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

The F22 is also a flying surveillance platform.

And thanks to Raytheon, the Russian wouldn't be able to fire a missile that has a range far enough out to hit an F22 that has already launched its own long range missile.

In other words, the F22 can fire at the Russian long before the Russian can fire back because the Russian missiles don't have the range that the US missiles have.

So...

The F22 can see the Russian long before they know that the F22 is there, if at all.
The F22 can fire a long range missile with a distance that the Russian missile can't match.
The F22 can launch missiles from other platforms and even from the ground.

 

The data sharing system the F22 has, where it can target missiles from other platforms, this is a copy of Russian technology.
They have had it for years.

All their aircraft do it.
Blackshark helicopters use it, SU jets use it.

In jets they used to promote it as a counter to AWACS.

Basically it's a Russian tactic you copied.

Their longest range Air to Air missile is 240 miles.
Double any of yours.

The standard mid range one is slightly longer range than AIM.


I agree that the F22 should have the detection advantage. See before it is seen.
Let's investigate.


So these are the detection ranges for RADAR on the SU 35.

If F 22 has a radar cross section of 0.5 metres or greater, we can expect it to be visible to enemy Radar before entering firing range.

In which case the enemy with the longer range weapons, has the advantage.
However the R77 range advantage over AMRAAM is measured in seconds. It's academic. I assume fire could be returned.

So it hinges on RADAR cross section.

The F 117, was once described as having the RADAR cross section of a golf ball.
If this was true, an SU 35 would be able to detect it at a range of 100-150 Nautical miles.
So it would be aware of an F 117 before entering AMRAAM firing range.
It would also have a comparable missile with slight range advantage to use it self.
However we are discussing a matter of seconds of advanced notice. Not minutes.

So the big two questions.
Is the F 117 RADAR profile really gold ball sized or above and is the F 22 more or less stealthy than this?

I don't know, you don't know, both Russian and American air forces, do know.

If it isn't the SU 35 is the superior combat aircraft for about 1/7th of the price.
If it is, it's the stealth assassin. Worth every penny.

 

I don't think you understand about the surveillance capabilities of the F22.

I wouldn't want to be a Russian or Chinese fighter pilot.

 

I think you beaucoup dinky dow

 

We can see, Comrade, you're not getting with our program.

 

Feel free to enlighten me.

Can it or any other US weapons platform get close enough to fire a missile undetected?

Sure it can hang out of range undetected.
But it can't do anything from there other than watch.

It can target for other missiles that also haven't got the range, but what's the point?
You are planning on using this as a spyplane or a combat aircraft?

 

Hearing the words Russia and technology used in the same sentence, it always makes me laugh. I examined a MIG 17 that was shot down in Vietnam. It still had a tube radio in it. Their missile technology is so poor that they shoot their missiles in salvos. We saw how their equipment fared against US jets in the Israeli conflicts. Their bombers are still prop jobs. Their air force isn't half as big as the US and is the oldest in Asia. The clip below rates their air force.

http://listographic.com/10-powerful-air-force

 

Their AA systems raped US built jets in Israeli conflicts.

Their bombers are all jets.
The those big Bears you see flying are maritime patrols. Sub hunters.
Yours use props for that too.

Yom Kippur War. From wiki

Official Israeli Air Force losses of the war number at 102 aircraft, including 32 F-4 Phantoms, 53 A-4 Skyhawks, 11 Dassault Mirages, and 6 IAI Sa'ars, although other accounts suggest as many as 128 Israeli aircraft were lost.




They shot an Israeli F 35 down just the other week.
First combat mission for the F35, an old Soviet missile got it.

 

And lets not forget the iraq war. Saddam had the 4-5th largest army fully based on russian equipment and it was a shootin gallary for US & allies troops.

The french pushed trough and captured an entire Iraqi Mechanised Infantry Division with their Light Armoured Division .

The US had over the entire war a rate of a 100 to 1 .

 

Do not believe the propaganda of Western media. The Russian radar is not inferior to the American radar. And for example, Russian air defense systems far surpass American ones. Therefore, Saudi Arabia, Turkey (a member of NATO, by the way) India, Malaysia and others prefers the Russian S-400.

 

Saudi Arabia, Turkey (a member of NATO, by the way) India, Malaysia and others prefers the Russian S-400.

