Well, considering the easy reprogrammability of the AMRAAM, I dare say that nobody can claim to be able to jam the missile for long, as it’ll be a matter of time till the missile will be reprogrammed to mitigate the jamming. Also, I strongly believe any mention of the capability to intercept missiles coming your way is a theoretical exercise. Nice for advertising purposes, but by the time the AMRAAM goes active, its kinda late to shoot off any missiles of your own. Nobody said that an Amraam has to come from within your radar field of view.

As for the part about IRSTs, we can choose to believe what we want from both sides. Sukhoi claims that it can achieve such ranges, but as I said before, under what conditions? I am no expert, but I have read a few articles which basically shot down that claim. If there are any experts here which work in the EO industry, please advise.

Also, the measures taken to reduce its IR sig by no means eliminate its IR sig, just as LO measures by no means makes an aircraft invisible to radar. It just reduces the detectable range drastically. You seem to have a slight misconception with the IIR seekers. As I said before, I am no expert, but on this I’m quite sure that I;m right. IIR seekers basically builds a picture of the target with focal arrays. It detects minute variations in the target’s body so it gets a picture instead of a blob. But that doesn’t really enhance the range at which the target is detected at all, its just getting a better resolution of the target.

“So a Raptor using radar… however briefly will have a better idea of where an non emitting Sukhoi is that a non emitting Sukhoi would have of where an emitting Raptor is?”

Well, I think we are discounting one of the strengths of the Raptor here, which is its
connectivity to other sources. With an AWACS around, (reasonable assumption I believe) the Raptor doesn’t need to radiate and give away its position. Thus the AWACS could vector the Raptor to a Flanker in such a way that it is intercepted from outside the IRST’s field of view. Should AWACS not be around, the Raptor radiating need not be the Raptor intercepting. The Raptor’s IFDL allows another Raptor to close in and take the shot while the former Raptor is seemingly out of AMRAAM range.

Lastly, where has it been stated that the Raptor is vulnerable to ground radars? Its known that the Raptor has a dynamic capability to calculate the range at which it is detectable to enemy systems. Staying out of detectable range to enemy radars is what it has to do, and does.

“Of course all of this is a bit academic as any airforce rich enough to afford an Su-35 is probably completely safe from US interference… they prefer to work over AFs that have had 12 years of sanctions.”

Try telling that to the Japs, unless you think the Zeros were crappy planes. Letting your bias interfere with your reasoning in such a way isn’t too advisable. I really believe that they would take anyone on if their critical interest were at stake, even if they had to come up against a fearsome military machine. I dont think you could by any measure say that the Soviet war machine wasn’t intimidating, but America would have gone to war had the Cold War turned hot.

Hmm, going by your argument, as long as an adversary has the capability to jam the AMRAAM, any adversary is invulnerable to the USAF as long as they stay out of Sidewinder range. I wonder whether any force can say with confidence that they are able to jam the AMRAAM though.

As for utilising a long range missile eqipped with an IIR seeker, the first problem is, how do you locate the target, ie the Raptor? Ok, IRST, so you said in the above post, but IRST works at practical ranges of around 25~35km, with the wonderful figures given on brochures only attainable when the engines are on afterburners and when there is high aerodynamic friction on the surface of the plane. The Raptor uses no afterburner normally, and aerodynamic friction is mitigated through the use of special paints and an active-cooling system. Besides, IRSTs dont give the range to a target, so that poses problems for getting a firing solution, especially since the Raptor is usually travelling at a much higher altitude.

Well, nobody buys a plane nowadays with only a single role in mind, but I believe Singapore would be looking for a multi-role plane with a slight tilt towards air superiority. THis is because the RSAF already has a robust attack capability in the form of F-16s, coupled with some of the latest F-16s being equipped with CFTs, deep strike is also available. Of course, if the airborne tankers are taken into account, then we can say all of the F-16s are deep-strike capable. That said, I see no reason why the F-15 would lose out to the Rafale and the Eurofighter as badly as u said. For example, the F-15 would definitely be offered with the V2 AESA version, and the V3 version would be offered as soon as the USAF upgrades their Strike Eagles. In fact, it can be said that of the 3 contenders, the Eagle offers the most advanced radar system currently.

Uhh, if the Eagle wins the contract, I strongly believe it would not be because of political reasons. One very strong reason for choosing the Eagle is its compatibility with RSAF’s current weapons inventory. Just complaining that the Eagle wins a contract due to political pressure would make it sound to be a very sourgrape talk.

Sigh… The F-22 is more than an air-superiority machine. It is a guarantee of America’s air dominance. Also, by saying that it wont be used, it means that you are blatantly disregarding the F-22’s other roles and potentials. Unless one of course calls them ‘just more Air Force propoganda intended to keep the program alive’. But dont you think the Air Force people know what they are doing? Seriously, if the Raptor wasn’t worth what it costs, especially when they are privy to the full extent of its capabilities, do you think they would be fighting tooth and claw over it?

Maybe the damn idiots who are trying to kill this program would suggest their own version of Sea Swap – an ‘Air Swap’. You know, like fly the pilots out to the airplane and change the crew midair, this way they can fly the plane longer and thus they can justify buying less the way the Navy is buying less ships. 😡

That’s the reaction of people who know the Rafale ain’t ever going to be near the Raptor in terms of capability. Bear with it. :rolleyes:

Still, a crash this late into the program is a case for concern. We’ll have to wait till an official report is out on whether this is an isolated case (maybe some component installed wrongly or whatever), or worse, if its a flaw in the flight software or plane design.