You can get a lock on a raptor. You can shoot it down. Russia has had missiles that can shoot down things like the B-2 for ages. Why wouldn't they sell them to people buying the Sukhoi's? I think they'd sell anything to anyone, as they seem to do.

How is the Sukhoi going to get a lock on the Raptor, when the Raptor has better radar and lower RCS than the Sukhoi?
Also care to name the missiles that can shoot down the B-2?

F-15? MiG-29 can take one out.

Not even going to touch this one.

F-15 is good, but she is getting on a bit. Su-30 can beat an F-15 with relative ease.

Can you provide any proof of this, and please don't mention the India Cope crap or else I will suffer from brain trauma.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by prelude
even if I believe in your ignorant statement are you sure the sub systems of the Raptor can keep it in air for an hour or two in order to destroy the Sukhoi.....how can you beat a plane in A2A combat when you plane cant even FLY properly? USA basically wasted their money while developing the Raptor

Your opinion and your entitled to such, but any time that you want me to list the recent and current crashes of Sukhoi's, let me know, k?
The F/A-22 is still relatively a new aircraft and bugs are still being worked out of it. For you to talk so highly of one aircraft and then proceed to belittle another aircraft, that is far better than the one you are talking so highly of, is sheer folly and ludicrous. For each and every F/A-22 crash you care to list, I can list 3-4 recent Sukhoi crashes in return [Sukhoi provides a site with such listings for recent/current Sukhoi aircraft crashes---its extensive].

Anything new here?





seekerof

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
You can get a lock on a raptor. You can shoot it down. Russia has had missiles that can shoot down things like the B-2 for ages. Why wouldn't they sell them to people buying the Sukhoi's? I think they'd sell anything to anyone, as they seem to do.

Theory and conjecture aside, can you provide a link to the sources that indicate and back your assertion that the Raptor has been detected or is detectable?
As for those alleged Russian missiles being able to shoot down the B-2 "for ages", heres a thought, saying that they can shoot them down and actually doing it is two different matters, eh? Its like racing, my car is fast enough to catch the lead car, but passing it is a matter of another sort. Same principle/concept. Nothing but talk/conjecture till it happens.

F-15? MiG-29 can take one out. F-15 is good, but she is getting on a bit. Su-30 can beat an F-15 with relative ease.

This is also highly dubious and uncertain.
Seems to me it would depend on aircraft and the hardware being carried and the skill level of the pilots. And being that Russian pilots are currently only getting about 20-50 hours of flying time a YEAR, I find this quite dubious. The Indian exercise, other than being a US air force PR gambit to solidify getting the Raptor, proved little.

The Raptor's main ability is it's semi-stealth....

"SEMI"?!?
It [the Raptor] has the lowest RCS value of any current serial produced fighter flying today.

Think of the Number of Raptors Versus the amount of Su-30's you can buy for the money. At the end, it'd just be a remaining few Sukhoi's going home.

Wrong answer and nothing but conjecture.
You say such simply because of the price and numbers of Sukhoi's? Huh?
Be assured, if 'a' Raptor can splash 5 F-15s in 3 minutes, that it can do likewise to Sukhoi's in relatively short order.







seekerof

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

You can get a lock on a raptor. You can shoot it down. Russia has had missiles that can shoot down things like the B-2 for ages. Why wouldn't they sell them to people buying the Sukhoi's? I think they'd sell anything to anyone, as they seem to do.

How is the Sukhoi going to get a lock on the Raptor, when the Raptor has better radar and lower RCS than the Sukhoi?
Also care to name the missiles that can shoot down the B-2?

The S-300 variants can. Arm a nation of somesort with those and Su-30's, it'd be pretty formidable. Unless you launch a few cruise missiles at them...

Originally posted by WestPoint23

F-15 is good, but she is getting on a bit. Su-30 can beat an F-15 with relative ease.

Can you provide any proof of this, and please don't mention the India Cope crap or else I will suffer from brain trauma.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

I was reading somewhere about US Computer simulations they ran, and the Su-30 could fire off two missiles and escape by tricking the F-15's radar or somesuch. I may try to find it... I should bookmark all these sites, damnit.

With the current edition of B-2 ECM equipment upgrades, the S-300 is defeated.
Try the S-400, maybe.

Yeah, as for those computer simulations + two missile + Sukhoi + F-15 mention, I would love to see the link myself. Shame you cannot link that mention.







seekerof

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Seekerof]

well, acually isnt very wise to put into a stealth plane ECM, with that you increase the signature, ECM work on suport plane, that is obvious the B2 cant have

Again stealth only works on X band radar, you must see the bunch of russian radars operating at lower frequencies, specially early warning radars, you can track and seek the planes with that frequency, even illuminating, but obviously high freq is better because it have better resolution,but that is be fixed with software, the S300-400 have special low frecuency tracking system ,but also we must consider that isnt soo necesary, since modern missiles use active radars in their heads or Irst-active/pasive, so they fly on inertial or pre-proramated mode and they active their radars in closer range to the target, in which the stealth propieties are useless, anyway, you can always guide the missile in manual mode -but that case could be necesarie in systems like SA-6, not Sa-10/20-

AESA, AESA, AESA, what a crap!!! i think that most people dont understand even basic electromagnetics, but talks sooo easely about AESA

That's it! Argument over. Grunt has spoken.. We're all wrong, no matter what sources we have, and what quotes we have.

