SOCMost of the magic in F-35 is the software.
There’s also the low RCS design and things like RAM coatings which could conceivably be exploited.
Yes, they are paid for using Military Assistance Program credits. It’s part of keeping 5M Jews alive who are surrounded by 275M Arabs who want them dead.
This is the duty of the United States because…? Israel has a defense relationship with China, and there have been all sorts of news reports covering Israeli spies being tossed out of the United States. If they aren’t acting like an ally, they shouldn’t enjoy the benefits of one. If you believe the US government (which I do not, in this case, for the record), then China is the next big threat on the horizon. Yet we’re supposed to give Israel more and more advanced defense technology why, because they’re Jewish? Doesn’t wash with me. They’re an independent nation state. Let them fend for themselves, they’ve done alright in the past when they had to throw down the gauntlet.
SOCCongressional approval of the sale of the F-35 to Israel should be considered grounds for impeachment of every individual voting to approve the sale.
SOCAs far as I know it still flys, probably now in support of the PAK-FA program. Crash? Nope, it never crashed, and its made well over 100 flights. The only problem I know of was rectified by increasing the surface area of the horizontal tailplanes.
SOCAnd what you don’t seem to understand is that a SAM SYSTEM is not just one SAM missile. It is an integrated air defence network of hundreds of overlapping missile and radar sites that work together.
Nitpick mode on: a SAM system is the radar and missile complex iself, like a single S-300PM-1 unit comprising 48N6D missiles, 36N6 engagement radar, 76N6 HF radar, and 64N6 EW radar. An IADS is what you get when you network SAM systems together. A SAM system can be very capable by itself, but you network them to provide redundancy, overlapping coverage, better situational awareness, and coverage over large areas.
End of nitpick mode 😀
The Russians introduce the S-400 SAM system and position them all… in the Moscow Subway.
The subway? What is it with you and sferrin wanting to off civillians with SAM firings anyway? :diablo:
The MFI and MFS projects were to create a prototype, which they did. By the time they were completed however it was clear the world had changed and the resulting aircraft would not have been very useful, so they had the good sense to change to the PAK-FA program
The MFI was the result of the I-90 program to develop a counter to the F-22. The 1.44 was the technology demonstrator. What killed it was a lack of funding and a severely delayed flight test schedule (caused by, you guessed it, a lack of funding). By the time they had the finances sorted out it was seen as best to start over, and the PAK-FA program emerged. When it was conceived, the MFI was fully intended to be the next Russian fighter, not a mere prototype program.
It is great against third world countries, or small isolated countries like Serbia.
…who were using a lot of Soviet kit; there is no reason to believe that the F-117 wouldn’t have been effective over the Warsaw Pact (flying one deep into the USSR was never an option, that was the B-2’s purview) as long as mission planners kept heads removed from posteriors.
SOCIt seems they are going to start this airborne stuff.
Both sides have tested airborne laser systems of various scope for a while now, but the Russians/Soviets always had a very, very in-depth research program on laser weapon systems. If they had a sizeable advantage from 1970 until around 1990 when funding likely became problematic, I certainly wouldn’t be suprised.
SOCWell, considering the fact that Su-30 are probably still flying unarmed,
There’s a photo in the Small Air Forces Thread (I think that’s the right one) that shows an Su-30 from the FAV carrying a Kh-31, so they may be carrying weapons now.
SOCThe propeller aircraft you refer to is the Yak-44, and it was never flown. Only a mockup was completed.
SOC12-24 single-seat Su-35s and a unit of Su-30MKs could easily be justified; use the former for air defense and the latter for maritime patrol and air to ground missions. Such numbers provide a welcome update for the Libyan AF without suggesting a large military buildup. Seems perfectly sensible to me, but the MiG-29SMT seems to be the odd man out as it were. 24 Su-35s would make for a Tripoli and a Benghazi air defense unit of 12 each, with 12-24 Su-30MKs making one or two multirole units. Why then bother with the MiG-29SMT, unless Russia is offering refurbished rejected Algerian examples at a cheap price?
SOCFor the perfect 1960s fighter F-106, F-108 and the Avro Arrow were equally useless.
Probably because they were pure interceptors, not fighters!
SOCKazakhstan has thre S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B) batteries and three S-200 batteries in service right now; the PMU-2 and S-400 could replace them on a one-for-one basis and allow them to be repositioned and defend far more of Kazakhstan’s airspace than is currently covered.
