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

Why do you hate them?

They have always been in the maritime game.
It's just before they used to be in the strategic nuclear bombing game too.
Like you guys with your B 52's.

ICBM's took over from that before I was born.

 

Are you saying that you believe that we use the Buffs for Maritime? Newsflash: We never have. Maritime is done by a host of other Airframes, just not the Buffs, B-1s or B-2s. The advantage the US has over the Russians is that we have many many more Aircraft to choose from and can specialize the aircraft used. Like we use the P-3, P-8, just to name 2. Just like not all TU-95s are the S versions.

There are only 58 TU-95s in operation by the Russians in service today. They are all the TU-95SMs and SMSs armed with Nuclear tipped cruise missiles. You are mistaking the TU-142 for the TU-95 which is a newer version of the TU-95 and is used for Maritime operation. You can tell a 142 by the addition of the blister pack on the belly and the bulge on the tail section. But the nose sections are identical.

The Bear may be old,stand out like a beacon in the night and all that but it still has those standoff missiles and can launch at least 1500 miles from it's intended target making it more than formidable. Like the Buff,it still counts.

 

The Soviets didn't get into the Maritime game until after 1963. They modified a TU-95 dramatically by adding to it's length, adding a blister to it's under belly, adding a sensor to the top of it's vertical stab and a few other things and renamed it the TU-142. They didn't actually modify an existing TU-95, they built a brand new Aircraft. It's still called the Bear. The TU-95 has NEVER been used as in Maritime. The picture you provided lacked all the features that the TU-142 has therefore, it is a TU-95 Bear Bomber.

 

You projecting your inner state on other people. Even the Gospel writes this. Do not judge by yourself

 

Very funny. Write more.

 

Finally you are trying to think. And although for you this is a difficult activity, and until you can not think properly and logically, but this is already progress. Do not give up. If you continue to learn to think, in a few years you will definitely learn.

 

No I am projecting my assessment accreted over a number of years of postings and opinions.

I can tell you I regularly judge myself. Especially when i make mistakes or in situations with serious outcomes. How else can one address their weaknesses and flaws?

 

That's why I linked you images to a P3

Thanks for your corrections. I wasn't up to speed on the Alaskan stuff at all.

 

Your imagination is over-active and under-informed.

 

You think that I am the boss of "Business insider"? And I come up with such posts? Are you all right with your head?

 

Oh they're just playing, for god's sake militarily bloated garrison states will be militarily bloated garrison states, where's the harm?

Then again it's all good fun until somebody loses an Aircraft Carrier.

Or Juneau

 

Yes I am ... because every time you find in what ever source ... good one or crap one ... something where is written that whatever kind of Russian weapon system is great / better as US to show it. Why please? What is your intention for this bullcrap?

Because there are enough American trolls running around thinking and claiming that all Russian weapon systems are just scrap? Let her write such a bull **** and think and laugh about it!

Take the example of the Iraqi Air Force where loud idiots are so inferior, because the almost exclusively Russian jets of Saddam were just practice targets for the US jets and that is why all Russian jets are basically scrap out loud to them!
You, me and many others with a little bit brain know that this assertion is total bulljust a few years later, the same Mig-29, where victims were in Iraq, was no longer a victim. Since she was flown by excellently trained Serbian pilots and had the great F-15 and F-16 and their awesome AIM-120 missile look ridiculous!****:
1. With the exception of a few Mig-29s, most of the jets were from an era where the US counterpart was not F-15,16 or 18, but F-4 Phantom!
And that the Serbs had no chance in the air war, simply because they fought against a gigantic superior force.
Conclusion: Woe to you if an air force with Mig-29 and the other Russian jets becomes an enemy, where is just as strong and big ... because that has never happened to the Americans since the Korean War in the 1950's!
2.The training of the Iraqi pilots was also not the best and if the pilot is not good, even the best aircraft brings nothing and is a victim!
3.

