YourFatherIf we are going to do a ‘compare who has more claims game’, then http://www.jamestown.org/email-to-friend.php?article_id=2368981.
More than that, ever since WW2, has Japan enforced its claims with arms? Nope, but guess who did?
YourFatherThis is for chinese kids to think about:
Don’t have a fleet like the USN’s? No problem, do it the PRC way – Photoshop it into existence! 😀
YourFatherIf they discounted the threats of SSKs, what is the Gotland doing in America?
YourFatherThat was the intent of my original query, that the AIM-9x could differentiate between the shapes of different airframes.. so far there’s no conclusive answer based on the responses received. there’s some conjecture thatthe missile can actually target specific parts of an aircraft such as the cockpit, for example.. if true, then identifying a aircraft’s shape shouldn’t be a problem.. Obviously, it can’t discriminate nationality but neither can radar..
Not conjecture. The ASRAAM which shares the same seeker as the AIM-9X had its original algorithms set to guide the missile to the cockpit.
YourFatherI was just feeling cheeky, lol.
YourFatherHow convenient a way to weasel out of the situation.
YourFatherYou forgot one thing: performance requirements. B-2A is allowed even severe drawbacks in aerobatics on behalf on stealth, because it is a strategic bomber. That is something a Raptor as future multi-role aircraft simply cannot afford.
Perhaps, but your statement doesn’t in any way prove that the F-22 is a ‘semi-stealthy’ fighter as you so belatedly claim without yet giving any concrete proof, other than simple insistence that ‘there is a trade-off, a trade-off! So it’s only a semi-stealth plane!’
Exactly both of those. Raptor design is a compromise of GOOD aerodynamic characteristics (boosted by TVC and engine power) and GOOD stealth characteristics. None of those is excellent, it is an all-aspect aircraft, not a specialized platform. It cannot match stealthiness of B-2A, as well as it cannot match Flanker’s agility when non-TVC. Why in the world would a B-2A posses so strange shape, if a rather conventional layout of the Raptor would easily outperform it even in terms of stealth? Then let us just enlarge the thing F-22 to strategic proportions and we can kiss B-2 goodbye!
And what can you provide to say that after the ‘compromise’ that you claim, the ‘GOOD’ stealth characteristics is less than that on the F-117? The B-2’s shape was, as you so loudly proclaimed, due to performance requirements. One of them being range, and the flying wing design provided both the requisite range and stealth required. The Raptor, requiring agility, speed and not as much range, of course got a more conventional design. But again, that does not prove in any way that the Raptor is a ‘semi-stealth’ design, or even less stealthy than the F-117.
You claim that the F-22 is stealthier than B-2A and more agile than a Flanker, but I am afraid you only are a victim of your own wishful thinking, boosted by sales propaganda of Lockheed-Martin, as well as a healthy portion of inobjectivity.
1. I have never claimed that the F-22 is stealthier than the B-2A Dont you ******* dare put words in my mouth, and then accuse me of inobjectivity, ******* slimeball. I do try to refrain from expletives, but trying to muddle the debate when not having the upper hand by doing something like that is an insult to yourself. I have always stuck by published and generally accepted figures (in AWS&T etc), that the B-2 is the most stealthy, followed by the Raptor and the F-117.
2. i do not care who the source comes from, I take them and evaluate them, and as far as possible try to corroborate them from other sources. That Lockheed says something about their product does not immediately make what they say false. Perhaps it has to be treated more skeptically, but if logical, and not disputed in circles with the expertise to evaluate what they say, then I do not see why they should be discredited.
Definitely right. For example, Subpar Hornet, Su-34, Rafale or Typhoon have incorporated some stealth characteristics without having their aerodynamics affected. And they have managed to push the RCS value well below 1 sq m. But as long as the aircraft is designed primarily with stealth in mind, the limitations cannot be diminished that easily. Or do you think French or Russians do not have simulation software?
The SHornet was a design evolved from an airframe whoich was NOT designed with stealth in mind. THe SU-34, Rafale and Typhoon was designed at a time when stealth was not a ‘in’ thing, and neither did the designers have the expertise which the US companies had cultivated beforehand.
Finally, and again, you have not provided anything to substantiate your claim that the Raptor is a ‘semi-stealth’ design. Its time for you to stop weaseling your way around and back yourself up with some proof.
