I’d give you:

F-22A
Rafale
Su-30MKI
EF-2000
F-15C mod (AESA/AIM-9X/JHMCS)

Order of the last three is a bit subjective based on differing considerations, but this works for now. Honorable mention to the J-10 for being another maneuverable BVR shooter, but it just doesn’t rate across the board with those 5.

Ahhh, that’s cute!

Why should I be an expert on plasma stealth to not know that the Raptors RCS claim isn’t far fetched?

and please since you know so much about plasma explain to us how it can’t have an RCS of 0.0002m2 for nine microseconds
and how many megajolts does it require for your brain to work properly?

Well you clearly have no idea about what RCS values are actually expressing, which is the lowest RCS figure from the most obvious combat aspect. In the Raptor’s case, that’d be from a certain number of degrees either side of head-on. From directly above or directly below, the RCS will be far, FAR larger. From a side-on aspect, it’ll likely be far larger as well due to the various access panels and the large vertical tails. Won’t be as big from directly side-on, but from a little below you’ll get a solid hit from the basically slab-sided fuselage and the massive vertical tails. Designing for a miniscule head-on RCS is old hat at Lockheed, the same concept was applied to the HAVE BLUE, SENIOR TREND (F-117A), and OXCART (A-12, although the effectiveness of that aircraft’s low RCS design is up for debate).

on the ground in front of you the F-22 seems to have a dull, matte finish

I noticed the same thing, at least on the operational birds. Some of the EMD jets did have different schemes applied.

1. Upgrading the S-300PMU-1 to S-400 standard isn’t as cut and dry as it sounds. You need a new engagement radar, and then you need new missiles in the form of at least the 48N6DM. You might be able to modify the TELs to communicate with the new radar, but apart from that you’re in for a much deeper “modification” than you might think, and buying the S-400 outright might be better off.

2. I thought Greece was less than impressed with the S-300PMU-1, not because of any deficiency, but because it wasn’t talking very well with the PATRIOT SAMs as part of their overall AD network. That’s another potential strong reason to just buy the S-400 outright, to replace the PATRIOT batteries and enjoy much better interoperability with the two S-300PMU-1 batteries already in place.

why is it only ever associated with the Flanker family?

Probably because it was seen as a serious option for the Su-27K. It was probably mooted as a weapon for striking surface ships, and since the MiG-29K couldn’t lift one, the Su-27K was the only option. My question would be why the Chinese didn’t pursue this with the Su-30MK2. It should’ve been an acceptable export as they already had the SS-N-22 on the Sovremennyys.

I will state it again and paraphrase- No Flanker (Su-33 or otherwise) has ever flown with a real Moskit, nor has a Moskit been launched from a Flanker.

Or, more correctly – There is no information in the public domain of such a thing happening.

There’s an image of what looks to be an air launch of a Moskit from a FLANKER (an MKI if I remember right) in Gordon’s new FLANKER book, but that might be a CGI image from a sales brochure or something.

ermm what have to do with rcs that both trailing and leading edges have same alignment? not big deal for side rcs, specially if u see that the wingtips are flat, and both sides have the same standar 45 degrees, not also a big advantage for backward rcs coz u have longer perimetre, i really though that also would have some impresive stealth feature , but after talking with some friends and analyse it better, that wouldnt be the main reason

Because for a fighter aircraft, frontal aspect RCS is the main priority.

an aerodynamical mess

Worked well enough; had this been the Lockheed/Boeing/GD design it would be in production right now as the aircraft itself was not the reason that Northrop-McDonnell Douglas lost the competition.

N/MD designed a stealthy fastmover to meet the agility requirement and in some areas it blew the F-22 off the charts. The F-23/F120 combination is probably the most advanced fighter aircraft yet designed by the US aerospace industry.

Any idea why they would have left the little stub between the airleron and flap rather than just have them butt up against each other? That’s always bugged me.

Good question, RCS maybe? Maybe they found it better to have the moving segments retract and lock into fixed segments?

No other chance, the political climate does not play in their favor at the moment.

I really still don’t agree with that one…the Republicans running may have abandoned the neocon label and the ultra-right wing neocon concepts, but they’re most certainly not going to become liberals.

I would easily admit that except the fact I am not persuaded about the parts proving anything, at least not yet. I cannot stick to the theory that is proven because I got no evidence about either one. I simply stick to the hypothese that is more logical. We can have a separate discussion on this topic but not in this thread, I suggest.

But you do get my point at least.

I give it to you, you are right but then one logical question comes into my mind: Why do you maintain that the military action against Iraq was right, then? If you defend the policy of not meddling in others’ affairs, then you should have completely ignored Saddam, as well, or am I mistaken?

Now we’re conspiring to confuse each other. I’ve said that military action in Iraq was legal and justifiable under existing UNSC resolutions, regardless of what certain European nations want to think. What was not justifiable or even remotely legal was regime change and occupation. People who claim that the entire concept of military intervention was illegal are simply ignorant or illiterate, take your pick. The issue is the scope and scale of that intervention. Do I personally think Iraq was a good idea? Sure do, otherwise NORTHERN and SOUTHERN WATCH were going to remain impotent cash vacuums for a few more decades. Do understand that I believe that we went about Iraq the wrong way, of course, but I do think going in there under existing UNSCR’s was a good idea as yes, the entire world, and the US military, believed there was a WMD threat, and he was in violation of the ’91 cease-fire regardless.