 

If you talk about Iraq, you probably know that the victory the American army - banal bought. The generals of Saddam Hussein did not resist with the American military. If the Iraqis decided to resist, the US military could be drowned in its blood. Because the war in the desert has its own characteristics. And this is a very serious matter. In addition, you also know that you can have an advantage in the air, but while the occupation army does not control land territory, the war can not be considered won. Remember Vietnam, Cuba, Overlord, or the Ardennes operation - if the generals do not sell their homeland, the American army is defeated.
Therefore, setting Iraq as an example does not make sense. For there everyone decided money. But we are talking about the advantages or disadvantages of weapons. In this case, planes.

And yet, the weak-minded often give an example of GDP. They say that Russia's GDP is much lower than the US GDP. And so people with a lack of intelligence conclude that the US (which has a large GDP) will necessarily win Russia (which has much less GDP).
The lack of a brain in such people does not allow them to look at the structure of GDP. For example. disappear Facebook, Amazon, Apple, dog hairdressers ... and so on - no one can notice. Gazprom will disappear, it is a disaster for humanity. But in brainless minds, facebook costs more than Gazprom. Crazy people consider Amazon, Apple and others more important than nickel, titanium, molybdenum ..., oil, gas ... and so on. Sometimes I ask such crazy people - how, for example, Facebook or Instagram, Twitter, etc. can help during the war? But they continue to write some rubbish. Even historical examples - the Great Roman Empire, with a magnificent army was destroyed by the Barbarians. Although the GDP of the Roman Empire was many times higher than the GDP of the barbarians. (I do not know - did the barbarians have any GDP at all?) However, if there is no brain, this is not surprising.
The same applies to weapons. For example, in wartime, it's better to have a Kalashnikov assault rifle than any other machine. Because the Kalashnikov assault rifle is cheap in production, easy to manufacture, and even a schoolboy who has never dealt with a weapon can use it - dismantle and assemble, clean and shoot ...

 

If Gazprom disappears, I won't notice.
If Amazon does I will.

Hence it's value to me.

America has plenty of it's own natural resources, they don't need yours.
Rich people in the world are rich without you.

I like Russian weapons. It's something your people do well.
But we make our own and the ones we make are good enough to do the job.

 

I dont think Destroyer of Illusions would ever admit that there are things n the United states arsenal that are superior to the Russians even though it is true. Just as there are things in the Russian that is supperior to the USA's. All he posts is propaganda without any intention of actually discussing issues.

 

It's also evident at this point that he isn't even russian, he's just playing one for the peanut gallery like most of the more colorful character on this site.

 

Maybe a Russian jet might have an advantage if while flying side by side, one decides to engage. That's not how air fights generally begin. An A-10 warthog might have an advantage over the Russian fighter in the same scenario with an even tighter turning radius.

 

Let the missiles do the turning.

 

The MIG-21 was an equal adversary to the F-4 when flew by a competent pilot. They showed the US the error of its way and resulted in putting a gun back into the F-4. The US was concerned about the ratio of planes loss in dogfights going down so much and started training programs to rectify.

 

Top Gun school.

 

I don't know much about air to air missile technology but I don't believe that when two jets are flying side by side, that one can shoot the other with a missile.

 

Russia will bring back dorsal and ventral turrets. It'll be another great advantage over the F22! Aerodynamics be damned...

 

Turn circle of a missile is incredible compared to that of a plane.
No squishy human parts. Geforces can be higher.

1:16


Vapour trail here demonstrates maneuverability,
Missile can pretty much spin on the spot. Maintain a stationary position. Effective turn circle =0



What's going on in the test above is the missile is flying round in circles to bleed off fuel and simulate a long range test without having to go too far to revover the missile

 

Careful there Writer. Speaking down to others may not be the way to go.. You really want to get into it with a Retire Air Force Member who is also a Military Historian? I don't write nearly as well as you but I can get my points across without belittling the other guy usually.

 

Then you would be wrong. If a F-35 pilot can place his pipper on the target, the missile can hit it. If they are side by side, if he can see it,he can hit it.