YourFather1. The total RCS value of course is related to size, you cannot rule out basic physics. After having flattened down the peaks, induced by corner reflectors and having applied RAM coating you still have targets of different size to deal with. Given the same shape and same level of technology you cannot achieve lower RCS value for larger target, no matter what you do.
2. S-shaped air intakes inlet ducts, for instance. It is the obvious thing to do if you want to preserve your stealth capabilities, but they are surely not ideally suited for tight maneuvring, especially if your engine should have problems to deal with disturbed air flow. Aerodynamics is another chapter. Raptor and Black Widow’s aerodynamics, whilst keeping stealth characteristics is a true miracle if we compare that to former facetted design but stealth still means restrictions and limitations, something F-15 or Su-27 designed did not have to care about.
1. And you have answered yourself very nicely – the B-2 and the Raptor is neither the same shape as, nor designed with the same level of technology as the F-117 was. The F-117 was designed with severe computational constraints, something the F-22 and B-2 wasn’t.
2. Wait. Is your position that the Raptor is not as stealthy as it is claimed, or not as agile as it is claimed. From your earlier statements, it seems the former. So why are you giving an example that backs up it’s stealth claim? Furthermore, your claim doen’t hold, simply because it has been demonstrated to be capable of exceptional handling all the way up to 60+ degrees AOA.
3. “stealth still means restrictions and limitations”. Perhaps, in some ways. But you always seem to regard Stealth and Agility, and now Stealth and Aerodynamics as a total tradeoff with each other. You are disregarding 2 things. 1. They are many other design variables at work, that may be used to offset tradeoffs in other areas. For example, thrust may be used to offset sacrifices in airframe design. 2. Not every stealth measure is a tradeoff with aerodynamics. For example, stealth mandates the internal carriage of weapons, which incidentally gives a big boost to the aerodynamics of the plane. It’s true that the F-15 and Su-27 designers did not have to take RCS into consideration, but there Raptor and B-2 designers had 2 decades of advancement in technology and computational power to help them get an optimised design. It’s time to get out of your ridiculous ‘zero sum total tradeoff’ mentality.
YourFatherWake up, buddy.. F-23 being more agile than Flanker? According to what source? According to what features? Just look at the concept, there is absolutely no way an interceptor like YF-23 could EVER beat Flankies in agility, not speaking without having TVC installed… Something like that never was a goal of the YF-23, anyway. You obviously watch too much popular science on Discovery channel…
As a development engineer I can tell you, you ALWAYS have to sacrifice something. I am not aware of any single conception that ONLY has advantages with no drawbacks, because such a conception would automatically render all other options useless.
They should make pills for this, really…
From your earlier posts you seem to have 2 assumptions.
1. Stealth is related to size.
2. Stealth and agility are 100% tradeoffs of each other.
For 1, I am pretty sure that you are mistaken. A large object can be made to have a very small RCS signature, conversely, a small object can be made to have a very large RCS signature. It is all a matter of the measures implemented. There is no such RCS/area ruling, simply because such a concept is totally irrelevant when taking into account LO measures.
2. You have surmised that since the F/A-22 is agile, it is therefore not as stealthy as it is made out to be, and is at most ‘semi-stealthy’. Perhaps you would care to point out a few examples of the trade-offs you evidently see which would make you so confident of its low stealth properties?
YourFather“looot of surfaces pointing down, looot of “internal” very deep angles, big nose low angled, intakes too much near of the nose, close engines position”
If what simple evidence you gave made it so blatantly evident that the Raptor was only as stealthy as a Super Hornet, then the world would have called the USAF’s bluff a long time ago. Especially considering that there is so much internal opposition over the Raptor in the United States, its lack of stealth would have been trumpeted by its detractors as well. I hate to be blunt, but you are one cow in serious denial mode.
YourFatherUh, Adrain, where did you get this part, “> The Gray Ghost’s air intake design deflects radar emissions
> better, and its exhausts hide its IR signature very effectively
This is the initial impression but, it is not true. The TVC is able to control its IR signature to the point that at 50,000 feet, Mach 1.2, the nose pitched up at 25º…. that enemy must be in the rear cone of ±60º in order to get a good IR signature. All the hot spots are in places that could not be detected unless you are in that cone. The F-22 is engineered so the hot spots on the wings are 25% of the way back along the chord, for that portion of the wing, not along the leading edge! All other leading edges are designed that way.