 

Does your comment make sense? Or is it a random set of letters?

 

In medicine, this is called "hysterics."

And by the way, why did your military flew out of Vietnam with the infamy of the vanquished?
On January 27, 1973, after four years of negotiations in Paris, the Agreement on the Cessation of War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam was signed. According to the document, the US troops, having lost 58 thousand people since 1965, recognized the victory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and left the country.

 

the whole point of F22 is engage enemy craft BVR, within visual range, Russia SU35 does have advantage in dog fight. in peace time, both country jet will stay WVR for warning purpose.

 

Personally, I find these from time to time by Destroyer comming things in military issues as now just funny and cute .... somehow there seems to exist a kind of superfluous inferiority complex ... no idea.

But once purely on facts, we have a thing where you can discuss endlessly ... without result = the opinions remain unchanged.

Here we have two opposing views on air combat management ... and the Russian view is largely shared by most Europeans such as the British, French, Germans, Swedes, and so on.

Thanks to the AIM-120 missile (or/and maybe follower in development) and also because of the stealth ability in aerial combat, the US has focused on the "Beyond Visible Range" (BVR) and has given the dog fight a subordinate role. However, the US is not quite as stupid here as the last time when they introduced the F-4 Phantom in the 1960's without a cannon because at BVR with 4 x Sidewinders and 4 x Sparrows = cannon is superfluous in their view ... until they got a terrible hit in Vietnam by Mig-17 and Mig-21 and the Phantoms all subsequently cannons received suddenly.

The Russians (and Europeans) are less stealthy with their jets ... even they could be too. This may have financial reasons as well, but in the main it is a different way of thinking about air combat as in the US.
Whether stealthy or not is in their view more of a question of sensors to detect the enemy early enough and as far as the missiles and the weapon range, so this is in BVR full comparable to the US (the Europeans also build and use the AIM-120, respectively, also have their own comparable missiles ). For these reasons too, they put here much more on the Dog Fight as the US, because their opinion is that BVR will work only conditionally ... despite stealth.
This also means that most Russian aircraft and also Europeans such as the Typhoon or Rafale are significantly more agile than the F-22 in the dog fight, but also more as the F-15.
(Please do not deny, this was even by high brass of USAF offically told, but "excused" with BVR priority)

This should only be seen as a neutral statement of the difference!

Of course I have my opinion which is better, as you have your opinion and others have their opinion ... but a discussion about what is better is superfluous, because it leads to no result. This is also because that all comes only to a result when either the US or Russia on a notable opponent (who is not a pure sparings partner) and with corresponding modern aircraft ind considerable numbers and with the other doctrine ... or - hopefully nobody wants ... both meet directly in a war.

 

When Reagan signed all the arms and peace treaties on the basis of the MAD doctrine this represented a big threat to the Military Industrial Complex. Peace is not good for profits and nor was this the MAD doctrine.

Before the ink was even dry the war lobby got hard to work. Soon after Reagan dropped this doctrine and initiated "Star Wars" - The Strategic Defense Initiative .. which worked hard to create the "necessary illusion" that a nuclear war was winnable.

Since then it has been critical to create enemies to keep up public support for plowing Trillions of dollars into the Military Industrial Complex.

The reality is that there were no "enemies" that justified this spend. The "War on Terror" - the idea that we had to massively increase Total Military spending on the basis of these rag tag bands of Islamist Jihadists- is a preposterous falsehood.

The world changed with the advent of nukes. For all of human history prior to this event - if your economy faltered you could just attack your neighbor and take their stuff.

This is no longer realistic as the Return on Investment (ROI) is so negative (in the case of attacking a nuclear superpower) that it would constitute madness.

The global chessboard has changed. The strongest piece on the board is no longer "Military". The Strongest piece is economic.

Viewing our position on the board with the old valuation is then a big blunder - and this is exactly what we are doing.

 

If it's so easy to take out a stealth fighter, how f'ing stupid are the Russians to develop their...


Sukhoi Su-57

 

It is not that Stealth does not give an advantage - and even more so against an unsophisticated adversary. There is no doubt that stealth makes a plane harder to detect.

The problem is when you overestimate that advantage and base your military strategy on that overestimation - your strategy is based on a false paradigm.

