What is the advantages in USA air forces than Russian air forces?

[Elmoktaeb]

What is the advantages in USA air forces than Russian air forces?
Is it the powerplant of american fighters or its speed or its range or its wing loading or its service ceiling ? and could you explain to me please What is the most important factor on those last thing for determining the best fighter?

[rjmaz1]

Design/Shaping, Aerodynamics, build quality, electronics and propulsion of the USA aircraft are all superior to the Russians.

Design/Shaping: Experience in stealth and the analysis of how radar reflects off curved surfaces gives the US an edge. This computer software developed from intense research and production stealth aircraft allow the US to have a large edge in stealth design.

Aerodyanmics: The US have a better understanding and better modelling software when it comes to Aerodynamics. This allows the US aircraft to make better/fewer compromises when it comes to aircraft aerodynamic design. Anyone can make an aircraft that can reach Mach 2.5, or perform 9G at 300knots, to do both is where its difficult.

Build quality: The US experience in alumnium and titanium manufacturer allow for a lighter stronger construction by using experience in load distribution. Decades of experience allow parts to be lighter without increasing the risk of failure. Tolerances of parts are far superior, partly due to the requirements of stealth. Reduced weight, gives increased speed, agility and range. All those one percenters start adding up to a large advantage.

Electronics: Western computer power has always been ahead of Russia due to large private investment. This allows for lighter more effecient systems, allowing for increased performance or reduced aircraft size.

Propulsion: The design and theory is more advanced so power to weight, level of compression and engine life are all superior in western designs.

Basically in summary aircraft like the 1980's produced SU-27 are using very similar technologies across the board and construction techniques similar to the 1960's produced F-4 phantoms. Aircraft like the 1970's produced Mig-25's are comparible to a scaled up 1950's produced F-104.

[nevidimka]

Design/Shaping, Aerodynamics, build quality, electronics and propulsion of the USA aircraft are all superior to the Russians.

Design/Shaping: Experience in stealth and the analysis of how radar reflects off curved surfaces gives the US an edge. This computer software developed from intense research and production stealth aircraft allow the US to have a large edge in stealth design.

Aerodyanmics: The US have a better understanding and better modelling software when it comes to Aerodynamics. This allows the US aircraft to make better/fewer compromises when it comes to aircraft aerodynamic design. Anyone can make an aircraft that can reach Mach 2.5, or perform 9G at 300knots, to do both is where its difficult.

Build quality: The US experience in alumnium and titanium manufacturer allow for a lighter stronger construction by using experience in load distribution. Decades of experience allow parts to be lighter without increasing the risk of failure. Tolerances of parts are far superior, partly due to the requirements of stealth. Reduced weight, gives increased speed, agility and range. All those one percenters start adding up to a large advantage.

Electronics: Western computer power has always been ahead of Russia due to large private investment. This allows for lighter more effecient systems, allowing for increased performance or reduced aircraft size.

Propulsion: The design and theory is more advanced so power to weight, level of compression and engine life are all superior in western designs.

Basically in summary aircraft like the 1980's produced SU-27 are using very similar technologies across the board and construction techniques similar to the 1960's produced F-4 phantoms. Aircraft like the 1970's produced Mig-25's are comparible to a scaled up 1950's produced F-104.


These are all highly debatable and inaccurate.

[Pro'forma]

RjMaz1:

This is more than brilliant. I couldn't have nothing more to say.
Excellent analyze and processing. University has left the seats.

[Todjaeger]

What is the advantages in USA air forces than Russian air forces?
Is it the powerplant of american fighters or its speed or its range or its wing loading or its service ceiling ? and could you explain to me please What is the most important factor on those last thing for determining the best fighter?

A few things to keep in mind. As part of the forum rules (http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php), Rule #3 prohibits "this vs. that" type threads which is how this one starts off sounding like.

Secondly, in both the USAF and Russian Air Force, there are a number of different types of aircraft, all with their own missions and roles to play. To ask a question of what advantages the USAF has, more information on what you want to find out is needed. Are you talking about advantages in overall capability? Or, are you questioning what advantages specific aircraft have?

What might be better to ask, is what is the USAF capable of doing, and what is the Russian Air Force capable of doing, and what are the two forces capable of sustaining.

-Cheers

[Feanor]

The Su-30MKI's delivered to India are practically on par with the Super Hornets currently serving (with AESA) due to the huge manoueverability advantage.

[battlensign]

These are all highly debatable and inaccurate.

From a point of pure logic: how can they at the same time be both inaccurate AND highly debatable? Surely it is only one or the other? (I.e something can be inaccurate/wrong or it can be a source of contention with no real firm conclusions/highly debatable).

Brett.

[nevidimka]

From a point of pure logic: how can they at the same time be both inaccurate AND highly debatable? Surely it is only one or the other? (I.e something can be inaccurate/wrong or it can be a source of contention with no real firm conclusions/highly debatable).

Brett.

Some of the points are highly debatable, and some are innacurate.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The USAF is miles ahead of the RuAF on a systems level. They bring more supportinng capability to the fight than the rest of the world combined, in terms of EW, ISTAR and other force multiplying capability (KC, Rivet Joint ect). Add to that the quity of the people, training, tactical capability, oparational doctrine and the quality and quantity of the platforms. Additionally there's VLO and strategic air power, the list goess on.

The USAF is miles ahead of the RuAF at an organizational level. As to which ones kit is better, well tod mentioned the forum rules.

[rjmaz1]

RjMaz1:

This is more than brilliant. I couldn't have nothing more to say.
Excellent analyze and processing. University has left the seats.
Thanks! Though someone from Russia would of course strongly disagree with my post :D

Of course this is only a platform comparison from a construction technology point of view.

Training and supporting assets as Ozzy Blizzard points out are just as important as the front line aircraft.

[Ths]

I agree with You.

I find it very pertinent of You to point out the importance of propulsion, and not throwing that advantage away by inattention to detail.

On the organisatorial level:

I generally think there is a better combined arms understanding in the west.
One thing is integrating the different arms of the army on a lower level - which has more or less led to the disbandment of the division as an operative organisatorial entity.

The integration of information allows air, land and seapower to integrate at lower level. The corps is indeed smaller today, but maintain the same hitting power.

A further development is the ability to integrate different nationalities into a unit. Working with 2-3 different nationalities in a brigade is a strength.

The integration in the air of the assets of different nations is a powerfull strategic tool. F.i. If the relevant information is accessible to all fighter pilots - irrespective of nationality - the ability to shift focus and employ AND ASSIGN reserves IN THE AIR - will allow less waste of resources.

Example: Infantry in Afghanistan has on a platoon level called close air support from strategic bombers. This case is a bit over the top; but illustrates the principle well enough - if the B-1 was heading back to base anyhow with unused ammo, then knocking out hostile pillboxes could be a sensible thing to do.

[Salty Dog]

The USAF is miles ahead of the RuAF on a systems level. They bring more supportinng capability to the fight than the rest of the world combined, in terms of EW, ISTAR and other force multiplying capability (KC, Rivet Joint ect). Add to that the quity of the people, training, tactical capability, oparational doctrine and the quality and quantity of the platforms. Additionally there's VLO and strategic air power, the list goess on.

The USAF is miles ahead of the RuAF at an organizational level. As to which ones kit is better, well tod mentioned the forum rules.

To compliment Ozzy, I must add the USAF is way ahead of the RuAF in terms of OpTempo which also implies Experience. The sheer number of TacAir sorties and hours flown by the USAF should be way far ahead, not to mention the flight hours per month for pilots.

As the topic is about "air forces" we can even take into account Navy, Marine, and Army "air forces".

Interesting article:

Is Russian Air Power Facing Up To Training Issues Part Two (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Is_Russian_Air_Power_Facing_Up_To_Training_Issues_ Part_Two_999.html)

[SABRE]

Apparently this thread qualifies for A vs B thing, which is banned on the forum due to flame wars we have had in the past. The thread is closed until its fate is decided by the moderators' board.