Double post. please delete

Seventy two SU-27 could beat six F-22s. The sky is falling, we should get hysterical and cancel the JSF and F-22.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/29/316555/war-game-argues-that-usaf-fleet-could-be-outmatched-by.html

If the F-22 and F-35 is as ineffective as many of these spammers and political proponents hysterically claim; then why are so many countries trying to copy the technology; by developing aircraft that are similar and using similar technology? If the F-22 is as inferior as some people claim, then why are countries begging to purchase it? If the F-35is as inferior as some people claim, then why are countries lining up and continue to line up to purchase it?

Vast quantities of inferior aircraft could overwhelm superior aircraft. So does that mean we should try to defend ourselves using Fokker Dr.Is?

If technology always advanced in the same direction than we would have stuck with triplanes instead of going to the less maneuverable monoplane.

Get educated? You gotta be kiddin me. No matter how I try I don’t quite see your point providing examples that are over 30 years old and exactly as hypothetical in style *he might if… * as those presented before..

The world is completely different today and will again be completely different in next 30 years but one thing stays for certain – any country attacking a major superpower like Russia or USA with ballistic missiles or ICBMs must count with fierce retaliation that would lead to complete destruction of the whole infrastructure of the country in question – this knowledge alone is a sufficient deterrence against such attack, with one big advantage over the ABM system: it actually works…

The Russian early warning system is clearly not as robust as the system that the Soviets had. There has been deterioration in the system since the end of the Cold War, both the number of satellites, operational satellites on orbit, and in the radars that are operational. The Russian early warning system has deteriorated badly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Only four satellites remain of more than a dozen that once watched the globe with their sensors. Some vital radar stations that once protected the Soviet Union are now closed because they are on territory no longer controlled by Moscow. The Russian system does provide them with adequate warning, but Russian early warning operators may not be able to tell the difference between a peaceful rocket and a military rocket from their computer screens.

Command and control problems could lead to incorrect information being transmitted, received, displayed, or complete early-warning system failures. This was demonstrated by the convulsions the Russian command and control system endured on 25 January 1995 when a Norwegian sounding rocket launch activated President Yeltsin’s nuclear briefcase. During this major malfunction in their early warning system, for a few minutes the Russians mistakenly thought the scientific sounding rocket was in fact a missile launched from a US submarine headed in their direction.

Radar operators issued an alert that it was an unidentified missile, with an unknown destination. The alert went to a general on duty, who received his information from the radar operator on a special notification terminal, Krokus. The duty general decided to send the alert to the highest levels. One factor might have been fear that even a lone missile would trigger a debilitating electromagnetic pulse explosion to disrupt Russia’s command-and-control system, as a prelude to a broader onslaught. At that point, the Russian electronic command-and-control network known as Kazbek, had come into play. Kavkaz is a complex network of cables, radio signals, satellites and relays that is the heart of the Russian command and control.

From there, it caused an alert to go off on each of the three Chegets nuclear `footballs’: one with Yeltsin, one with then-Defense Minister Pavel Grachev and a third with the chief of the General Staff, then Mikhail Kolesnikov. For the first time ever, the nuclear command system started the countdown to a launch decision, and President Yeltsin and his nuclear advisors began an emergency teleconference. Yeltsin and the others holding the black suitcases monitored the rocket’s flight on their terminals. A signal was sent to the Russian strategic forces to increase their combat readiness, but the crisis then ended. After some eight minutes, perhaps two minutes short of the deadline for a decision to launch a response, the Russians realized their mistake.

Source
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/c3i/index.html

Another example is that the Iranians had exercises to launch ballistic missiles from oceangoing barges. It was thought that Saddam Hussein had similar thoughts and desires. The Iranians and Saddam Hussein were apparently developing these tactics so they could launch WMD attacks using ballistic missiles to attack possible targets around the world. Israel was thought to be their primary target, the USA was thought to be their secondary target. It was also feared that Kim Yong-il might also use such tactics.

It was proposed that THAAD could be used to defend the United States homeland against such an attack. The following video is an animation to illustrate the idea.

THAAD Interception of Ship-Launched SCUD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz1-qAjWIm8

1998
The International Institute for Strategic Studies reports that Iran has more than 400 surface-to-surface missiles, including about 25 CSS-8 launchers with 200 missiles, and about 10 Scud launchers with 210 Scud-B and Scud-C missiles. Iran reportedly tests a short-range surface-to-surface missile from a barge in the Caspian Sea. This test may indicate that Iran plans to launch missiles from merchant ships, thereby allowing it to threaten Israel or the United States with its Scud missiles.
—W. Seth Carus, “Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Cited 3 July 2000, http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/Publications.asp?did=148

Source
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/1788_1813.html

—-

I think these examples show that a limited defense to ICBMs and ballistic missiles can be better than none. A limited defense shouldn’t legitimately antagonize superpowers, however it can serve as a deterrent ant defense to accidents, terrorism and small-scale attacks by rogue nations.

In the first scenario that I just listed. Don’t you think Russia would have been less likely to respond with MAD based on a perceived ballistic missile attack by a single missile if they had a missile defense system, then if they didn’t?

In the second scenario that I just listed. Don’t you think it’s worth the possibility to stop a rogue attack by a rogue nation rather than allowing an attack that would almost certainly result in a nuclear response and could possibly escalate to MAD?

I think a limited defense can be a very good thing in some cases.

Raw power of radar is the most critical aspect of Russian systems.

