The article is biaised and sometimes plain wrong, but your assertion unfortunately also. The radar system of what is called Su-35 extremely powerful, and whereas the detection range against a F-35 is off course less than against a non-stealth opponent, it is nevertheless impressive enough and allows the Su to use its weapons way before entering a sure danger enveloppe. Weapon effectiveness will be the decisive factor here.
Depending on the Lightning II mission, it will either try to avoid the Su-35 altogether or call in Raptors for terminal fighting capabilities. The Lightning, as a fighter, is imho totally overestimated.

With due respect, I think you missed the point. Yes the Su-35 has better radar than the Su-27 family does, but the JSF is significantly stealthier than the average 4+ generation opponent it might come up against. I am not a really big fan of the F-35 (glorified bomb truck) but the stealth characteristics it will apparently have will allow it to get the first shot off against the Su-35 before the merge, better radar notwithstanding.

Very biased article by the way.

Again with the name calling Sealordlawrence. Pretty sad. As I stated previously I respect your opinions and your rights to have them, but I respectfully disagree with them. Bluster is usually the fallback position of someone who cannot back up their points with facts.

And as far as credibility goes take a look at the following document:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/gao/d08608t.pdf

Excerpt from the GAO Report on the capability of the GBI technology

…We could not assess attainment of another MDA goal: the overall performance of fielded assets as an integrated BMDS. This is because there have not been enough flight tests to validate the models and simulations that are used to predict system-level performance, the reliability of some interceptors could be affected by problematic parts that have not been replaced yet, and tests done to date do not provide enough information for DOD’s operational test and evaluation Director to fully determine if the BMDS is suitable and effective for battle….

It has not been proven to work to date by any measure. And your name calling won’t prove that it does. Again I ask you sir, prove me wrong and I will gladly change my opinion.

I am always able to admit when I am mistaken Sealordlowrence. Unlike some of us on this thread…..

However I would dispute that a single test of one missile of unknown capability and provenance equals a deployable “capability” to reach Europe on the part of the Iranians. Let alone that an attack on Europe or North America with wmd would be suicide for Iran.

Furthermore I have yet to read your comments on what I have been repeatedly saying about the fact that the GBI systems as currently deployed in Alaska and in the cards for Poland has not been proven to work as advertised. I have read details of unrealistic testing, deployment ahead of any proper OT&E, and huge cost overruns.

So I again ask you to specifically comment on your assessment of the technology at the root of the issue here. I contend that it does not work and is only being deployed for politcal rather than defense needs.

Prove me wrong sir.

As someone who is fairly new to these boards, perhaps one of the Rafale fanatics here could explain why the Eurofighter Typhoon seems to be eating the Rafale’s lunch when it comes to overseas orders to date.

If I recall the Singapore competition (eventually won by the F-15S) was the only time that the Typhoon was bested by Rafale.

Is it cost, capability, perception, lack of good bribes?????:D;)

And short to medium term where do you see the export breakthrough the Rafale really needs actually coming from?

Cheers

Syria blames Israeli bombs for uranium traces

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6EaDL79y0zo-vARxiTBol6kbbzQD94DF0U00…DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Syria’s foreign minister suggested Wednesday that Israeli bombs may be the source of uranium traces that diplomats at the U.N. nuclear agency said were found at a suspected nuclear site…… “No one has ever asked himself what kind of Israeli bombs had hit the site, and what did they contain?” said (Foreign Minister) al-Moallem, adding that the United States has used bombs containing depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan…

Depleted uranium in aircraft delivered bombs??? And frankly the Syrian argument it does not hold much water to me. One would not need DU to be used to create a penetrating iron bomb. Good old fashioned steel will work just fine.

I can honestly say that this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing existing in any munition outside of a APFSDS tank round fried from the barrel of a Tank main gun or in cannon shells for the GAU-8 cannon of the A-10 and 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounted on ships. I know there are other cannon applications, but none of them come to mind.

…It is unclear at this time whether you are being deliberately dishonest or if you are just ignorant of the facts.

With all due respect I think you should apologize for the above remark. I am offering an opinion of what I see as the reality as it exists and I resent that you seem to wish to debate a difference of opinion with a personal smear instead.

We obviously disagree and I respect that your opinion is different than mine. I would request that you be at least open to do the same. And, again with due respect, I am curious of the “…facts…” you are speaking of?

Is it a “…fact…” that Iran curently does not have the capability to hit Europe with any sort of significant ballistic weapon armed with WMD?

It is a “…fact…” that the currnet American ABM technology has not been proven to work to any significant degree?

Is it a “…fact…” that the American government has spend well ofer $150 Billion over the years on a technology that has not provided one single bit of defense to it’s citizens or allies over the years?

I would submit that the answer to all of these questions is a resounding yes. I anxiously await the opportunity to read the “…facts…” you are speaking of.

The Aussies ITAS system was designed to essentially automate a three cremember bird down to a two crewmwmber bird via automation. Kaman could not get the birds certified to a minimal safety standard. The Aussies also took the route of using surplus airframes that needed to be stripped down to the bare frames and re-built rather than going with new build like the New Zealanders did.

The Poles, Egyptians and Kiwis took the route of essentially using the basline Seasprite that was previously in service with the USN. The only discernable difference between the Kiwi version and the USN version was the integration of Maverick missile capability.

Bottom line here I think these helos have a very limited appeal. Who needs old airframes with faulty avionics?

Looks Russian…..”Bounder” Bomber perhaps?