In which case, it’s fair to assume, they are probably right – the new Russian RAM is at least as good as what the US has on its aircraft.
I see you missed the meaning of the 😎 at the end of that statement. If the goal is VLO, then performance is the metric to judge by, not weight or cost(and we still don’t know the figures about them either).
There’s a cumulative effect involved.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you start with one airframe that has a frontal RCS in the .5 to .1m^2 range, and another that has a .001m^2 frontal RCS, and then hang external stores, the one that started with the higher RCS is going to still be disadvantaged. There’s no inconsistency.
All that SR-71 pilot would need to do is change his heading by a few degrees, and it’d ruin that Viggen pilot’s hopes of intercept.
F-15 RCS at 405 m2???
There’s no way that figure is anywhere near being accurate, and the other figures in there are pretty suspect too.
Seeing as how they’ve been able to examine F-22s and F-35s up close for comparison purposes no doubt. I would never accuse the Russians of boasting.:cool:
After the first phase of knocking down an enemy air defense system, and then moving to interdiction/CAS missions, DCA, etc… Once the main air defense threats have been neutralized, then the F-35 can carry external stores just like F-16/18s, Typhoons, Rafales, etc….
Less weight + cost = more = better.
At least in 1 way. You’ll never know just how good any of the RAM is, so leave it alone. I just assume that both a US and Russian scientist aren’t idiots. Hard for you, I know.
I don’t assume Russian scientists are idiots, but that doesn’t mean that they necessarily have the same technical know how in every field. You’re also assuming that the US tech is frozen, and hasn’t improved over time either.
Neither of us know how good either RAM variant is, but you’re the one that stated superiority, when you can’t even provide the comparisons that I asked for, and then use “I assume Russian scientists aren’t idiots” as proof.
Development and tech for the PAK-FA was being conceived in 2002. Other 5th gen conceptualization even earlier.
I’d say the most accurate assessment would be ~14 – 15 years (1986 – 2001)
The YF-22’s development started well before its first flight I would imagine.:cool:
Metric being WEIGHT and COST.
Source = some Russian link that I did not post.
It was on this forum, potentially a saga thread though. Don’t get your panties in a bunch over it.
I believe the gist of it was USA RAM = metallic // Russia RAM = carbon plastic.
Ah that explains it. Now how much does US RAM cost per cubic meter vs. Russian RAM, and how much does an equal amount of each weigh? Now the real tough question, in terms of superiority- how well does each variant work at attenuating radar signals?
When did the YF-22 first fly? When did the PAK FA prototype first fly? My memory may be a little hazy, and my math might be off but if you subtract 1990 from 2010, that adds up to 20.:cool::eek:
What metric are you using to judge the superiority? Sources?
For certain missions, stealth is less necessary. The plan is still to have 6 internal AAMs for when maximum stealth is necessary.
The S-3’s sensor suite worked well against the extremely noisy Soviet subs of the 1970s. But upgrades in sensor capability did not keep up with the newer quiet generations of subs. When the S-3s were retired, their sub-hunting ability was useless. Their last useful role was as tanker. Otherwise, they occupied valuble space on the flight deck. Let the old dog fade into the history books where it belongs.
They could still be valuable as ELINT birds, over the horizon targeting for anti-surface warfare, among some of the other tasks mentioned.
There are other missions that the S-3s could perform too aside form ASW or ISTAR, though.