These exercises are held in Rajasthan during peak summer time where temperature could go as high as above 50 degreeC , its possible that S-300 could not have performed as their brochure claim then , any way things have moved on since then from both Russian and Indian side , where India will field its home grown system for ABM and Russia has taken its own leap with S-300 and variants

The F-22 type creature and even B-2 are stealthy over wide band , certainly those that modern fire control radar for modern SAM has both in East and West inventory or development.

It would require multiple integrated systems including all types of meter , decimeter radio waves to track it accurately and kill it.

I don’t think a plane (B-2A) that requires about 50 escort and support aircraft, is going to be stealthy enough to defeat Russia’s Air-Defence network.:rolleyes:

DRFM should be effective even against large Phased array Radar , but using frequency hopping and spread spectrum you can deal with the likes of DRFM , its a cat and mouse game , but the West and mostly the US has a clear upperhand here.

I am certain that US is not loosing its sleep over S-300/400 types around , but shouting certainly give them the ammo to do more about it.

I don’t know where your getting your info from, but if the U.S. wasn’t lossing any sleep over it, they wouldn’t be complaininhg to Russia about the selling of the old S-300PMU-1 system to Iran.

Look at PAC-3 for all its faults its the most combat proven and effective SAM out there , proven to work in the most dense AD and threat environment , and US has built upon that experience and leadership to build the likes of THAAD/SM systems , there is no catching them there .

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, THE U.S. is VERY concerned over the S-300PMU-2/400’s why do you think they are complaining about the selling of (PMU-1) to Iran, the PAC-3’s performance in Iraq is not to be taken into consideration scince Iraq had old stuff and NOT the PMU-2, have Iraq have 1000/ or more PMU-2’s and 90% of them shot down by the PAC-3 then you can say it’s prooven, but that didn’t happen and will not as far as I’m concerned.

Tor M2 to be supplied to Russian Forces in 09
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071225/94119712.html

They will , atleast UK subs might provide intel and other critical service needed

Dont underestimate UK submarine service , they are second to none and best out there , they have a small but well trained and advanced subs out there.

I recollect reading a statement of a Russian admiral stating that during the cold war it was the UK submarine service they feared the most.

Source please?

How do they manage that when the two wingtip stations are used for the ECM pods? There are two stations under the fuselage, one under each nacelle, and three under each wing, discounting the two wingtip stations. That leaves 10 hardpoints, not 12. There are no other underwing stations; when the Su-35 was displayed at MAKS every harpoint was loaded and there were no remaining attachment points under the wing or body. So where do you get 12 R-77s with 2 ECM pods?

Also, supercruise is the ability to exceed Mach 1 in level flight and maintain supersonic level flight without using afterburners. If you have to use burners to get through Mach 1, you aren’t supercruising. If you use burners the whole time, you aren’t supercruising. This should not be so hard for certain individuals to grasp.

MiG-31: not a supercruise platform, merely a long-ranged supersonic cruise aircraft.

Actually 4 R-77 have been put on Su-27 underneath so on the Su-35BM 4 R-77 underbeath, and 4 under the wings is capable scince it’s capable wityh the Su-27, thats 12 R-77’s.:D

The better comfort level point is taken , but I should add here that even a basic comfort level for submariners should suffice like provided in Ohio , at the end of the day they are trained for this,

The double hull/multi hull may help during battle damage , but the shape charge warhead of torpedo will just tear double hull apart , having a positive id of the Typhoon no western SSN will just fire a single Torpedo at it and let the sea and depth do the rest they would prolly fire multiple shots or who knows a Nuke Torpedo.

So a double hull is good , but i dont see great operational advantage.

The Delta IV could equally well operate under ice and so does the Ohio.

Garry , even if they carry 8 warhead ( i still think I read Trident II carries 12 W88 warhead somewhere ) the yeald per warhead of ~ 450 kt is twice as powerful as the 200 Kt russian warhead.

I think the Ohio were silent compared to any Russian SSBN then , certainly shrouded prop of Typhoon would have helped in reducing cavitation noise.

No matter how one looks at it , the Typhoon design doesnt seem inovative at all , I would still think Delta IV are better with the hump , and considering its cost and size they didnt go beyond 6 of these.

I should add here one more point , when we talk of Russia vs US submarine fleet , more appropriate would be Russia vs US/UK fleet ( I still leave french here but I think french are equally more NATO )

So threat to Russian submarine fleet will not be limited to US submarine but even from UK and perhaps France as well.

If they are all coming at once yes, but individually U.K. wouldn’t last losng.

Wow this thread is becoming amsuing at best. I dont know what moderator policy is here but some people either have no clue at all or are intentional wind-ups. :).

1MAN – learn to think before you type bud, I mean honestly; I doubt you have much technical experience in these matters, from some of your posts. I would keep your day job :).

Yes I was mis-understanding some aspects of supercruise, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand other things militaraly.

I will say this to you though – aerospace and defense engineering is a world of compromise. Most gains are incremental – and requirments change. Hence the technical specifications change; comparing the starfighters supersonic persistence to an F-22’s is pointless – it shows your complete ignorance in the matter. The starfighter was and is essentially a bullet, a supersonic tube – the F-15 and to a greater extent the F-22 have had new requirements. They are much larger, heavier aircraft, with modern avionics and structural engineering that require bulkier and more g-tolerant designs. The fact the F-22 carries all of its avioncs, is VLO, agile and can supercruise with impressive supersonic persistance for today’s fighter aircraft is a very much greater leap, than the starfighters niche supersonic persistence was back in the day.

One could argue today that an F-22 in an AD role is worth 3 + F-16s. But then one could make the claim if we had the choice of 3 + F-16s in WWII or 1 F-22 in WWII (hypothetically of course), you’d take the 3 + F-16s as they’d still be unstoppable against the opposition but have the greater number of aircraft. Does that mean the F-22 is less impressive than an F-16? No of course it doesn’t – all the example illustrates is that different aircraft have been designed for differenet era’s and different requirements. So please before posting poinless statements mate, think about what your saying, and about its relevance to modern military aviation. Because in my mind you clearly don’t understand the engineering thought processes when you start making those silly ccomparisons.

Col.Everest E. Riccioni USAF
Doesn’t think so:http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf
I think he knows more than you or I.

let do simple math.
F-22 20 ton weight + 8.2 tons fuel+ 4 AAM= 29 tons

F-22’s weight is 31.5 tons (63,000lb) http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf