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

He can also down multiple targets at the same time.

 

Not yet he can't that system still doesn't work.

 

It's in testing and it's very successful.




The bird was pulling negative Gs at the time. And before you go off on how it completely takes away ALL of his stealth, it does some, but not much. Not all F-35s will be packing the Aim-9X. In fact, most won't. I have no idea why they are even bothering to make it able to carry it in the first place. It shouldn't be in that kind of fight in the first place. If it did get in that kind of fight the pilot screwed the pooch long before that. A Good Pilot makes the pilot fight HIS fight and getting into a fight where the F-35 needs the Aim-9X means the F-35 Pilot made a few serious mistakes and just trying to bail himself out.

 

That was a joke... i don't know why I've got to specify it though...
But joking asside the SU-27 can be equiped with a rear firing P-73 system (modified R-73).

 

As long as it flies off a carrier and can carry some weapons, I don't care about mutli-targeting or stealth.
After that I want it to sell well.

 

Sounds nice except the P-73 doesn't exist as a missile.

 

What a load of utter nonsense. I actually work in this industry and we know the F22 and F35 very well. The Su 35 has an advantage in a horizontal one on one turning fight at WVR (within visual range) ranges and that's it. It could shoot down a single F22 by bleeding off all its energy and turning inside with thrust vectoring. After that it's a sitting duck for any wingman. Also it would require that F22 to knowingly approach that range, alone and to put itself at a disadvantage. That may happen once as a fluke if restrictive rules of engagement play a role. You can bet from then on they'll shoot first.

In any other scenario the F22 will utterly murder a Su 35. BVR the Su 35 has no chance at all. The F22 won't be detected before it can shoot several AMRAAMS. Almost all shoot-downs in the last 30 years have been BVR. And even WVR, the F22 stands a good chance if it fights in the vertical as it has superb thrust to weight and probably bleeds less energy. It can fire the Aim 9X at close ranges at a very high off-boresight angle, just like the Russian Archer. To top it all off USAF training is still vastly superior to that of the Russians, including WVR dogfighting.

As for carriers, they allow power projection anywhere in the world. It's basically a mobile base of operations that requires no friendly country to allow you to use its bases. Strategically, that is still a huge advantage and will remain that way for some time. And soon the F35C will allow interdiction missions from a carrier deep into enemy territory. Not to mention the marines who can forward deploy the F35B right near the front lines from a very short strip. The Chinese can somewhat keep carriers off their coast with anti-ship ballistic missiles, but even there, there are systems being developed to counter that. The Russians have no equivalent yet.

 

Brahmos 2.
Kalibr
Zircon
Bastion P
Oniks.
Sunburn.

They have loads of supersonic and hypersonic ship buster missiles.
They Df 21d the Chinese have uses their Sunburn guidance systems.
It's Russian tech. A SCUD.

 

I'm sorry but all this crap is just a trillion dollar air show.

Wars nowadays are being fought by guys with antique AK-47's in ten year old Toyota Trucks. We defeat them handily every time we send our drones out but it costs us ten thousand dollars to fire one bullet and they entire war hasn't cost them more than a few grand yet, so who do you think is really winning?

 

It costs them their lives.
That's enough.

 

Correct ...
But it was not only the Mig-21, it was more the sub-sonic Mig-17 which led the F-4 look bad. And that the fun came back leads also the issue of dogfight vs. BVR fight.... because that the F-4 had firstly no gun was this stupid thinking of that a gun is superfluos with these 4 x Sidewinder and 4 x Sparrow missiles. And here particularly the Mig-17 is the reason what let look BVR look rediculous...

But my point was, that the Iraqi Air Force of Saddam was in majority with those USSR jets equipped, where their opponent was mainly the F-4 and only the first F-15 and F-16 entered service. So the enemy in 1991 was everything but not modern equipped in the air.

 

And which of your opponents so far had similar equipment? Nobody ... because you did not have to deal with opponents of the same kind as Russia or China, who can defend themselves against it!

And your post also shows why you have such a ridiculously gigantic military budget, right?

 

what experts?

 

Who has drones? everybody now, I heard recently that Israel was shooting down drones from Hezbollah. What makes ours so expensive is we have the very latest ones which are capable of being either fully autonomous or operable from thousands of miles away. We have huge military budgets because of rampant corruption too

 

That's what I'm talking about. This is the main indicator of the military power of the country. And Russia in this indicator is not only not lagging behind the United States, but surpassing America. Russia has a natural and resource potential of 35% of the world's reserves. United States - 12%. The presence of dog hairdressers, stock market speculators or facebook has nothing to do with the military power of the state. Although they affect the GDP index.

 

You are not right. I always said that Harley Davidson is an excellent motorcycle. In Russia, do not do this.

 

And yet they are so much richer than you.
And the reason can only be this, they get on with everyone and you don't.

You should be 3 times richer than them but they are 3 times richer than you.
Something is very, very wrong here.

 

And then one wonders why Venezuela is so poor with its huge oil reserves ...

 

In the Falklands War the inferior air frame consistently won because it used Sidewinders,

 

I thought of a scene from a popular movie here in the US. Seems to be a perfect analogy.

 

Only one example. Ancient Rome was much richer than the barbarians. Is not it? In addition, human potential, financial potential and others were much larger than those of barbarians. But the barbarians destroyed Rome.

 

Yes. A good analogy. The American sword not will save from the Russian "Satan"

 

Not as often as Rome destroyed the barbarians.

Not even close.
As a general rule of history assume it went the other way.

 

LOL

Got the characters reversed. You see, an analogy is designed to parallel reality.

The guy with the sword is clearly the SU, with wings covered in weapons, and with all the swagger that goes with it. Haha, look at me little man, I'm tough and I have this big sword to kill you.

Indiana is clearly the F-22. Just kind of watches all that bluster, then just pops open a weapons bay, and obliterates the target.

But I understand why you would run from that obvious fact.

 

This is demagogy. You well understand what I'm talking about. But if you do not fit the example of Rome. You can remember about Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia ... Somalia ... I can show a lot of examples. But if you are want to an example from the history of Russia ... For example, intervention in 1918-1921. Russia was completely exhausted by the First World War and the Revolution. In addition, at this time in Russia there was a civil war. Soviet Russia was in complete economic isolation. The factories and factories were destroyed. In Russia there was a famine. 14 countries attacked Russia. Including Britain (by the way, the first concentration camp in Russia was created by the British in Arkhangelsk for the genocide of Russians), the United States, France, Canada, Australia, Germany, Poland, Italy .... Total 14 countries attacked Russia. In the end, they all lost. Russia remained the winner.
How do you think these 14 countries were richer than Soviet Russia at the time? Who had more GDP ?.