US F-22s came face-to-face with Russia's top fighter near Alaska and were at a major disadvantage

As usual, the SU-35's performance is given with the stripped, unloaded, no weapons on board, little fuel, pretty much ready for the air show bird. With it in full combat mode, flying that far from home, he is going to be carrying at least 6 external missiles, 2 drop tanks, full internal full tanks. His performance will be so far below his "Rated" performance that he will be at the disadvantage. And if he does drop those tanks, that's the first sign of an aggressive action enabling the F-22 to place some separation. Even then, the SU-35 is still going to be heavy. The F-22 is rated with full fuel and all weapons. At the initial contact, the F-22 has the advantage. And the only way the F-22 loses that advantage is if he throws it away. If there is two you can see, there are probably 2 you can't see as well.

People keep thinking that the SU-35 can use it's thrust vectoring in a fight. It can if the fight slows down. Let's say a lowly F-15 is pitted against it in the same scenario. The F-15 always fights at near subsonic speeds. The problem with thrust vectoring is, you can't use it at near subsonic unless you want to turn your pilot into mush. The F-15 is going to be doing initial turns at .95+ Gs and then back it off to a sustained 7.5+ to keep the pilot conscious. The SU-35 will have the same limitations due to being a piloted fighter. The SU has slightly more thrust but weigh slightly more so the thrust to weight is very close and the SU inches out the time to climb barely. If the SU wants to force the fight so it can get the benefit of the thrust vectoring it's going to have to get the cooperation from the F-15 and that would mean there would have to one very stupid Eagle Driver involved. Don't look for that to happen. If the SU decides to do it anyway, the F-15 nails him. It will end up a fight at near transonic speeds and the skill of the Pilot and nothing else. There is still a lot of Talons and Beak left in the old Eagle.

They should be using the F-15 for these types of encounters. The F-15 covers all the rules, costs less to operate, and can still do the mission.

 

I'd forgotten about taxing. That does indeed raise more money than trade.

I've been spam linking to a great lecture on the fall of the Roman Empire I watched yesterday.
Different take on it from yours. But they always are.

 

Sure thing, much better to believe a russian troll.

 

So, I'm going to comment on an interesting thing. The assumption that because a country adopts one platform over another that the adopted platform is superior.

That is fundamentally untrue. It has to do with what is offered: full vs export, parts, etc. And then you get into the politics and pricing. For instance, perhaps the Russians are offering their system at 1 million a missile and the US 10 million a missile. The end user may go 'hey I can get more missiles. They may not be good, but enough of them will work'. And the politics side: Most major arm supplying countries have lists of people they will sell full service products to. These are often different then the ones the other country will sell to.

TLDR Selecting a weapon systems is not just which one is better.

 

Not me. I don't call the shots.

 

If the electorate is told it can win a war with Russia easily, it will call for one, or elect people who call for one without worry.
Advocate for what you wish for.

 

With such old tech, our planes should have had better counter measures that worked.

 

The main problem with that F117 is that the pilot kept using the same flight path and speed, which meant the Serbs were able to deduce when and where it would pass and monitor its path and hit it. It was also known from which base he flew off. In a shooting war with Russia, the USA wouldn't be that reckless.

And stealth doesn't mean invisible, it just mean that you're harder to identify and get a radar lock on.
You can still be targeted visually or by other means.

 

LMAO.

They just timed it.

Placed two missiles in exactly the right spot in the sky at exactly the right time.
Like a giant aerial IED set to an egg timer.

 

More likely they knew when to switch on their radar and hope to catch the f117 with its bomb bay open, when its radar cross section was raised. Which is what the person operating the battery said was how they caught the F117.

For the F22, I know they have taken care to lower this observability, but when the missile is launched is a time when it is most likely to be noticed. The question is if this is enough time to lock on and shoot down the plane.

 

The F-22 is a fancy Alpha Romeo
when a Ford is needed.


Consider WW2. The Nazis fielded more advanced weapons but fielded more Fords.


I seriously wonder if we are missing out on electromagnetic vulnerability.
Like a Prius hacked while in motion or USN Destroyers bumping into cargo ships at night.


It use to be the Missile Gap.
I wonder about the Electromagnetic Warfare Gap.

 

Try again and maybe use some facts.

The Tupolev Tu-95 (Russian: Туполев Ту-95; NATO reporting name: "Bear") is a large, four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber and missile platform. First flown in 1952, the Tu-95 entered service with the Soviet Union in 1956 and is expected to serve the Russian Aerospace Forces until at least 2040.[1]


Below is Russia's entire bomber fleet. All 126 of them.

Tupolev Tu-22M USSR Jet Bomber 1972 60 Currently being upgraded[1][39]
Tupolev Tu-95 USSR Propeller Bomber 1956 50 Currently being upgraded[40][41]
Tupolev Tu-160 USSR/Russia Jet Bomber 1987 16 16 Currently being upgraded[1][44]

 

Are you sure that is a bomber?
Looks like a marine radar under the nose.

It's a TU 95, but it's not a bomber. Sorry.
It's a sub hunter off the coast of Finland.


Bomber looks like this.


Maritime patrol plane looks like this.



The white bulge under the nose is a sea scanning radar.


It does the same role as this does in your air force.

 

AA Radars are switched off until plane is spotted. Then switch on and fire.
Switch off again.



I heard the opposite. I heard F22 was stealth lite. That stealth was reduced from F117 to make it into a fighter with maneuverability instead of a flying brick.

 

More of less of a change in cross section when opening bay doors.

 

I don't think those two F 117's were bombing anything when they got shot down.
No mention of that anywhere. Maybe they were. I don't know.



Essentially, bigger wings. More surface area to pull maneuvers with.
More surface area = larger forces to play with.

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot in it.
780 square ft on the F117 vs 840 on the F22.

The F22 is the bigger plane. 10% bigger?
That's got to be 10% more Radar Cross Section hasn't it?

 

In WW II, the Americans were cranking out a new plane every 60 seconds. Something like 80% of all military production worldwide was by the U.S. in 1945.

My numbers may be slightly off, but you get the idea. We buried them in Fords.

Only one result was possible in that war.

 

There are two major versions of the TU-95. The TU-95M and the TU-95SM.

The TU-95M is a Naval Maritime version that patrols for subs and ships. It's loaded to counteract these.

The TU-95SM is the Strategic Bomber capable of holding freefall bombs and long ranged missiles. The bulk of the TU-95 inventory is made of the SM version. The SM version is the one that is patrolling the Nato countries and is intercepted almost on a daily basis. It's been going on for the last almost 70 years or so. It's more like a game. Yes, but that game is played dead serious.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-C...28101&sr=8-1&keywords=black+book+of+communism

https://www.amazon.com/Disinformati...preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Katyn forest, ukraine starvation, mass slaughter/genocide campaigns in chechnya, georgia, syrian...TWENTY-ONE nations occupied by the russian army, pol pot, mao...

I don't know which would be worse, being one of the few honest russians in the world who have to apologize for my country's unimaginable crimes, or being a muslim and having to apologize for 14 centuries of islamic genocide, terrorism and war.

Tough call indeed.

 

Your quoted story does not support your silly assertion, as usual. That's what I think about it.

 

Sure thing, kid...did that come from pravda or RT?

We know both are incredibly reliable.

 

No hard to have large numbers of soldiers when you use a conscript (read: slave) army.

 

To me, it should be common sense if I had a foriegn fighter jet on my side that I'm doing somwthing wrong. I shouldn't have to be shown that the jet following me is armed.

 

The Serbs also had to salvo a number of missiles to get a hit because they couldn't lock on. The only reason they even had the chance is because allied planners stupidly kept flying aircraft through the same corridors night after night.

 

Still hard to fight them however. They are all trained military men.