SOCUhm, no.. If all customers were only to field what Russia has in service, they would not have that much to choose from.. vanilla Fulcrums, vanilla Flankers and MiG-31. Su-30MKK/MK2/MKI, MiG-29K, Yak-130, MiG-29SMT, Mi-35M, Mi-17V-5, all those have not yet entered Russian AF and many of those never will.
There’s also the Ka-50 to pick from. And vanilla FLANKERs only? The Su-27SM and Su-34 are in service, the former in rapidly increasing numbers.
SOCI changed it to US Military Aviation News.
SOCIs it me or do all of those designs seem to feature vertical tails that are way too small?
SOCIt was so far off course it couldn’t have been a civilian airliner… as far as they were concerned it was a really gutsy spyplane trying to leave with a goldmine of recordings.
ELINT collection assets like the SR-71 probed their systems constantly, so why would they assume we had to send an ISR jet deep inside of their airspace to get the goods? OK, yes, I agree that at first glance it should have been IDed as an ISR jet based on the location and whatnot, but navigation errors in the pre-GPS era were not out of the question. My only issue is that they should, in the eyes of the international community that is, have positively IDed the jet before shooting at it with a fighter. The fact that they sent a fighter up and didn’t just smack it with an S-200 tells me that they may have had a case of misidentification on the part of the pilot performing the intercept. They did have a right given the restricted airspace violation to shoot first and seek answers later so to speak, but in this specific case I have to wonder what really happened and why. I don’t think their motives were wrong, just that the way it went down seems a bit weird to me.
What sort of statement does shooting down an unarmed civilian aircraft make?
Stay the hell out of our airspace?
They clearly identified Mathis Rusts Cessna as civilian… they couldn’t keep station using the Mig-23s that intercepted him initially, but they could certainly have shot him down with an R-60M if they wanted to. Instead they handed the case off to the interior ministry and all they had to track him as a Hind… and without an extensive radar network and no radar on the Hind it is hardly surprising he made it to Red Square without being tracked down by that helo.
That’s part of my point. They positively IDed Rust with a visual check by an interceptor. It is possible that the FLAGON pilot misidentified the 747.
This is why you defend high priority airspace with heavy SAM systems, there is no room for questions after the fact!
What do any events have to do with this thread topic? This is about NATO interceptors coming within 100m of large Russian aircraft and performing dangerous manouvers also too close to the bombers.
Ok but you have to consider the forum you are posting on. Our track record for remaining strictly on-topic is not very stellar 😀
At what zoom would you prefer? Who is to say they don’t have visual evidence? Who is to say they wont provide it to nations that claim there is no problem with their fighters for which the video evidence might contradict?
The Russians are not the Georgians…
You’re right, if the Russians were the Georgians (Abkhazian Georgians)they’d be getting someone else to shoot down their irritators 😀
So you claim that the USAF does not train its strategic bomber crews on international flights in international airspace?
Training flights are not necessarily the issue. The issue is training flights simulating nuclear missile launch along the periphery of a “hostile” nation. When have you heard of US nuclear bombers flying along the edge of Russian or Chinese airspace?
I will add that I put hostile in quotations because I personally do not perceive Russia or its armed forces as a hostile nation or a potential aggressor in the future. If you ask me this is all political. The flights along pre-existing routes let people know that Russia is still a major player. But the chances of a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia is about as close to zero as it could be. This is all about a show of force to back up other political movements and put some power behind them.
Not at 100m… closer than 100m… to aircraft with 50m wingspans. This is not formation flying, there is no wingman and leader, just one unpredictible idiot getting in real close to a very large aircraft.
I’ve been looking and everything I can find regarding the intercept of other aircraft denotes things like “safe separation distance” and the like. Nowhere does it denote a set distance, but I could be overlooking the proper regulations. Given that the fighters in question haven’t caused a collision, one could assume that they are operating within safe and more importantly legal limits.
If ISR and MPA aircraft don’t hurt fighter interceptors, how do strategic cruise missile carriers hurt fighter interceptors?
I meant they don’t represent a direct strategic threat to the nation, not the interceptors. Any Russian bomber except the Tu-160 is obviously a potential threat to any other aircraft, they carry cannons!
The ISR is looking for gaps to plot waypoints for bombers to get through to release all those deadly nukes and also design jamming aircraft and other things that will reduce the effectiveness of your defences. An MPA seems to get the USN is the same tizz a bomber gets everyone else who is anti Russia here… with every sighting… Ohhh the provocation!!!! they might as well start WWIII right now!!!!
Everybody overflys everybody else at sea, anyone complaining about it should be asked how many people a simple overflight has killed. None? Great, move on to something important.
Agreed here. I have read somewhere that a considerable fraction of American public (57% or 75%, I don’t know) still believe in Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 attacks…(deleted the rest to save space)
The problem is the media. Public perception in the US is driven by what the media feeds the people. They believe the news, because nobody else is telling them what is going on. The problem lies in the over politicizing of the media. The media has become a political tool rather than an unbiased distributor of the facts. Look at the Hussein issue. Yeah, Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. But there was a distinct connection between Hussein and terrorist groups. The media was reporting such connections before 9/11. When it became politically unacceptable to do so anymore, the media dropped such news items and focused on how Hussein was being villified in connection with 9/11. Honestly, if we had a state-run news media operating under Soviet-style constraints, we’d probably be getting a much more accurate and clear picture of actual events. When they are actually reported, of course 😀
Without any intention to present my own assumptions about what happened in 2001 I say that regardless of who really ordered what and who knew what in advance, the 9/11 definitely did not happen the way it is presented.
The problem I have is when conspiracy theorists have their notions debunked by educated experts in various fields. Remember the “cruise missile engine parts” on the Pentagon lawn? Those were proven to be engine parts from the Boeing 757 or 767 that hit the building. But still they persist. People argued about how quickly the debris was excavated from the WTC site as well, but the uneducated masses were ignorant of the fact that it had to be done to inspect the seawall to ensure that the integrity of the island of Manhattan remained stable. It’s manmade and had the seawall been damaged and failed most of it would have flooded below Central Park! That’s just the tip of the iceberg and completely unrelated to the issue of Russian bomber intercepts, but it at least illustrates part of my irritation with people who choose to believe in what their crowd spouts rather than conducting an open minded examination of the actual facts at hand. Believing the government was behind something is one thing, but supporting concepts that are simply not based in fact is another thing entirely.
SOCWell gee whiz it is easy to criticise isn’t it? I mean at 5am at 30 odd thousand feet from behind you see a four engine 747 and you are looking for a four engined 707… sounds like an easy mistake to make… how many Boeings would he normally see in that airspace in his entire career?
He shouldn’t see any which is why he was right to shoot the jet down, but you have to wonder whether or not he was ordered to inspect the jet visually or simply close in and fire. Did the Soviets think it was a genuine ISR asset, or were they looking for an excuse to make a statement?
If F-15C pilots can think two Blackhawk helos are Hinds and shoot them down, if the super duper best radar in the world on an AEGIS class cruiser can make its crew think an ascending Airbus 320 is a descending F-14 Tomcat then perhaps we could give him the benefit of the doubt… afterall the view from an Su-15 is not as good as from an F-15C right?
What do those events have to do with the Soviet KAL intercept?
Ascending A320s are identical to descending F-14s too are they?
See above.
There is a difference between a bomber flying to a grid point and then turning home and what is claimed is happening here… ie western pilots getting too close to large aircraft and performing irresponsible manouvers.
The problem is not the interception, it is the dangerous manouvers made during the interception. Perhaps western pilots lack proper training.
Irresponsible maneuvers is one thing. “Too close” is up for speculation. This is why it’d make things a lot clearer if the Russians had some sort of radar or visual evidence of their claims.
When Putin declared that Russia was resuming strategic bomber flights he mentioned the USAF never stopped their flights… perhaps them Ruskies should start playing hardball with the Yanks too?
Never stopped what flights, exactly? The non-existant bomber flights off the Kola peninsula?
Yeah, cause western planes are so crap they have to get within 100m to get a lock on a stealthy aircraft like a Bear… oops, no wait a minute at 100m not only would their guns be hard to aim but none of their missiles would be of any use because they wouldn’t have armed yet… so really it is actually a case of western pilots being A$$holes…
300 feet? They’re arguing about a 300 foot separation? Are you serious?
So killing US submarines and aircraft carriers is a noble honourable pursuit and clearing the way for bombers and cruise missiles is OK with you too, but flying the one type of aircraft that actually prevents war between the US and Russia and you want your pilots to act like c#nts… interesting.
You missed the point. ISR aircraft and some of the MPAs are not offensive in nature. Being that they can’t hurt you in a literal sense, why should you go out of your way to hurt them.
Sign In
