Hundreds are expected to be built. The J-10 is a generation beyond the F-16 in airframe design.
There are also big changes underway in assets *****pport the new PLA fighter fleet. China is negotiating its first buy of Ilyushin Il-78 Midas tankers which provide similar offload to the KC-135 series. The first Chinese AWACS prototype is in flight test, using the Russian Beriev A-50 airframe and a three sided phased array radar, using the same generation of technology as the US E-10 MC2A, planned to replace the E-3C AWACS post 2015.
The other big development on the Chinese front is a drive to build up strategic air strike capabilities. Last year the PLA-AF leadership declared publicly its intent to buy surplus Russian Backfires and probably Bears. Both types remained in production until the 1990s and a surplus of at least 40 late model Backfires exists. This January the Russian AF CAS publicly advocated exporting both Tu-22M3 Backfires and Tu-95MS Bears to China.
China has been developing indigenous cruise missiles, with photos available suggesting these are clones of the BGM-109 Tomahawk. There are reports that tooling for the Kh-65 (Russian eq to AGM-86C) was acquired, and last week allegations were made in the Ukraine that a batch of Kh-55 (AS-15 Kent) were exported to China.
The prospects are that the PLA-AF will be operating two regiments of Tu-22M3 Backfire by the end of the decade, and possibly longer ranging Bears. The aircraft would be stock built in the late 1980s making them similar in age to the US Air Force B-1B Lancer fleet.
What Russian imports provide the PLA with is strategic reach and punch, with late or post Cold War platforms and smart weapons.
The prospect now of the EU exporting modern military technology to the PLA changes this balance of power equation even further away from the US and its Asian allies.
A PLA shopping list for EU technology will inevitably be centred in large ISR sensors, FLIR/laser targeting pods, EW equipment, ELINT/SIGINT receivers, active phased array modules, COTS embedded computers, Helmet Mounted Displays, inertial nav equipment, jam resistant secure spread spectrum comms and digital networking equipment.
In the Chinese market the EU will have no significant competitors as they will occupy niches the Russians cannot, and vice versa. Where there is overlap the PLA will play the EU and Russians off against each other to gain better prices and pressure for access to products otherwise denied. In terms of assessing the strategic impact of hi tech EU military sales to the PLA, we might consider the following:
1.The EU has a lead over the US in design and manufacture of QWIP two colour FLIR array chips, being a generation ahead of US industry.
2.The EU has defacto parity in most Gallium Arsenide fabrication technologies, the basic technology underpinning MMIC chips used in active phased arrays, channelised EW receivers, DRFM jamming techniques generators, advanced networking hardware, and a range of other radio-frequency systems.
3.The EU has defacto parity with the US in liquid and solid rocket propulsion technologies.
4.The EU has effectively parity with the US in advanced FLIR/laser targeting pods.
5.The EU has effectively parity with the US in most active phased array technologies, or near parity in categories such as AESA transmit-receive modules.
6.The EU has effectively parity with the US in active radar and infrared missile seeker technology.
Distilling this down, much of the advantage held by legacy US combat assets in the current US Air Force, US Navy and Pacrim allied force structures against the PLA armed with new build and surplus top tier Russian eqpt resides in superior ''information centric'' technologies largely inserted in upgrades over the last decade. Access to EU technologies as detailed effectively nullifies the advantage in most US technology used in the Pacrim.
What is the difference in capability between a 1970s built F-15C fitted with an AESA radar, a jam resistant JTIDS terminal, digital AMRAAMs, AIM-9X and JHMCS, against a 1990s built Sukhoi Su-27/30/35 retrofitted with an EU built AESA and digital signal processor on the N-001 radar, an EU built digital networking terminal, Chinese built PL-12 AMRAAM equivalents made from a mix of Russian and EU components, a Russian built R-74/AA-11, a French raster scan Helmet Mounted Display, and other pit and avionic hardware, and a French Damocles FLIR/laser pod?
The F-15C will be supported by a 1970s built E-3 subjected to upgrades with GaAs MMIC RF components, COTS computers, and various other bits of late 1990s gear, especially networking and comms. The Sukhoi will be supported by a Beriev A-50 AWACS fitted with a Chinese phased array radar, a French ESM, comms package, networking package and ruggedised COTS computers.
The same arguments could be applied to virtually every US legacy asset in the theatre vs an equivalent Russian system enhanced with EU subsystems.
The technological gap between the Chinese operated systems in 2010 and the legacy US systems will be negligible, in fact some of the technology the Chinese will use will be newer and more advanced than upgraded legacy US systems.
The import of EU military technology as a second wave in the military buildup narrows or eliminates the technological gap between most US supplied military systems in the Pacrim - either operated by the US or its allies.
The US has two strategies for changing this shifting balance in its favour.
A.Kill the EU export program dead in its tracks before any such technologies can be supplied to the PLA.
B.Replace all legacy assets in the Pacrim with F/A-22A, JSF, MC2A etc ie technology which is a generation beyond the EU technology base.
Given the Bush administration does not appear to have the political clout in the EU to make A happen, accelerating B is the only viable option.
The pessimistic view, given current moves to dismantle US force structure modernisation to satisfy the OMB, is that China will gain a decisive in theatre military advantage over the US and its Pacrim allies over the next decade.
In strategic terms, this is a checkmate to conventional US superiority over the PLA in the Far East.
Jim owes Gen John Jumper a public apology for his comments.

