Sukhoi PAK FA (Russian Fifth-generation fighter)

Originally posted by Zaphod58


Oh but I forgot. We're evil Americans, who are more arrogant than the rest of the world and have to pretend we're so much better than everyone else when in reality we have the worst equipment and military. Sorry, carry on. Nothing to see here. Business as usual.

Where's the 8000 Muslim bodies at "Srebrnicia"
Till this day the U.N. states the Serbs didn't blow up that market in Sarajovo
Where's the Kosavo atrocieties
WHERE'S THE WMD's

[edit on 13-8-2007 by YASKY]

ok lets all can it asap!


This is the thread for the PAK-FA right?

StellarX your posts are toooooooooooo long!
Need the better part of and hour to go through them!


T/W ratios are very much payload dependant..
The Su-30 has an unloaded T/W that is >1 and a fully loaded T/W of .7 or .8

I do not think anyone has the right to judge and aircraft based on airshow performances. It's freaken stupid to claim that Russian aircraft are unsafe because an engine flames out at an airshow leading to a crash... or an American F-16 flies into the ground. It does not matter, airshows show little about real world performance and does not speak about how safe an airplane is.

According to the Serbs one did but the US has not admitted to losing any so we don't know and do not have much of a chance to prove it either way.

I disagree.

There is no proof that a B-2 went down apart from a Serb website, and all B-2's have been photography since 1999. I think people need to prove that one did go down before even posting.

it's should still be able to penetrate third world air defenses if it was to have any such potential against 1980's type Soviet defenses.

Which it did with insignificant losses.

Against modern hardware? Lmfao I do not know why people are argueing that a F-117 could possibly stand up to modern hardware. 70's tech verses 00' tech? I WONDER WHO COULD POSSIBLY WIN.

It may in fact simply tell us that the ROE are hopelessly restrictive as the F-15's radar are more than capable of detecting the F-22 from the side or rear at extended ranges.

What?

Redflag results would certaintly disagree with you there.

On to the F-15 versus Su-27. Sorry if I sound rude, but I think that you guys should stop argueing, and just spent a week writing an article that the Su-27 kills the F-15 (and vice versa) instead of wasting 10 times the time argueing about silly things like:
Internal fuel range
Maneuverability
Training
Vietnam
RCS (lmfao, they both have huge ones except the F-22)

In my opinion who would win entirely relies on things such as:
Range (including external tanks)
Missile tech
Radar tech
Coordination (AWACS and base defense).

Of course, I am only an knowledged in actually flying planes... so I don't know about these things.

Thanks.

P.S. What's the name for the Su-27s helmut targeting system? is it SCHELM? or am I crazy?

Again thanks.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
StellarX your posts are toooooooooooo long!

Need the better part of and hour to go through them!

And if you keep complaining i might make them even longer. YOur best course of action would be assist me to alleviate the type of ignorance that forces me to address almost each and every 'point' made by the people i respond to; no general ignorance will quickly result in me having nothing to respond to.

T/W ratios are very much payload dependant..
The Su-30 has an unloaded T/W that is >1 and a fully loaded T/W of .7 or .8

It does have a rather massive internal fuel carriage ability but it's made quite clear that the fuel load will be entirely mission specific; Intercontinental bombers intercepts will be done on the full 10 or 11 ton fuel load while FEB AWACS intercepts and 'missileering' will be done with just enough to get there and back at the highest speed.

Stellar

Originally posted by C0bzz
On to the F-15 versus Su-27. Sorry if I sound rude, but I think that you guys should stop argueing, and just spent a week writing an article that the Su-27 kills the F-15 (and vice versa) instead of wasting 10 times the time argueing about silly things like:
Internal fuel range
Maneuverability
Training
Vietnam
RCS (lmfao, they both have huge ones except the F-22)

In my opinion who would win entirely relies on things such as:
Range (including external tanks)
Missile tech
Radar tech
Coordination (AWACS and base defense).

[edit on 14-8-2007 by C0bzz]

Wow to say that Maneuverability, Training, Vietnam(history), RCS have no part in the debate of the best fighter is to deny all events and tech that makes the fighter what it is today. In fact you touched upon the theory of my next thread and I would welcom your feed back on it in the next day or two once I have it up.

P.S. small nick picky thing is that how do you expect the pilot know how and when to fire the missile if the training is not important?

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by West Coast
Mr. X, It is of my opinion that russia is several steps behind the US in military terms, however discussing possible future military contact between the two nations is, in my opinion, moot.

Well it is my opinion that Russia is several steps ahead in most areas of significance and that that fact is playing a significant part in the decline of the US as global power.

All in all the US will not have to worry much about russia.

Which must be why it's trying to encircle Russia so as to bring to bear what little conventional weaponry may still be effective...

Russia faces a population crisis,

A declining population is not a crisis unless you wish to decide it's such.

an aids epidemic,

Not sure how less people or more sickly people degrades it's ability to operate it's strategy and conventional arsenal...

as well as the possible disintegration of russia itself.

So you really are sucking all of this out of your thumb?

I ask you to watch the youtube videos below. It is a well drawn out documentary of russias current state. Life is good in Moscow, but not much anywhere else in russia.

Oh i am sure it shows you want you want to see and i have no reason to question the fact that Russians are on the whole worse off than they were in 1990.

Death of a nation - Russia

Part 6
www.youtube.com...

I am not going to find the time to watch this any time soon.

I really do feel for the innocent people of russia who are just trying to get by.