The USAF has stated no IR system or in developement can detect the F-22 at ranges greater than 18 miles!” from? I’m interested to know because I’ve never come across this on the net…
YourFatherActually, I feel that Clancy did just that in Debt Of Honor, where the Japanese, under cover of a joint naval exercise, disabled a US carrier and sank a US nuclear sub (and a Trident sub at that!), while the Indian navy tied up another carrier in the Indian Ocean, all of which combined to seriously hinder the American ability to respond effectively.
Further, in his older novel Red Storm Rising, the Americans pretty much get their butts kicked for about the first half to two-thirds of the book. They lose a major strategic base (Iceland), and the tide of the war isn’t turned until the US Navy figures out a way to counter the constant Soviet Backfire bomber raids on US convoys (which Clancy paints as extremely effective and difficult to defend against).
So in my opinion, Clancy goes a long way in making it clear that America would not always enjoy a cakewalk victory.
Its not the problem of America losing a few skirmishes here and there or whether America loses the whole war, what I’m concerned is HOW he convincingly he brings the reader to the conclusion. In the end he always ends with America triumphing, (hence why I said ra-ra USA), but even if he made it opposite, say USA always losing, (and I would then say anti-USA), it would not detract from my criticism of his writing because of the lack of authenticity and serious analysis in the actions of the parties involved. In fact, contrary to your saying that he knows his stuff, I feel that he knows much less than Simon Pearson, or if he does, he’s not able to demonstrate them in his books.
YourFatherWhy would this be so irritating, or hard to believe? In almost every instance, American electronic equipment, like radar, is going to be quicker and better. American electronics are much more advanced than Russian electronics. That’s just a fact of life. The Russians are extremely adept at making the most out of what are, on paper, outmoded systems. That’s their strength, and it must be respected. But if you would truly prefer to entrust your life to Russian electronics in opposition to American electronics, you simply have a death wish. I’m going to get hammered for saying that, I know, but please believe me when I say this is not prejudice, or Russia-bashing. Again, it is simply a fact. Russian electronics are not as advanced as American.
Look, as a neutral reader, I guess few would dispute that. America’s technological lead is pretty supreme. But there ARE chinks in the armour, and the author could let the opposition at least try to exploit that. Yet the authors just dont seem to grant the ‘opposition’ in their books much intelligence, which makes the reader feel, ‘uh yeah, so the American side won because the opponents were too dumb not to capitalise on assymettrical weaknesses but went head to head against what the Americans did best’. Not a really satisfying reading experience. I have no opposition to America coming out victorious, but at least make the way America wins more believable.
YourFatherGreat story, I agree, but Pearson (in my opinion) needs to work on his dialogue. It sounds straight from a comic book at times.
Also, I’d like you to give an example of any of Clancy’s so-called “ra ra USA stuff.” I like Clancy a lot, though his last few novels have slipped in quality. But he still knows his stuff more than any other novelist out there. So again, give an example.
Frankly, I cannot be bothered to reread his books to give you examples of his “ra ra USA” stuff. Neither can I do so, even if I do. Its just a ‘feel’ that I know I’m not the only one having it, built up over the course of reading his novels. Nothing wrong with US trumping over the bad guys, but it is so cliched that unless done exquisitely well in terms of realism, it just doesn’t work to make the reader say ‘great book’ anymore. Clancy fails to deliver in this respect. Larry Bond does better. Dont you feel that in his books, the ‘bad guys’ always seem to lack much intelligence? Simon Pearson’s way of telling the story, is IMO the best way to tell a military story. Its detached form of illustrating events news-report style coming with an in-depth analysis of how the situations develop give it an eery sense of authenticity, something which Clancy’s novels go nowhere near achieving. Through this form of writing, one can see the depth of Simon’s research. Especially impressive to me is that Simon also demonstrates a clear knowledge of western vulnerabilities in warfighting, for example in the areas of force protection, reliance on air-refueling, America’s reliance on aircraft carriers etc, and factors them into his plot. Dont see such things in Clancy’s novels.
YourFatherBy far the best war novel around would be “Total War 2006” by Simon Pearson. This book trumps ALL of Tom Clancy’s, Dale Brown’s and Stephen Coonts novels easily. Absolutely must read. This guy did his homework, and knows his stuff. No ra ra USA stuff here, that Dale and Clancy suffers from. The book comes with a very chilling and shocking ending. Heh, even the prologue will give a shock. Really an underappreciated novel.
Sign In