 

I was responding to this...

For getting about the 100 million who were murdered by their own communist governments, during the Cold War 70 proxy wars were fought between 1944 to 1992 just about all started by the Soviet Union.

Both the Vietnam War and the Soviet-Afghan wars were proxy wars of the Cold War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars#Cold_War_proxy_wars

 

What happened wasn't so much that you got to take their stuff so much as you get to trade with them afterwards.

Wars open trade.

 

Having developed it, are they going to continue with it, or like America with the F22 are they going to try it out then drop it?
Time will tell.

 

Why 100 million? Why not 100 billion? Or why not 100 trillion?

 

HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?*

Death by Government

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

 

Correct and or tax them as a vassal state. It was not rampaging through cities that was responsible for the success of Alexander the Great and Rome.

Rome for example would show up at the city gates - summon the leaders - and say "you have 2 choices - 1) you can become part of the Roman club, trade with Rome, have a chance at Roman citizenship receive Roman protection and so on - you will pay a small tax and grant conscription. 2) we will come in and destroy your entire city and kill all of you.

Many chose option 1. Most battles were won without a shot being fired or a drop of blood spilled.

The story of history is that - Technological innovation leads to military superiority which leads to economic hegemony. A couple of books that detail this cycle in history are "Blood in the Streets" and "The Great Reckoning" .. both are written by James Dale Davidson and Sir/Lord William Reec-Moog. The first book was written in the late 80's by the time the second book came out in the early 90's Moog had been "Lorded". He was Editor of the London Times - second most powerful newspaper in the world .. and chairman of the BBC.

In the second book they predict the housing bubble ... not via some crystal ball but just outlining the natural cycle of rise and fall of empire.

In Bold - is the rise. The fall goes something like this. The natural tendency of technology is to spread. Over time the enemy gets the technology and so the cost of projecting power increases with time.

One example was the British. They had the gatling gun. With one gunship you could pretty much take over an entire African nation - fighting back with sticks and stones. The ROI is very high.

Decades later the enemy gets the gun (think storming a hill defended by machine gun turrents in WW2). Historically the machine gun has turned out to be a much better defensive than offensive weapon.

Now you can not just send one gunship. You have to send an entire armada .. and you will take heavy casualties .. and this is expensive.

The cost of projecting power increases with time. Exactly the same thing happened to Rome. Trying to maintain hegemony broke the bank.

The same thing is happening now. Pissant Iraq - a nation that had been decimated in a war 10 years earlier and had an arms embargo and sanctions ever since. When we went into Bagdad the people did not even fight back. Our soldiers walked through the streets unimpeded. No ambushes, mines .. nothing.

YET - this war ended up costing Trillions - and for what. The Return on investment was negative. What have we accomplished in 16 years in Afghanistan - The Taliban is as strong as ever and the flow of Opium has increased dramatically.

God forbid we go up against Iran. Sure .. we can win .. but at what cost.

This is why modern missile technology is such a game changer. It is why after the wall fell - and Russia realized they could not compete with the US plane for plane - ship for ship - they focused their resources on missile and other niche technologies. You can build a whole lot of anti ship missiles (1 million a pop) for the price of a 15 Billion dollar aircraft carrier - never mind the cost of the group and operational costs.

In the 1990's they came out with the "Sunburn". This was a supersonic sea skimming anti ship missile. The missile is detected (such that defensive action can be taken) as it breaks the horizon. At this point the ship has 40-50 seconds to react. At the time we had no defense and this was at least a decade more advanced than anything we had.

The later versions ONIK's were faster, smart, stealthy and would take evasive maneuvers prior to impact. The increased speed reduced the reaction time down to 20-30 seconds.

Russia began working with India and China on missile technology (India in the early 3rd millennium) .. India's version is the brahmos.

Great .. so now we have 3 nation states working on this technology. Now they are introducing "hypersonic" missiles.

We have caught up somewhat in relation having similar missile technology. That said ... India tested a hypersonic missile before we did. The Russian variants Zircon and Kinzhal have been the subject of serious concern - before congress - by our Generals.

The cost of projecting power increases with time. We are going down exactly the same path as previous empires - running up massive debt in a losing effort to maintain hegemony. A path that is causing the rapid decline of the US economic empire as we know it.