I am not claiming it must be correct but that is how I see it:

Bush: Has Iraq WMDs?
CIA: Not sure. Probably there is left something from the early years. No big deal.
Bush: Enough to claim it as a threat? I need something on Iraq quickly.
CIA: Threat? To whom? The US? You are kidding..
Bush: Damn it. Donald is already getting impatient. Our hands are tied. Those people have already put too much money in us, they need to be paid back or we get into some real trouble, you included. I need it to be claimed as threat..
CIA: Not sure, even if they had a programme running, that would be a very early stage. Rather not. We need to think out something else.
Bush: Rather not? That means it is not a 100% not…
CIA: Well, if you want to see it that way, then ok, there is a 0.1% probability that they attack….
Bush: …. United States?
CIA. No way. but maybe we can say at least Israel.. or our troops in the ME.. Or American tourists in Dubai… You can say anything, nobody will care..
Bush: Whatever.. That is what I needed to hear. We better get in and deal with them right away.

That sounds good on paper, but that’s just not the way it works.

The US has as much right to stop them as they do Iran and North Korea, that is no moral or legal right but an individual sovereign policy right.

That is the biggest load of bull I’ve heard in a while. Do I really need to explain why?

For years the whole forum was full of people supporting the Iraqi invasion for whatever artificial reasons created by the US administration (WMDs, AQ, Kurds). I think at least me and Garry will remember that well. Now you will not find a single man who would say *yes, I believed these ideas and I was wrong*, all neocons crawled back to their holes, turned their coats and now proudly present themselves as liberal democrats who knew it from the very start.:p

First off, the true neocons over here would never commit self degradation by becoming liberal dems, get real 😀

Secondly, your allegation works both ways…after those aircraft parts at the Pentagon were proven to be engine parts from a 757 or 767 (forgive me the oversight but I forget what type it was) and not phantom cruise missile turbines, nobody else claimed that their conspiracy theories were wrong either. All you can do is offer up the evidence and let people make up their own mind, as PLA-MKII did a few posts back in our discussion (I haven’t forgotten you yet, I’m still reading through a lot of that stuff, don’t get put off by my lack of reply so far). Myself, I have always maintained that military action was right but regime change and occupation were wrong, and am still skeptical over the non-presence of WMDs due to both the discovery and use of some of them since 2003 and the holes in what Iraq gave to the UN in their campaign to flood the UN with documents.

But what makes you think that you have right to forbid Iranians to work on their nuclear programme (be it for civil or military purposes) and even threaten with an attack is beyond me, especially if the evidence for any military-oriented programme is still missing. (Unless they have found since late December 2007, I haven’t checked yet)

I have to agree here…what right exactly does anyone have to prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear energy or nuclear weapons? There is the issue of Iran being an NPT signatory, but they could just as easily withdrawl and move on. But beyond that toothless agreement that India, Pakistan, and Israel are too good for, there is no reason that Iran should not be able to pursue either goal if that is their sovereign desire. So the West won’t like it. Big deal. If an Iranian bomb goes off in the West, and yes you can tell where they were manufactured, then that gives you a sufficient reason to consign Persia to the history books. Win-win either way, Iran gets a deterrent to Israeli nuclear power, and if they do something untoward with it the West gets to rid itself of a problem.

“Oh, but you can’t do that, you’ll be basically giving Iran a free hand to use nuclear bombs and kill innocents”

Progress is never benign, sit down and be quiet.

I would certainly support intervention to such countries, but not decided, planned and performed by the United States.
Such practices performed by one single country would soon turn into purposeful pursuing of own national interests under the smoke screen of officially approved interventions in order to restore democracy. I am sure that the US would be picking oil or gas rich countries like Iran or Nigeria, while completely ignoring human rights issues in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia which are already on their side.

I would not support such intervention, especially when you consider the massive problems we have on the homefront here. Why should we be meddling in others’ affairs when we can’t get our own closet organized? Beyond that, let the UN without a US presence deal with the world’s issues if it sees fit to interfere in the internal affairs of others. And I’ve said before that the idea of “spreading democracy” is insulting and ludicrous. And human rights issues in Saudi and Kuwait are very subjective, I find the idea of entering another nation to change the moral code or ethical ideals of a nation is pretty deplorable as well. If the people get fed up and decide not to take it anymore, then things will change. In that regard the US is a pretty good example, ask the British.

The US/west has as much right to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons as Iran has to pursue them.

Do we have a right to stop India, Pakistan, or Israel from developing nuclear arms as well, or is this a one-sided policy?

The faliure in Iraq was politicised intelligence, but not to that level that many wish to believe. All the politicians did was exaggerate an already established conclusion. It was the intelligence analysts that were wrong before the politicians.

That I can agree with to an extent.

CIA: Iraq has WMDs!

Bush: Are they threatening me?

DoD: Of course they are, who else would they want to attack?

Bush: We better get in and deal with that then.

Oversimplified and interjected with a degree of humor (I forget, are Moderators allowed to use humor…?), but not too far from how it’d work. And that places the failure, yes, on the intel community. Bush did exactly what he should have done with the information he was given (apart from regime change and occupation, as I already stated, of course). If the President of Bulgaria is erroneously told that those sneaky Romanians are preparing WMDs for use against his citizens, you can’t fault him if he takes action. He is doing his job, the fault is in those who gave him erroneous information. If he does nothing and WMDs rain down on his capital, and his excuse is that he was re-analyzing the data, then you can blame him until he croaks. The president is not an analyst, he is a user. Big difference there, which people like to ignore as it deprives them of another argument to use against Bush (which is funny because even I can tell you that they aren’t short of arguments).