"The American ‘stealth' planes are a publicity stunt" - Russian General

a reply to: imod02

Which doesn't prove a damn thing, or that he's lying. I understand the science, and you haven't done a damn thing to prove that the people involved are lying about how they did it.

Economics is a publicity stunt. Most of you truly believe it takes money for these programs.

Programming the human mind has become an art form---the majority truly are a slave race. Ever wonder why they called it the con-sensus?

Thank God I have been rejected by that con-sensus as being an idiot, mentally ill, and not friend worthy. You folks are dangerous and definitely do not have anything I want.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The walk is over,if you wish to continue please do so. You can start by proving he was telling the truth.

a reply to: imod02

Uhm, doesn't work that way. You're the one making the ridiculous claim, so the burden of proof is on you. There is zero evidence that he is lying, and the fact that he shot down an F-117 as well as has been incredibly consistent with his story, as well as everyone that was there with him telling almost the exact same story says a lot more about his credibility than yours.

originally posted by: imod02
a reply to: Zaphod58

The walk is over,if you wish to continue please do so. You can start by proving he was telling the truth.

Congratulations! You've just committed the "Burden of Proof" Logical Fallacy!

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yeah, I heard something similar to that. They really didn't like the idea of stealth aircraft near their borders.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I would if I were you now take a large cup of very hot coffee and calm down. Then read what I have wrote and read what you have wrote.

a reply to: imod02

I'm perfectly calm, and haven't even given a hint of not being calm. But at this point all you're doing is trolling. Either prove he's lying and back up your claims, or admit that you're trolling.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yeah, I heard something similar to that. They really didn't like the idea of stealth aircraft near their borders.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. It would make sense, honestly. After all, I'm sure the U.S. would be a little jittery if the Russians were flying stealth aircraft the their border as well.

a reply to: Zaphod58

When all else fails blame the person say that he is trolling, you were taken for a walk , learn from it. As it takes a adult to end something like this and since it so important for you to have the last word please contune , im off to do other things.
PS I do find your posts to be very interesting and I do look forward to them, and that is not sarcasm

a reply to: imod02

And what have you proven? Nothing. All you've done is repeat "I've taken you for a walk". That's certainly not providing information, or proving your point. So what is it then if not trolling? You made extraordinary claims, and instead of proving them kept repeating the same thing about "taking me for a walk". So sorry, yes that is trolling, and not the accusation isn't to "win an argument", it's because you've done nothing besides claim he's lying to prove your point.

originally posted by: PredatorCrackling
It seems that USA really doesn't like to fly where Russian made radar units are.

They did not work in Iraq, Syria, Libya and other places.

To the OP. Stealth is detectable. The Royal Navy was able to track US jets in GW1! Stealth just complicates the battlefield enough to provide a significant advantage.

a reply to: paraphi

Exactly, which is what most people don't understand. That's why when the F-117 was shot down, people flipped out about it. It was "the end of stealth" and "stealth doesn't work worth a damn" etc. Just like every time a new development comes out in radar, it's going to completely negate stealth. What most people don't get is that stealth isn't static either. It's advanced far beyond where it was in the 90s.

And it's advancing even farther. The reported RCS of the new bomber is staggering compared even to an F-22 and F-35. It will give it an advantage over even new SAM radars for several years, until the next radar advancement comes out.

a reply to: PredatorCrackling

Let me see any F15 air to air loss to ANY Russian aircraft, ANYWHERE ,THEN I'll worry.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zap,
Read my signature. It definitely applies here.

a reply to: anonentity

I think optical stealth is the next big bannana.
Im sure IR suppression is up there too.

a reply to: imod02

When all else fails, look at the history of both as far as platforms go.

From the P-51 forward-yes it achieved it prominence with a Merlin engine- through to the present. The number of amazing platforms that have come out of the U.S. is without peer.

I cannot recall any 'turkeys'...ever. Some better than others, but no turkeys.

Stealth is both over-rated AND underrated.

If one gets the idea that the stealth makes a platform invincible, it is wrong and from that sense, 'overrated'.

From the onset of the Raptor the statement has been 'first look, first shot, first kill'. That has been underrated.

The Russian general is right that ANY plane can be found with radar. Where he's ignorant or just PRing-due to the multitude of failures with the Pak-FA, engines, stealth, computing issues(?), cost, and ultimately a full generation behind the U.S. in those same catagories- he is underrating stealth, IMO.

The U.S. platform WILL see the Russian platform first, get the shot off and force the Russian into a defensive maneuver which is a HUGE and decisive edge and will win out in the long run.

Stealth is only part of the package-and the Russian knows it, or he should- and the advantage lies with the U.S. platforms by quite a margin from what I can see.

He is completely contradicted by the actions of his own country and China is spending a fortune in the attempt to match/catch up to the U.S. fifth gen platforms.

When one adds in the outstanding 4.5 gen platform of Europe combined with the U.S. fifth gen. in a package, the advantage to the west has never been greater......

a reply to: imod02

In reconaissance that is called DIVERSION which that statement smacks of.
Zaph there is the go to guy for aircraft stuff because HE HAS flown them and I would advise you ,if your credentials are so lofty ,to put out links to support your statements or you will get called on them as false. ACCURATELY so for all intents and purposes.

Like THIS about the Serbian Guy..www.defenceaviation.com...

NOW YOU put out a link( as seen above) with YOUR proposal.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

They've been working with stealth up into microwave ranges for about ten years, as well as multifrequency and optical.

I think imod02 is confusing the F117 with the story about the Sea Shadow in Ben Rich's book. It was easy to find because there was a 'hole' in the ocean waves where the radar did not return any ground clutter.