wrightwingUSA/NATO has right to deploy ABM components on any teritory where owner has no objections. They should not need Russian approval..
..Just as Russia has perfect right to deploy any military hardware its wants in Kalingrad, and aim it at what ever it wants to aim at. Further more US by the same principles should not object in any way, should Russia decide to deploy Strategic Missiles or Bombers to say.. i dont know… Cuba or Venezuela… so long as those two governments are happy to have them 😉
PS: Personally I grow hope that more open Obama white house will engage Iran and N.Korea in direct talks and give assurances that USA has no hostile intentions and together with major players (EU, China, Japan Russia) take stick and carrot approach.. on one hand threaten with real sanctions, on the other offer incentives. Hopefully there should not be need for colosal waste of money that is ABM , which in best case scenario does not offer guaranteed protection even against few incoming missiles.
People on these forums seem to have detached them self from reality.. we are in greatest economic crisis since great depression and main concearn to some people here is whether or not enough F22s will be built.. to satisfy their own warped soldier boy fetishes. Dont get me wrong same goes for Russian,Indian, Pakistan,China fan boys… If I see one more “PAKFA will be…” thread before some real images/specs are out,…. ill loose it.
There’s a big difference in having defensive missiles nearby, and having offensive nukes. This is not an analogous situation in the least, as a GBI won’t be launched into Russia, nor will any civilian/military targets be threatened by them.
wrightwingOK. Slowly and calmly:
First strike means less missiles to fire against CONUS, or NATO, or whatever. Combined with Ohios in the North and BMD in Poland, Alaska and the US, it kinda lessens your retaliatory potential.Well, me, for example, living in Europe. I don’t want to have Pershing-redux again in my vicinity 😉
A big NO. Cruise missiles are potentially nuclear anyway – your opponent knows it. Bombers need reaction and arming time – it’s not a first strike weapon, and your opponent knows it.
Missiles in silos that you don’t see, don’t know and don’t monitor (including max. numbers) are another thing.It’s not nonense, it’s hypothetical – and technically feasible, and technically feasible without anyone noticing. The BMD component in Poland is technically speaking an IRBM on steroids.
The combination of hypothetical-feasible notions means the death of MAD.Well, Russia never had colonies in the way you western guys had, otherwise they would all speak Russian and still have Medvedev as a nominal head of the Soviet Commonwealth 😀
As for forging their “own” destinies, I’m very sad about the fact that they don’t think about their own national interests but only foreign ones (both ways).
We have offered to have joint systems. We have offered to let the Russians look at the sites. They’re not interested in playing ball- they just want to be contrarian, as they’d rather make money arming lunatics, than joining the rest of the West in peaceful coexistence.
wrightwingWhatever he meant by that is not whatever you perceive which is not whatever I understand….
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/to+say+the+least
–to say the least
to not mention as much as you could about something. (i.e.)The dinner was tasteless, to say the least.
wrightwingNaah, that would be third after Tu-160 :diablo:
I much prefer the lines of the B-1B to those of the Tu-160 or Tu-22. The Mirage IV is pretty sexy too though.
wrightwingbetter than the Su-35BM i do not believe it (the Su-35 has supercruise uprated engines and thrust vectoring), the Su-35BM is much better and the MiG-35 must be better too (same as the Su-35).
What kind of load out will the Su-35 be able to supercruise with, and for what range?
wrightwingYES… Canard!! Not to mention specially design area to reduce radar cross section. 4th generation fighter where have this kind of features?
U don’t believe ask, Dassault or BAE.. :diablo:
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/images/viggen_lg.jpg
So would this be a 4.5 gen aircraft then?:rolleyes:
wrightwingSo in your language:
“as good as” means “better”
😀
Just to be accurate, it said “as good, to say the least…”.
wrightwingThe F-35 is a pathetic fighter compared to the F-22, its no effort to “counter” such a pedestrian performer. There’s a reason it’s the Joint Strike Fighter. It’s no Air Dominance fighter. It’s stealth is worse, it can’t even super cruise, it cant carry many AAMs, the list goes on. Simply because its newer doesn’t enter into it.
Just in case you missed this link in the F-15 thread-
http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html
I wouldn’t write the F-35 off as a dog just yet.
wrightwingKh-35 flys at low altitute of 1.5m. (there was video about it) and it has range of 130km (newer versions could be more). From low flying aircraft it is difficult to intercept at those ranges for SAM.
That’s what RAM, Phalanx, ESSM, and ECM/Chaff are for, should the missiles get through outer defences.
wrightwingLOL! I think i will trust pilots rather than this statment any time. 😀
Agility allows for engagement, pulling out of it, avoidance of threat etc.
Best example, it takes the current generation of AAM 3 X the target G capacities to get a kill, an aircraft maneuvering with a hard limit of 7.5 or 7.0g is likely to be unable to escape even out of the AAM NEZ.
Enough with silly excuses for the design faults of the F-35. :diablo:
The F-35 is a 9g aircraft, just in case you’re referring to the self imposed limits the USMC/USN have put on their versions.:cool:
Here’s a good article for those that haven’t already seen it-
http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html
wrightwingSigh, you missed the irony in the post..I admit sarcasm really doesn’t come out well in written post.
You see, when Cope India 04 leaks occured, you guys went ballistic, saying how F-15s were ‘regular’ unit flown by rookie pilots, they didn’t have AESA, no AWACS3:1 ratio, no AAMRAM blah blah..(BTW I have the photographs of pilots who flew in COPEINDIA 04…many of them are not rookies…) completely discounting the fact that IAF never had AESA, AWACS and BVRAM rules applied to them too. Then came the hog wash…convincing congress to buy more F-22.
Now when Su30MKI flew with it’s RADAR in training mode, without HMS/missile combo (let alone BVR), without IFF, Datalink, etc…against F-15 in full combat configuration you experts and good Colonel simply fail to mention these facts..
You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Sorry I am not casting any doubts on intelectual capability of Colonel, he is serving his country admirably. However when I make a presentation, I make it a point to know what I am presenting, otherwise I lose my credibility infront of my peers….
Just my thoughts..
Do you suppose that only the IAF keeps the full electronic capabilities under wraps? The take away from the Colonel was that the F-15 had the aerodynamic drawbacks from a full combat load out vs. a clean Flanker.
wrightwingFor anyone who thinks that the AIM 120 will some how redress any balance!
Just to play Devil’s advocate- of the AMRAAM launches/kills
-do we know the numbers of misses(or were the # fired increase to improve Pk?)
-do we know whether all missiles were fired within their envelopes? were there other issues, not missile related, that contributed to the # fired?
-which model AMRAAM are we talking about? Would you expect an AIM-9B to perform like an -M or -X?
In summary, unless we’re privy to more than just raw data, it’s difficult to make any conclusions.
wrightwingTo be fair, the exact same thing applies to the F-22. It’s not as if the USAF invented passive detection and target location. That honour goes to the Germans and British night fighter forces and navies of WWII and German night-fighters in particular caused great slaughter with a variety of passive techniques. With all the data-linking and data-streaming going on in a modern networked army, a networked F-22 is effectively like a blinking lighthouse in the pitch black night of an uninhabited coast unless it foregoes the advantages of streaming data. Stealth is only an advantage for an F-22 as long as it doesn’t radiate and that applies to everything down to even simple stuff like IFF transponders and radio altimeters (Although I don’t expect the F-22 has one of the latter, my guess would be that it packs a high tech barometric unit or some other passive piece of altitude measuring kit). Just for example, if the enemy figures out how to trigger your IFF he can use it to find you. Of course the fun only really starts when the opposition hacks and thus owns your battlefield network :D.
You’re missing the point of LPI radar/datalink. It’s entire purpose is to not betray the location of the aircraft using it(i.e. very narrow beams, only the minimum amount of power necessary, extreme frequency agility). In terms of radars, this means that they don’t stand out from background noise. In terms of datalinks, it means that no radiation is sent out omni-directional, that could be detected, far ahead of the aircraft.
wrightwingyes if the jamming that the Su-30 will be applying does not work..can you prove that the Elta 8222 jammer will be ineffective against the F-22’s AESA ? if not, what you’re claiming is just speculation.
And what would you call it, that you’re doing?:rolleyes:
Furthermore, is the Flanker gonna fly around with its jammer emitting at all times, in case an F-22 or F-35 are flying around? If so, it’ll stick out just as if it had its radar on at all times.
wrightwingIt seems Russians have been working for years on reducing flanker’s RCS and have had some success in this regard. Haven’t you mentioned in some thread that (some of) these measures will be implemented in Su-35? Now just imagine a flanker with reduced RCS. What sort of impact would the addition of all those missiles have on its overall RCS?
So now instead of having a 10-15m2 RCS, it’s only in the 5-10m2 range? Now put 10 AAMs on it, and go back up to 15m2.:D
Sign In
