So just because the studies may be politically motivated they are to be disregarded? When you have no proof to suggest so? If their studies proved instead that they were vulnerable would you have then taken it as an attempt to squeeze more money out of congress instead of using it as proof to support your position?
Detractors of stealth are often as taken in with the stealth hype as stealth’s most ardent supporters. Stealth is but one of a whole bag of measures used to increase survivability. It is not used in isolation. Fans of anti-stealth technology often cite PCL, low freq and Bistatic radars etc as their holy grail. They may, or may not work against stealth. But what do they achieve even if they do work? Mere detection without fire control track quality? Stealth isn’t ‘neutralised’ just because stealthy platforms can be detected. If it reduces the system reaction time by delaying detection, then it has worked.
More importantly than that, these concepts can be neutralised by other means. As BDF said, jamming is one of them. Network invasion is the refined form that has now come into play. The USAF has been been forthright about having this capability for some time, though details are very little. These will stand beside stealth as just one among many inside the bag of tricks available to the US in defeating an enemy defense system.
Stealth means LOW OBSERVABILITY this basicly means the F-22 is detectable, the low observability of the F-22 allows to be detected too late to make any SAM or fighters interception attempt futil.
However there are several aspects that do not make so unobserved an F-22, first it still scatter radar radiation, it has platform aligment so several surfaces reflect the radar in the same direction.
Frankly stealth is not as unvulnerable in fact it surprise me how the US even plans to retire the F-117 when it is supposed stealth will givet invulnerability why?
The answer is very easy, stealth is not enough, that is the reason the F-22 has supercruise and super maneouvrability, stealth is vulnerable because also requieres too much planning in every mission
The possibility radars get better and better and detect even the B-2 and F-22 in fact is not a slim probability.
To put it in simple words, when the F-117 was shot down in Serbia, as far as it is concerned that war was a limited and low tech war, not what you can expect China, Russia or even India can fight.
It is true that the Russians are not going to fly for ever their Su-27s and MiG-29s against the F-22 and very likely soon they will field Su-35BMs or PAK FAs and that will equialize a lot the equation but definitively the threat from fighters like a highly modernized Su-35BM is not one we can disregard as low, but to the contrary if betetr radars are fielded the F-22 reign might be a short one ina time where the 4.5 genration fighters are being modernized with advanced engines such as the AL-41F
here the weapons some poeple claim can attack stealth fighters, the S-400
source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c7pSRR3nFQ&mode=related&search=
They both carry eight AAMS and BTW you still haven’t told use where anybody has ever even used four in a single sortie. Do that and well…you still wouldn’t have a point. You’d have to show us where someone used eight and needed more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Yit still can not compete with an Su-30MKI in terms of weaponry carriage.
So? Against an MKI it would only need one anyway. An F-18 can carry 12 AAMs. Would it ever? HELL no. Why? Because it’s a waste and it would never remotely come close to needing them. The only people who think carrying 14 AAMs is important are you Flanker fanboys.That would explain all the dead Fulcrums :rolleyes:
Well if it makes you feel better keep saying that.
Read about the -teens facing Raptor equipped forces in Alaska. It wasn’t pretty. In one of the exercises the Red Forces put up 103 sorties in an attempt to overwhelm the defenders. They all died. I’d question the ability of either Russia or China to dedicate 103 Flanker sorties to a SINGLE mission. And it wouldn’t matter if they did as this exercise showed. Granted, you can’t say it’s EXACTLY like “real” combat but it is certainly and indicator.[/
Sferrin
Exercises won`t tell you how the Russian willl react niether what technologies they have.
When two technological advanced powers face each other, the options are more complex than one excercise.
Russia and China are quit secretive, several technologies they have are quit inpredictable, while you might suppose those F-15s simulated correctly the Russian or Chinese i do not think so.
Example. Iraq is and was not a nation in the XX century that had great advances in science, same was Panama or even Serbia however Serbia had more technological knowledge and you saw they shot down at least an F-117.
Russia is not Iraq or Panama, the Russian science is known to be in some areas one of the most advanced in world, among them radar and aeronautics technology are two areas where the Russians are quit good, you can not expect they won`t find solutions to the problems of detecting stealth.
China despite is has not been in the first places it has advanced a lot. specially in aeronautics and electronics, thinking these two nations can not overcome the problems of detecting stealth is quit arrogant.
Second, Russia in 2007 can adapt a Su-27 with at least supercruise and super maneouvrability and China is building up very rapidly its fleet of J-10s and JH-7s.
It is known, the Russians are very good at building SAMs, and it is very well known that today`s China has an incredible work force capable of building great number of weapons.
Second niether Iraq or Panama had the technology to destroy satellites and had great knowledge of telecomunications, this is not the case of Russia and China, the likeliness the USAF will have total knowledge of the battelfield is also another uncertainty.
It is very likely Russian and China have experimented with RAM and stealth technology too, so at no moment you can think the Su-27s or J-10s will not have some RAM treatment.
Russia is also capable of sinking an aircraft carrier with their fleet of Tu-22Ms and China is not far behind with Su-27s and Tu-16s.
The offensive response China and Russia can give is by no means easy to defeat since Russia and China have cruise missiles and some might be quit difficult to intercept, so in few as far as is concern Russia and China won`t allow total knowledge of the battlefield.
This means quit likely the F-22 might need to use their radars, might face the need to dogfight with large fleets of MiG-21s supported by J-10s and Su-27s since the likelihood the F-15s will have a really bad time with SAMs.
The possibility Russia and China will shoot down F-22 is too high.
Second these two aircraft have to be very difficult to detect
source http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/28/content_4487258.htm
It can carry eight AAMs internally. Name ONE instance in the last 40 years where ANYBODY has expended half that in one sortie.
Sferrin i feel you do not see several aspects of what the Russians say, first they are just saying the F-22 compromised its warload in order to have a stealthy uncluttered airframe, that its weapons bays traded off stealthiness for drag and at the end the F-22 is relatively limited by stealth to carry a heavier and bulkier warload, and this means if you want a heavier and bulkier warload you need external stores and weapon pylons.
You can not have everything, when you gain in stealth you loose in aerodynamics and viceversa, the Su-27 has excelent aerodynamics but poor stealthy features.
The whole aspects is also stealth, while the F-117 had its facets scattering radar signatures in different directions, the F-22 has less facets and scatters radiation in almost the same direction due to platform aligment, see that the inlets and wings for example are aligned so it was a compromise of aerodynamics with stealth while the F-117 has a more irregular shape with good stealth but really horrible aerodynamics.
Sign In
