If they want a strategic missile platform that doesn’t need to come in close proximity with targets, they can drop stealth altogether. If they want to be able to operate in a modern battlefield environment, then they should focus on B-2 levels of LO, else they’re at risk to a lot of interceptors and modern SAM systems.

This isn’t entirely accurate 😉

B-2 levels of LO are going to be pretty obsolete very soon. Maybe not against Western SAMs, but let’s not get carried away. Anything more than B-2 levels of LO might cost far too much – as B2s are horrendously overpriced, even if that level of stealth is cheaper now than it was before to achieve.

Agility and low level penetration abilities with moderate LO should be viable too.

Care to elaborate?

Superior performance specs at an equal or lower price. A no-brainer.

The dumbed down version of the Ohio / Typhoon debate would be the Ohio has more missiles that are more reliable and more accurate than the Typhoons counterparts. Ohios are quieter and more reliable. Given that the Typhoons are (apparently) designed to operate under arctic ice (assuming they could get there without a tail) I’ll grant that while noisier it may be equally survivable given it’s environment. That said it comes down to reliability and missile capability. D-5s are something like 90 consecutive successful flights and counting while the SS-N-20 is hit and miss to the point it’s being replaced. The Ohio carries 24 missiles vs 20 in the Typhoon for more missiles at less than half the displacement.

The displacement issue also makes an Ohio a wimpy girl in terms of damage resistance, while a Typhoon with it’s double hull design is going to be far more resilient to real combat damage. I have heard no issues about SS-N-20 reliability.

I also ask for evidence of an Ohio being quieter.

there you have to also remember that Western naval philosophy is one thing and Soviet one is another, wich pretty much always placed much weigth on the missile arsenal.

Thougth Soviet practice also called for bigger missiles, it was impossible to accomondate them into Destroyer/ligth Cruiser size hull anymore than 8….once Russians came with smaller, western sense of missile, the Uran, the propotion rose to 16 missiles. Thougth Soviet never completed any desing that had the missile fit rigth from the start, they never exceed that number by themselves, and all Uran fits in Russian navy has been modifications to existing desings were other factors have prevented more than 4 to 8 missile carried.

Or now the Yakhont family and Club potentially.

I personally feel that there should be a mix of missiles though. The larger missiles are effectively one-hit wonders for everything including carriers. Imagine the size of the whole from a Kh-22 / SS-N-12/19 – a deck or tower hit means a useless floating airfield! Just one!

My point is that they caught up to 70s and 80s technology. They haven’t caught up to the APG-63(v) 2,3,4, APG-77, APG-79, and APG-81 though, much less the improved version of those sets that will exist in 5, 10, 15yrs from now.

Err, they caught up to 70s/80s tech in the 70s/80s – or more realistically about half a decade down the line usually on average.

Irbis is apparently a Zaslon eh? Hmm no, I don’t think so.

Again, till you provide evidence they haven’t caught up to the radars you mention, with realistic comparison and not biased non-sense, you have nothing really.

How many years did it take to develop radars that were the equals to the APG-63 or AWG-9? It wasn’t until the late model Zaslon, Bars, and Irbis came out, that the Russian fighters had comparable sets.

Exactly. The Russians caught up.

Now this doubles my point, since the Raptor is also OLDER!

Radar tech wasn’t frozen in the 90s, nothing was procured. What is being developed now is going to be a whole new ball game. The APG-77″V2″ is the only thing that keeps the Raptor competitive in terms of avionics. Of course, with the current funding issues, and lack of real need, good luck to LM.

It’s not the size of the tool but how well it’s designed. See the B-1B / Blackjack for example. :diablo: Ohio / Typhoon for another. In both cases the smaller of the two WELL out perform the larger.

Hahahaha yeah, spoken with much evidence and no bias. :rolleyes:

Today’s APG-77. But the 77 will also have evolved by then.

No doubt, but the Russians aren’t going to stick with one radar for the T-50 either 😉

It depends on the size of the numerical superiority, if it isn’t also technologically superior. Sukhoi(and associated subcontractors) are behind LM in stealth, engine, and AESA/avionics technology, so the likelihood of them leapfrogging the Raptor is slim(as it’s not going to be resting on its laurels).

Evidence for any of that?

Considering you have no experience in building stealth aircraft, I will assume you are just pulling opinion out of your posterior.

If the Soviets could best the US companies before, there’s no reason it won’t happen now. The AL-41 in terms of raw performance will be quite superior to the F119. Just look at how long its taken to make the engine. The goal is 40,000lbs of thrust!

An AESA Irbis type will be significantly more powerful than any APG-77.