I second that. It’s great. It makes it really easy for us to detect and to lock on and shoot down Russian aircraft. Allegedly it’s also good for killing (microwaving) rabbits ( and personnel) if the radar is activated on the ground. 😉 It could be used to erase bulk hard drives and videotapes; that is if they don’t fry. 😉

Thanks for using radar that screams out “I’m here, I’m easy to shoot down, come and get me.”

Sometimes sensitivity and precision can be more important than raw power. 😉

Before people defend the abm deployment, perhaps they ought to go read up on the tests and how absolutely political they were and how ineffective they will be in anything but test conditions. It’s not a 50% chance of defense, its a 0% chance of defense. The only truly working deterrent is an effective offense.

No matter how much fud about nk, iran, and al queda is spread on this board it will not make the abm expenditures any more wise. The abm shield has to be in exacting position to make it possible to even have a chance at an intercept. Any other location and its a certain 0% effectiveness. You can park a million interceptors in Alaska and still not have any certainty of interception for missiles aimed at well over 90% of conus.

On the contrary. I do agree that things have been highly politicized, I feel people that claim that the system is worthless isn’t paying attention to the facts and instead is motivated by politics.

If it is worthless, then why do the Soviets and some other countries have their panties in a wad over the system?

The effectiveness of the system is really not known. It doesn’t have to be known to be a deterrent. In some ways if the exact effectiveness was known then that could be used against us. A wildcard can be valuable.

seems you are not much knowledgable , i suggest you research more on the zaslon-m and other newer variants

If I have not much “knowledgable” then U B have even less “knowledgable” . I B already “knowledgable” of Russian radars which B evident by my posts.

read the opening post of the thread:

As is evident by my response I obviously did read your post that’s why I was laughing. Like others I read it again for another laugh.

in terms of BVR capabilities ,upgraded mig-31 will be match for F-22

U R a funny kid. I suspect an upgraded MiG-31 would be somewhat of a threat to an F-22, but it is laughable that you claim it is a match.

to deal with f-22 in WVR, su-35bm or mig-35 will be sufficient , as they have 3d tvc , while f-22 has 2d tvc

Mine is the *(bestest) and is in service in quantity.

Note *( trying to argue like a child.)

no, most russian sources state , its being upgraded to 4.5 generation++ ,

Yeah but with your rhetoric you’re hyping it up so much that I expect you to say something like its seventh generation.

with much more advanced radar and weaponry to even DEAL WITH 6th generation Hypersonic craft like DARPA’s SR-72 ‘Blackswift’

Get for real. Congress is 10,000 times more likely to shoot down the black swift. I suspect that a Mig-31 would have virtually no chance of shooting down a black swift unless the black swift did not take any evasive action, and if the Mig-31 had prior knowledge of the flight and the flight path.

The Soviets could not shoot down the SR-71 and they had many chances period. The SR 71 was going so fast that all it had to do is change the throttle position slightly or turn slightly and they could outrun any fighter and any missile and exhaust the hostile’s fuel before an intercept could be achieved. I suspect the only way it might be possible is if the target did not see the aggressor approaching. The Soviets couldn’t shoot down the SR 71 yet the Black Swift is supposed to be twice as fast, so I’m very skeptical that a Mig-31 could down a black swift.

Flankers beats F-35 in highly classified simulated dogfight

So if this really is classified then why are people spamming it on the message boards?

How reputable is a source? It doesn’t seem to be very reputable. It’s like someone on a street corner secretively whispering “psstt I got some merchandise to sell you real cheap, just don’t ask any questions where it’s from, it’s the real thing, I’m reputable“. If it’s stolen how do you know it’s real and how do you know this does not counterfeit junk that some sleaze is trying to pretend is stolen to make it seem plausible it’s more valuable. If it really is stolen as the crook seems to imply, then how does he know it’s real?

By claiming it’s “highly classified” is contradicted by the fact that it is posted here. It seems just like the type of tripe that hateful scum try to post to subvert an opponent. How about some reputable and verifiable credible sources that can verify these wild claims? How about some information that’s actually technically usable, instead of just some technical psychobabble that seems to be made to sound plausible by someone that has little technical knowledge.

As others had alluded to. Even if the story was true there are some important details that have been left out that would put this into technical perspective. If instead it seems to be hyped by someone that has little technical knowledge but much political bias/motive. Much like someone said even if the story was true it wouldn’t make much difference if the scenario and rules of engagement highly favored the aggressors. If it is a typical training scenario, then it is likely that it highly and unrealistically favored the aggressors; because we train for the worst and try not to underestimate an opponent.

It seems this article was written to promote political bias, thusly it seems that the technical facts are compromised. I think the “highly classified” claim is just a subversive yarn to cover up for the fact that the story is likely either made up or taken out of context that cannot be confirmed with actual facts. Beware of disreputable people that make claims that cannot be verified.

Similarly that out of the tens of thousands of claims of extraterrestrial visitors to earth; none of the claims can be confirmed because conspiracy nuts claim it is classified. As an inept as the government is; do you really think it could keep such a big secret, secret for so long, without some hard evidence? I think not.

What next? If I claim that the government faked Elvis’s death so he could pursue a career at the 711; would you believe my story just because you can’t debunk it because I say it is a secret? I’m sorry but I typically require hard evidence and disregard whisper smear campaigns like this.

If the scenario was a condition that simulated a JSF with unusually large signatures such as flankers approaching from the rear and the JSF in an un-stealthy mode, such as with un-stealthy external stores; than the flankers would obviously be at an extreme advantage that would not be typical in real combat. big deal.

I really don’t think very much of people that write articles like this or the people that post them.

Elements by Tom Lehrer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmwlzwGMMwc