I don’t think you guys are getting the point of Occam’s Razor.
It is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.
On one side we have just “The Russian S-400 could not see them”.
On the other side is a whole host of mental gymnastics that have to be performed like:
–The one border that they needed to defend, was not being defended
–The Russians saw them but decided despite an integrated IADS to not do anything
–The Russians saw them, but the Syrians could not mount a defence in time so they did not even try
–The Iranians, which were there to obviously provoke the Israelis, did not have proper IADS integration
–The Earth is round and Russians & Syrians did not think of that before
Do you start to see how those things are the exact opposite of Occam’s Razor?
Yeah, because Syria is not going to cover the approach from Israel, you know, the neighbour that they are still technically at war with.
I don’t think you know what Occam’s Razor is.
What was Russia’s purpose in integrating into the Syrian IADS if they could not respond to any Russian warnings?
Occam’s Razor states that Russia simply could not see the F-35s.
No evidence except for Israel saying so.
Russia would not have to launch themselves as they are “integrated” with Syria and could have directed a launch. A bare minimum it should have warned the Syrians.
That’s what they have been claiming for years.
There is this thing you are typing on called the Internet. Using it, you will find out that Russia has set up an S-400 (it has strong anti-stealth claims) system that they claim is fulling integrated into Syria’s IADS. Given that Russia themselves claimed that they have it up and running, it’s Russia that would see & warn about the F-35’s approact and ops within Syria and not Syria themselves that should have sounded the alram.
Given that Israel has used F-35s in Syria against Syrian and Iranian troops without nary a peep from the Russians in the way of a warning or a coordinated defence, I don’t put much stock in their claims of “anti-stealth” systems.
A main problem is that the GE site only mentions the “Total Thrust” and not installed thrust or dry thrust.
Um… What are you babbling about?
The F-35 that your link (ie from 10 days ago) talks about had it’s transponder on and was NOT detected by an air traffic radar site. The transponder “told” the radar site where it was which is different than the site “detected” it.
Your link from Defenseone is talking about a theoretical future war with China (which has nothing to do with the subject at hand) and the second talks about the transponders (which we already know exist).
Already posted 10 days ago:
Your title is also false as the F-35 was not “detected by air traffic control radar”, but had it’s transponder on.
You are using Total Thrust to get to that “20% more than the RM12” figure which negates super-cruise. Looking at the “Dry Thrust” numbers, the F414G only has 7% more than the RM12, not 20%.
… you were doing so well :stupid:
A good portion the fuel is gone when it get’s into combat
Given that the F-35 has already been higher than 45k feet.. yes.
Don’t forget that the F-35 is designed with a lifting body which is not taken into account in most “wing loading ” calculations.
They also contain the pneumatic pressure generation systems for the weapon ejectors & seeker head cooling.