Hmmm, xin lỗi bác, nhưng mở cái topic của bác ra 1 cái...mơ hồ em vẫn hoàn mơ hồ!

Ha ha! Nói dậy mà không phải dậy..........
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Arial" id=quote>Trích từ:
The US has two strategies for changing this shifting balance in its favour.
A.Kill the EU export program dead in its tracks before any such technologies can be supplied to the PLA.
B.Replace all legacy assets in the Pacrim with F/A-22A, JSF, MC2A etc ie technology which is a generation beyond the EU technology base.
[/QUOTE]
Cái này là để thêm một tham khảo về việc chính phủ Mỹ không xem nhẹ F22 như ai đó phát biểu ở topic F18 vs Su35. Và rằng nếu như Carl Kopp, môt chuyên gia quân sự hàng đầu của Úc đại lợi vẫn còn đánh giá cao F22, và lấy nó làm trọng tâm, để duy trì cái gọi là "Air Dominance" của Mỹ và đồng minh trong nhiều thập kỉ tới, vậy thì không có lý gì mà coi F22 là một thất bại được. Hơn thế, cho tới thời điểm này, F22 là máy bay thế hệ 5 duy nhất trên thế giới đang in service. Hãy dành cho nó sự tôn trọng mà nó xứng đáng được hưởng.
PS: Bạn thân mến, cả cái bài loằng ngoằng ở trên, chỉ cần bạn chú ý vào đoạn mà tôi quote ở trên, vậy là được. Nhưng nếu không đưa cả bài lên mà quẳng độp cái đoạn trên ra, thì còn ra thể thống gì, phải không bạn? Vậy mới nói "Nói dậy mà không phải dậy"...Hehe
Được bac_gia sửa chữa / chuyển vào 20:09 ngày 14/05/2006

U.S. Senate Committee: Start No JSFs in 2008
By WILLIAM MATTHEWS
Concerned that the U.S. military continues to pour money into untested weapons, the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to slow down initial low-rate production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
A committee vote to cut $1.2 billion from the program in the 2007 defense authorization bill would stop the Pentagon from building the 16 aircraft planned for 2008.
It would not affect plans to start construction next year of five of the high-tech, single-engine stealthy jet fighters.
House members, too, said they want more testing of the Joint Strike Fighter, but they did not eliminate funding for the 16 planes.
The Defense Department asked Congress for $5.2 billion in 2007 funding for the JSF program. The House trimmed $241 million from the program, but then added $408 million to continue work on an alternative engine for the plane. That pushed the House total to $5.5 billion.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has vowed to try to restore the $1.2 billion cut by the Senate committee when the full Senate votes on the $517.7 billion authorization bill. That may not happen until June. JSFs are assembled in Fort Worth.
The Senate committee followed the advice of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which recommended in March against spending any â?oprocurement dollarsâ? on the JSF until more testing has been completed.
Michael Sullivan, the GAOâ?Ts director of acquisition and sourcing management, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March that the JSF program plans to begin â?olow-rate initial procurement in 2007 with less than 1 percent of the flight testing program completed and no production-representative prototypes build for the three JSF variants.â?
Sullivan warned that if production goes forward, critical features of the aircraft â?" such as its low observable or stealth capability, advanced mission systems and maintenance prognostics systems â?" will not have been tested before production begins.
Starting production before testing has led to problems in the past, Sullivan warned. The F-22 stealth fighter, the Comanche helicopter and the B-2 bomber all began production before completing much testing and all â?ofar exceeded the cost and delivery goals set at the start of their development programs,â? he said.
But Lockheed spokesman John Kent warns that withholding money and slowing the program will lead to â?oa tremendous balloon in the cost of the program.â? Kent said he could not provide a dollar estimate, but the cost increase would be â?overy large.â?
â?oWe need to have the program fully funded to stick to our schedule and meet our domestic and international commitments,â? he said.
Lockheed is building the JSF â?" which it calls the F-35 â?" for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and for eight allied countries.
One goal of the JSF program is to deliver an affordable fighter, he said. â?oYou cannot deliver a plane affordably by doing all the testing first.â?
At $256 billion for 2,443 planes, the JSF is the most expensive weapon program in U.S. history.
Kent expressed optimism that the Senate Armed Services Committee decision will be reversed. â?oItâ?Ts really early in the budget process,â? he said. â?oWe expect to see a lot of reports in the coming weeks and months with a variety of proposals about F-35 funding. Itâ?Ts a fluid process that we expect to be worked out. But what we will end up with, we donâ?Tt know.â?
Defense budget watchdog Christopher Hellman praised the Senate committee vote.
â?oThis is one of those rare examples where they are proceeding cautiously,â? said Hellman, who directs the Project on Military Spending Oversight.

