@mig-31bm

“Confirmatory bias and extreme nationalism is a bad combination “

I am just quoting their statements. I was even going to mention a tank with an attached drone called pterodactyl.

@mig-31bm

the 2nd source was from General hostage stating F-35 stealthier, the 1st source if I remember correctly the airforce stating both 5th gens previously before being golf ball and steel marble. Shania explained that the F-35 had a change in material, but a drastic 500 times decrease in size is hard to believe. I believe ActionJackson stated the F-35 was now the size of a Pea about a year ago from a thread saying .00001m2 if I recall correctly.

“In case you have not noticed, in their statement, the Chinese said “metaphorically” instead of “literally”. They were using a metaphor, talking figuratively, for example: when they say “Usain bolt is lightning fast” that only mean he can run very fast, not “therotically he can run at 220,000,000 miles per hour””

This went way over your head. china’s concept of hitting another needle is a theory hence theoretically speaking since they have to complete the system.

“Let me guess, plasma shield cruise missiles and 100 km AESA on tank are product of your imagination?”

A 2nd F-16.net user. http://www.trud.ru/article/17-03-2016/1335410_opasnee_kalibra_rossija_nachala_ispytanie_giperzvukovoj_rakety_tsirkon.html ” The head of the rocket is heated, and a plasma cloud forms around it. Missiles moving at such speeds are almost impossible to intercept: control systems have too little time to make decisions, and interceptors can not catch up with Zirkon and can only be used on collision course. The vortex of the plasma, among other things, absorbs radio waves, and as a result, the rocket that went into hypersound is covered by an invisibility cloak: the radar stops seeing it”

Google translate is working slow so here, “На «Армате», как и на истребителе Т-50, будет установлена новейшая радиолокационная станция с активной фазированной антенной решетки (АФАР). Таких решений ни на одном танке мира нет. Система способна одновременно вести до 40 динамических и до 25 аэродинамических целей, контролировать территорию в радиусе до 100 километров и в автоматическом режиме уничтожать цели размером до 0,3 метра. Благодаря наличию АФАР, «Армата» позиционируется, как универсальная ударная машина сухопутных войск, включающая в себя полноценный тактический ракетный комплекс, зенитную систему противовоздушной обороны, комплекс армейской разведки и целеуказания и собственно танк.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201411211239-uvb5.htm

“That does not require strike aircaft to enter the missile envelope, emissions can be triangulated and cruise missiles interspersed with decoys such as MALD can swarm close in defenses.
Simply put manufacturers make bold claims about AD systems effectiveness, the operational history of these weapons tells a different story. Yes, they are a very real threat, one that can exact losses on attackers, but cannot stop a concerted air campaign. “

I would personally like to know how some modern weapons in a SEAD operation would work against modern SAM systems that look like they were made to counter them.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-Russias-integrated-air-defense-network-work
A decoy that can highly imitate an aircraft or a cruise missile is just referred to as a high fidelity decoy. Now rather if modern passive sensors like Moskva-1 can pick up high fidelity decoys based on transmission is another issue no one here would know. Kolchuga can pick up EMI off an aircraft engines but because of background noise it cant pick up EMI but can pick up frequency. INS with 3 sensors cant be jammed because of operating frequencies like acceloremeter, magnetometer, gyroscope but turning off GPS would mean the accuracy would be 40 to 120 meters off its target and SAM batteries are mobile as well. No one knows how effective a modern passive sensor is compared to ones made in the 1980s this is what was said, “In 2002 the U.S. State Department accused Ukraine of selling Kolchuga to Iraq, based on recordings of the then Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma supposedly made by Mykola Mel’nychenko. This was followed by political steps from United Kingdom and the United States. No material confirmation has been found in Iraq. See Cassette Scandal for further information. ” They were worried about passive sensors being sold from the 1980s to Iraq, the moskva-1 or avtobaza-m might be way better at identifying high fidelity decoys based on their transmissions.

The quora answer shows the russians do not like to be caught with their pants down when it comes to emerging threats. Such as CHAMP they have created Alabuga with a 3.5km EMP impulse to destroy electronics, to destroy this missile at a far enough range in low altitude from touching their equipment Buk-m3 seems to be the answer with mach 8 missiles and destroying low altitude targets at 18-20km before tracking them at low altitudes from 36km that is if the CHAMP has already been identified by passive sensors or a satellite system giving the image to control station. Rather if their unlimited range nuclear cruise missile along with plasma shield Zircon or other projects are a success it shows that they view their own missiles more of a threat than whatever is made in the US. Even critics will have a hard time denying that. Their defenses are more than likely made for taking out their own missiles if they can or cannot depends than whatever missile project the US has made.

Some people I know have persistently argued how a decoy can imitate aircraft and other missiles. Yes the US purchased an export version of VERA(though not Czechs best VERA system) they have more than likely studied passive sensors to fool decoys. But newer passive sensors like the Moskva can or cannot sniff out a high fidelity decoy since no one knows.

@spudman

“Given that Israel has used F-35s in Syria against Syrian and Iranian troops without nary a peep from the Russians in the way of a warning or a coordinated defence, I don’t put much stock in their claims of “anti-stealth” systems. “

But they were really worried about a possible s-300pmu2 sale considering this country did some operation in Greece against just a s-300pmu in 2014. So why should Israel be worried about Syria receiving the S-300pmu2 or not? I dont think their old air defenses are integrated with the S-400. Their old air defense have limited distance in striking targets the S-300pmu2 with a longer striking distance is what raised Israel’s concern. Rather if they were warned or not F-35s or other aircraft’s can still strike SAM batteries at a long distance or be under the radar horizon doing it but not too low in getting struck by MANPADs. The radars are located in Latakia in a mountainous region to increase detection at a greater distance and the next concern is where is Syria’s SAM batteries and how far are they located from the S-400.

“There is this thing you are typing on called the Internet. Using it, you will find out that Russia has set up an S-400 (it has strong anti-stealth claims) system that they claim is fulling integrated into Syria’s IADS.”

Those old SAMs are really compatible with their modern defenses? people are saying yes and no about the integration of the S-400 being effective or not. https://www.quora.com/Can-an-S-400-300-radar-guide-an-S-200-missile. If an S-400 was responsible to being integrated with Syrias IAD than shooting a stealth aircraft down that would be a major political issue as it was with Turkey shooting a sukhoi pilot in the back. There are also reasons why NATO threatened Russia with Iran receiving an S-400 and going sanction crazy with s-400 sale deals. Also the S-400 has gotten upgraded missiles and radars like the nebo-m instead of the older 1990s variants NATO was concerned of Iran receiving back in the time.

http://www.deagel.com/news/Leonardo-Launches-Grifo-E-AESA-Multi-functional-Radar_n000017937.aspx

“Grifo-E makes use of Leonardo’s leading Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) technology, also known as ‘E-Scan’, hence the ‘-E’ suffix. AESA technology involves a matrix of hundreds of tiny radar modules being used to ‘steer’ an electronic beam, rather than the radar physically moving to point a beam at a target. This means the beam can be moved around extremely quickly, allowing the radar to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. Because the building blocks of the Grifo-E are mature, proven technologies owned by Leonardo, the Company has been able to invest in developing a range of advanced new modes for the radar, fully exploiting the capabilities of AESA, a multi-channel receiver and multi-core processing units.”

The SU-35 used hydraulic actuator for a 240 degree beam mechanical steer. Guys which would be a better choice having a 240 degree azimuth by steering a beam extremely quickly or having 1536 modules having coverage for the 120 degree azimuth and having 358 modules for the sides to provide the other 240 degree coverage?

Just for my own curiosity I am wondering rather if this technology was available at the time for Russia to implement on the SU-57 because they went from mechanical steering to more modules focused on the front than the sides, While Leonardo says the beam moves at a rapid speed to cover a wider beam. If Russia had this option available would they have ditched the 358 side radar arrays if a 240 degree radar beam azimuth with electronic steering was available? It seems that SAAB likes to implement a wide radar beam

I am a guy that is trying to love either the F-22 and F-35 but there is this annoying itch that I can not get rid of. Just view these questions as criticism instead of bashing on either aircraft.

http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article3275.html

“Repeating from a statement from November, 2005, the company says that the F-22s over-performance includes a radar cross section that is “better” than was contracted for. That classified requirement has been calculated at a -40 dBsm, about the size of a steel marble. By contrast, the F-35 is thought to be a -30 dBsm, the size of a golf ball.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

“Both F-22s and F-35s will be spotted at range by low frequency radar. The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.

If I was to create an account on F-16.net mentioning this I would get my head ripped off along with my questions, answers and account deleted the next day. Since it seems that key forum is less xenophobic can someone tell me why there are enthusiasts after these 2 statements? The F-35 in my opinion since its creation had 10% more composites and a smaller size than the F-22 in which in my opinion had to be by default more stealthy than an F-22 but was stated earlier in being 50 times bigger than the F-22, but now some claim that its 10 smaller now than the F-22.

So what has taken place that made the F-35 go from .005 to .00001m2(this is what most enthusiasts state)? What has changed from before till now to make it now 500 times smaller? Was someone bull****ting the claims? Since the SU-57 is going for 0.1m2 to 1m2 is there a way to sound less ridiculous than feeling like a 12 year old saying my aircraft is 10,000 to 100,000 times smaller than your aircraft? There have been good discussions of showing which aircraft had more stealthy features. However does anyone have good resources by knowing the certain sizes and dimensions that would somehow factor the amount of decibels or noise of an aircraft along with an RCS?(for example how would RCS increase by adding an IRST and not having an IRST, or how small or big the IRST has to be to not reflect as much radio waves as possible to make the aircraft more detectable)

In regards to the s-400 and F-35 purchase of Turkey. Can Turkey simply test an S-400 in one location and test the F-35 in another location since Turkey is big enough to accommodate for that? Is there anyway Turkey can give assurance to the US that they would not give information to Russians about the F-35 since I can think of many ways that could be done. The fact that the Russians still insist on selling the S-400, and that the F-35 has possible ways it can be used in Turkey without Russians knowing its information why would the US still not insist on selling the F-35s?

I am trying to be a fan of this aircraft but certain means like this are preventing me from letting that happen. I agree that the F-22 and F-35 have a stealthier profile than the SU-57. However if questions like these are addressed you can turn more sukhoi fans to lockheed fans.

@swerve

Thank you now that I see your post. I got too excited.