You have consistantly failed to post anything of worth in this thread, your one attempt to provide facts to back up your as yet unjustified position simply displayed ignorance of the subject and now all you do is agree with others without reasoning…………it is all rather baffling,

How can someone with so little knowledge form an a opionion at all?

Says you.

I vehemently disagree with your assertion that this technology will work as advertised. You consistently state that there is an extant threat from Iran that this technology can deter or defend against. You brush off the geopolitical implications of deployment of this technology next door to a nuclear armed Russia.

Yet I do not see you try sir and explain why you think this technology WILL work. Calling me ignorant is insulting but that’s OK. I have a thick skin and this is after all the internet.

I have never professed to know ALL about this issue and I probably never will (unlike some of us here :cool:). Prove me wrong sir. Prove to me that my assertions about the effectiveness of the technology are not grounded. Prove to me that there is an extant threat that requires such a vast outlay of treasure to be defended against. Prove to me sir that this move will not start a new Cold War or a greviously damaging arms race with a resurgent Russia for no reason.

Unlike you appear to be sir, I am not attached to my opinions and clouded by ideology to the point that I do not allow myself to accept the points made by somebody with a different opinion other than myself.

I anxiously await your reply.

Cheers

Why is the US wrong to defend itself?

With due respect I think you are missing my point. Defend itself against what?

Iran?

Do you seriously believe that Iran will have the testicular fortitude to lob a missile or two at New York or Washington using WMD when the Americans can turn their entire country into a radioactive ruin?

Iran is not a monolith politically. Ahmedinajad is not the absolute ruler of that country. Their political system is more Byzantine then even the American system is. They rule at the highest level by consensus and they are not stupid.

Displaying a capability is a far cry from having the cojones to use that capability in time of conflict or tension.

This system that the Americans propose is a white elephant. The Russian response is equally baffling. They are getting huffy about something that if deployed changes nothing about the strategic balance. America (at least the Bush Administration version of America) clings to this technology that does not work and Russia clings to this paranoia about western hegenomy.

Well SOC, this was my first conclusion: BOTH sites are absolutely irrelevant. But both are irritants.

Close this thread. Nothing else left to say.

The Americans are wrong to deploy the missile defense shield and the Russians are wrong to over-react.

Lots of blame to go around.

Sikorsky Flies First Canadian Cyclone

Sikorsky has begun flight tests of the CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopter for the Canadian Forces. The aircraft completed its delayed first flight from the company’s development center in Florida on Nov. 15.

Sikorsky was awarded a C$1.8 billion ($1.5 billion) contract in November 2004 to build 28 CH-148s to replace Canada’s long-serving Sea King ship-based helicopters. First delivery was originally scheduled for the end of this month, but has been delayed by development issues.

Negotiations are continuing with the Canadian government and no new date has been announced, but defense minister Peter MacKay has previously said deliveries are now expected to begin in mid-2010.

The CH-148 is a derivative of Sikorsky’s S-92 commercial helicopter intended for missions including anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, search-and-rescue, and troop and cargo transport.

Powered by General Electric CT7-8A engines, the helicopter has digital fly-by-wire flight controls, automatic blade and tail fold, anti-icing and deck recovery assist system.

The mission system is being integrated by General Dynamics Canada and includes maritime radar, electro-optical/infrared sensor, sonobuoy acoustic processor, dipping sonar and electronic support measures.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/CYC11188.xml&headline=Sikorsky%20Flies%20First%20Canadian%20Cyclone&channel=defense

India is being punished here by the fact that the Russians under-estimated the costs involved in the refurbishment/refit.

However I liken this deal to the purchase of a used car. India should have done more due diligence/discovery before signing up for a deal that was too good to be true.

Buyer beware. There are greasy salesmen out there.

…
Using the logic in this article we should still be flying the Fokker Dr.I, since is it more maneuverable than monoplanes…

Well said.

Stealth is a game changer that our Russian friends do not seem to want to acknowledge or account for. No matter that 4+ gen aircraft like the Su-35 might be extremely formidable, if they do not have the capability to have a reasonable chance of getting off a first shot before the merge they are a cooked goose most of the time. WVR is only a small part of the puzzle.

Datalinked systems, IADS, AWACS, GCI, Phased array radars, you name it, will all be degraded in performance to some significant degree against a stealthy opponent. Unless the Russians have developed some significant new technology that allows it’s aircraft to counteract the effects of stealth on sensors then it will be a one sided fight almost every time. Incremental performance in conventional sensor and avionics technology will not be enough I believe to level the playing field.it would take a revolution like satellite sensors or laser radar (LIDAR) perhaps to give a stealthy warplane any worries against a 4th gen opponent.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. If the Russians assigned to market the Su-35 want to compare their plane to another then perhaps they should use the Block 50 F-16. it is about the most numerous competitor it might fight and would be a much better comparison considering they are developments of aircraft that are contemporary with one another. Comparing 4+ and 5th gen aircraft against one another is not a winning proposition.

I think you’re short changing the F-35 with that categorization. It’s at least as manueverable as an F-16/18, if not moreso, and has far more sophisiticated A/A avionics.

Maybe so, but I will reserve final judgement until I see performance data based on actual in squadron service F-35 hardware. Frankly this Russian “journalism” piece looks like marketing fluff to me.