Cái này là để thêm một tham khảo về việc chính phủ Mỹ không xem nhẹ F22 như ai đó phát biểu ở topic F18 vs Su35. Và rằng nếu như Carl Kopp, môt chuyên gia quân sự hàng đầu của Úc đại lợi vẫn còn đánh giá cao F22, và lấy nó làm trọng tâm, để duy trì cái gọi là "Air Dominance" của Mỹ và đồng minh trong nhiều thập kỉ tới, vậy thì không có lý gì mà coi F22 là một thất bại được. Hơn thế, cho tới thời điểm này, F22 là máy bay thế hệ 5 duy nhất trên thế giới đang in service. Hãy dành cho nó sự tôn trọng mà nó xứng đáng được hưởng.
PS: Bạn thân mến, cả cái bài loằng ngoằng ở trên, chỉ cần bạn chú ý vào đoạn mà tôi quote ở trên, vậy là được. Nhưng nếu không đưa cả bài lên mà quẳng độp cái đoạn trên ra, thì còn ra thể thống gì, phải không bạn? Vậy mới nói "Nói dậy mà không phải dậy"...Hehe
Được bac_gia sửa chữa / chuyển vào 20:09 ngày 14/05/2006
[/QUOTE]
Nhưng bác chơi nguyên bài tiếng Tây thế thì kiểu nông dân như em khó chơi lắm ạ.
PS: Bác đừng có động vào cái bác bên topic F18 vs Su35 ấy. Bác phải hiểu là cái gì do Mỹ sản xuất đêu là sai lầm, thất bại hết (tất nhiên độ thất bại còn tùy thuộc vào việc nó ăn cắp và copy bao nhiêu phần trăm công nghệ Nga Sô). Thế bác nhá.

Thôi các bác đừng chọc vào chú Tuất nữa! Mấy hôm nay tớ thấy bài chú Tuất viết mà chả buồn trả lời! Ai có thông tin như bác Bac_Gia này thì cứ đăng lên.
Box ta là box kỹ thuật, nhìn thông số kỹ thuật mãi chán thì qua đọc mấy bài viết của chú Tuất khoa văn học , báo chí giải trí cũng được. Được cái chú Tuất chăm chỉ , viết bài vừa nhiều vừa dài, thu hút được thêm nhiều thành viên, chả có gì xấu cả!!

Đây nữa bác này :
The F-22 Raptor is said to be invisible...until it isn''t
"Analysts liken fighter plane to a WWII Messerschmidt, saying it is a technological marvel with the latest weapons but that it will be poor in combat."
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00197

Hehe. Mấy bác này lý luận không có cơ sở khoa học, bảo vệ chính kiến bằng tình cảm. Đuối lý, bực mình vào đây xả bớt đây
Cần tu luyện thêm khi nói chuyện kĩ thuật.

Cho tôi xin lỗi những người giỏi tiếng anh ! hay tiếng Mỹ cũng đúng ! Tôi xin thưa với các vị rằng tôi chẳng yêu Nga mà cũng chẳng thiên vị Mỹ ! Nhưng tôi có mấy lời như thế này .Thứ nhất tôi rất gét cay gét đắng cái bọn nổi tiếng bằng quảng cáo các cụ nhà ta vẫn có câu "thùng rỗng thì hay kêu to" còn về Mỹ quảng cáo hay Nga quảng cáo thì ở đây ai cũng có cái đầu đủ khôn để nhận ra ! Còn những kẻ tin thì gọi la nghu dốt hoàn toàn đúng ! còn hỏi mấy ông ở đây ai dã h ọc qua truờng lớp nào ra hồn không? sem lền khoa học "tổng hợp" của Mỹ chưa chả có cái gì cả chỉ là toàn là coppy và đồ "tình báo"
tôi chỉ có vài lời như vậy hi vọng không bị soá để cho các bác đọc cho rõ chân lý mới là mãi mãi sự thật luôn không đổi cho dù người ta có bôi đen nó

lol thế thì cả thế giới này toàn 1 lũ ngu lol chả có ai khi mua 1 sản phẩm nào đó lại ko bị tác động bởi quảng cáo cả! Thế nó mới sinh ra cái môn gọi là Marketing

cái này thì thực sự là bias lol cho hỏi bác học trường lớp gì vậy? lol