There is a lot about the B-2 we don't know, and won't know for years, besides just the RCS of it.

yeahhh!!! grunt has spoken!!!

come on dont be so un-mature

"There is a lot about the B-2 we don't know, and won't know for years, besides just the RCS of it. "

yeh, sure that the plane can reach M3, broke all the nature laws, and is piloted by aliens

[edit on 31-8-2005 by grunt2]

anyway, i really like that "grunt has spoken", man i will put that in my signature

[edit on 31-8-2005 by grunt2]

The fact that Russia can't afford to develope a fifth generation fighter by itself is pretty hilarious, even with a 22% increase in defense spending.

The fact that Russia can't afford to develope a fifth generation fighter by itself is pretty hilarious, even with a 22% increase in defense spending.

why to waste money in such white elephant???, i know ram is important, stealth design is important -in the f22, only features-, but the problem is that with such bunch of money invested in the f22, such loooong time in delayed development, right now there are technologies that can face the stealth concept, russia will design and put in service their 5th generation plane, but there isnt hurry, also we must wait if the plane will get into service or the final numbers or airframes, etc...

[edit on 31-8-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's it! Argument over. Grunt has spoken.. We're all wrong, no matter what sources we have, and what quotes we have.

There is a lot about the B-2 we don't know, and won't know for years, besides just the RCS of it.

Yeah but what about that russian missile which claims to track objects with RCS as low as 0.02 metres??
Anteny-2500 or something its called..
Its covered on globalsecurity.com

"Official" russian figures given for weapon systems leave much to be desired. The Russian usually overstate their weapon capabilities while American weapons companies tend to be conservative about figures they give out.

The key word in that sentence is claims. I don't know if they are active or how they did their testing, as far as I know the Russians don't have anything that stealthy to test it on, except with computers, and as someone in another thread noted, a computer simulation can come out any way you want it to.

Originally posted by jetsetter
"Official" russian figures given for weapon systems leave much to be desired. The Russian usually overstate their weapon capabilities while American weapons companies tend to be conservative about figures they give out.

oooohhhhh these stupid and liers russians and these wise and secretive americans...ooohhhhhh

only common knowledge, below 2-3Ghz there is nothing tha you can hide, the expansive propieties of the wave is too pronunciated, yes you have lower resolution, but that is fixed with software-interpolation, most modern missiles use their tracking systems in their heads, tracking radars are veeeeery important in older pasive guidance systems

[edit on 1-9-2005 by grunt2]

What you are talking about can be called 'block' upgrades/updates. The inital block of the B-2 is not the current one in service. Most have gone through an upgrade to a newer block level. This is also the same for most other US Fighters (i.e. F-16 block 30)

Originally posted by Gazrok

Well the Russians have gone public to say that the first flight is in 2007

Do you think the Raptors of 2007 will be the same as 2005? Heck, while still under wraps, they tested improvement after improvement. The US doesn't rest when a design rolls off the assembly line, it's continually improved. Even older planes like the F-15's of today, are far and above those of just a few years prior...

Echoing the comments of others, notably Seekerof, etc. I have no doubt the Russians are fully capable of building such a fighter. Indeed, more likely than not, the full plans of the Raptor are sitting in the Kremlin files (the Soviets always were better than us at the spy game)...BUT, and here's the big BUT, they simply don't have the economic resources to build them.

Originally posted by grunt2

only common knowledge, below 2-3Ghz there is nothing tha you can hide, the expansive propieties of the wave is too pronunciated, yes you have lower resolution, but that is fixed with software-interpolation, most modern missiles use their tracking systems in their heads, tracking radars are veeeeery important in older pasive guidance systems

[edit on 1-9-2005 by grunt2]

if tht is true then isnt the whole exercise of developing a high cost fighter like the F-22 a waste of time and money? i mean if it is so easy to track the aircraft then why did they spend all tht money on it. surely they must have had knowledge of this fact. any body care to clarify

personally i think tht the americans have such wonderful technology at their disposal, such technical expertise, tht they tend to over-complicate things. a classic joke comes to mind about this, here it is

When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly
discovered that ballpoint pens would not work in zero gravity.

To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 Billion
to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down,
underwater, on almost any surface including glass, and at
temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300 degrees C.

The Russians used a pencil !

i hope the americans dont mind. jus some fun at their expense


anyways about the F-22. i would really love a clarification on grunt's point. seekerof i bet u got somethin to say about tht

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yeah but what about that russian missile which claims to track objects with RCS as low as 0.02 metres??
Anteny-2500 or something its called..
Its covered on globalsecurity.com

Originally posted by grunt2
only common knowledge, below 2-3Ghz there is nothing tha you can hide, the expansive propieties of the wave is too pronunciated, yes you have lower resolution, but that is fixed with software-interpolation, most modern missiles use their tracking systems in their heads, tracking radars are veeeeery important in older pasive guidance systems

And what about it?
Its a myth till proven Daedalus3 and grunt2, period.
Has the missile been tested to do such or than a claim made?
Has it detected, tracked, and successfully hit an object with a RCS value less than 0.02? Link? Source? Or is that also over at globalsecurity.com? How about find it and link it, maybe?!

Simply continued Russian and anti-US technology hype and activism, you know, along the lines of what you and grunt2, and others, continually say about American technology and those who "hype" it, huh?







seekerof

[edit on 1-9-2005 by Seekerof]