I would save my sympathy for the majority of the worlds population that are doing far worse. The differnce in living standards between the USSR and Germany were far larger in 1941 than the difference between the USA and Russia is now and even then that was not enough to enable a German victory.

"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

Who are these 'others' and why can the US not deal with the massive infrastructure that changing the climate probably requires? Why is it that the US needs new 2 billion dollar attack submarines and F-22 'stealth' fighters to fight the war on 'terrorism'? Maybe it's not so obvious to you but the next time the weather seems to be behaving in ways it rightly should not you should think about the balance of power than allows those 'others' to do this to you without your nation being capable of fighting back effectively.

Stellar

Originally posted by C0bzz
I do not think anyone has the right to judge and aircraft based on airshow performances. It's freaken stupid to claim that Russian aircraft are unsafe because an engine flames out at an airshow leading to a crash... or an American F-16 flies into the ground. It does not matter, airshows show little about real world performance and does not speak about how safe an airplane is.

True...

I disagree.

There is no proof that a B-2 went down apart from a Serb website, and all B-2's have been photography since 1999.

If that is sufficient proof for you to believe that B-2 was not lost then so be it ; i am not claiming one lost as i can't prove it.

I think people need to prove that one did go down before even posting.

Because the B-2 is so 'special' that it's 'reputation' must not be tarnished by the unsubstantiated claims of some?

Which it did with insignificant losses.

Two against Serbia in 1999 and against 1960 era weaponry to boot? 2 out of 50 is not particularly good and in terms of percentage no better than other aircraft if one believes the official kill tallies. If the USAF had such a belief in the plane why are they retiring it so quickly?

Against modern hardware? Lmfao I do not know why people are argueing that a F-117 could possibly stand up to modern hardware. 70's tech verses 00' tech? I WONDER WHO COULD POSSIBLY WIN.

"Winning' is not the point as the USAF can stand to lose hundreds of planes and still defeat the third world nation of choice as they did in both Korea and Vietnam. What i am trying to point out is that these platforms did not add capabilities in proportion to cost and efficiency.

What?

Redflag results would certaintly disagree with you there.

As if i should care about the self serving 'results' and 'data' they manufacture at red flag exercises!

On to the F-15 versus Su-27. Sorry if I sound rude, but I think that you guys should stop argueing, and just spent a week writing an article that the Su-27 kills the F-15 (and vice versa) instead of wasting 10 times the time argueing about silly things like:
Internal fuel range
Maneuverability
Training
Vietnam
RCS (lmfao, they both have huge ones except the F-22)

I am here to correct what is claimed ( his claims related to those issues were simply wrong) and not to spend my time typing up my opinion in complete vacuum.

In my opinion who would win entirely relies on things such as:
Range (including external tanks)
Missile tech
Radar tech
Coordination (AWACS and base defense).

Well i would go so far as to say that this can be can be called a fact and not a opinion...

Of course, I am only an knowledged in actually flying planes... so I don't know about these things.

Thanks.

I think that qualifies you to have rather strong opinions.

P.S. What's the name for the Su-27s helmut targeting system? is it SCHELM? or am I crazy?

I think that's a nickname given to the Russian HMS system by East German pilots; i'm pretty damn sure it ain't Russian!

Again thanks.

For?

Stellar

wowy another score for the russians,first the new t-95 tank now this
fifth generations...and imagine what secret planes they have...and how long ago was this plane used as a secret project before being released now go ruskies u finnaly got serius u never stoped did you^^ur bad

Umm... the F-15, any variant cannot detect the F-22 at extended ranges, that is ranges before it becomes a Raptor kill. Anyone claiming otherwise (i.e. vector) needs to post sources and data, all public information and published results indicate otherwise. And in a public forum open sources trump unpublished ones unless the poster can prove their expertise in the field.

The F-22 is simply incredible and the main reason for the F117A retirement. This plane has rewritten the whole art of air combat. 2015 to 2020 for the Russians to come close to is might is a good guess, but by then the F-22 will most likely be 3 or 4th generation and extremely advance to the F-22 we have today.

[

If the USAF had such a belief in the plane why are they retiring it so quickly?

I thought they were simply because it was old, maintainence heavy, and had pretty bad performance? And as you said could be replaced by more conventional aircraft.

Two against Serbia in 1999 and against 1960 era weaponry to boot? 2 out of 50 is not particularly good and in terms of percentage no better than other aircraft if one believes the official kill tallies.

It did successfully infiltrate 3rd world country hardware though. But 2 of 50 isn't so good though.

"Winning' is not the point as the USAF can stand to lose hundreds of planes and still defeat the third world nation of choice as they did in both Korea and Vietnam. What i am trying to point out is that these platforms did not add capabilities in proportion to cost and efficiency.

What I meant to say was, it's pointless that some people think the F-117 could stand up to modern hardware.

As if i should care about the self serving 'results' and 'data' they manufacture at red flag exercises!

It would be horrible for the pilots if red flag was staged. I thought the whole point of Red Flag was to help train pilots not give them unrealistic excercises?

I think that qualifies you to have rather strong opinions.

I just wrote that so you guys don't think I'm some moron who pretends to know everything about airwars. I (obviously) know little.

For?

Stellar

Reading the post, lol.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by C0bzz]

Well Mr. X I thank you for your input. Now if you will be as kind to listen to mine.

Well it is my opinion that Russia is several steps ahead in most areas of significance and that that fact is playing a significant part in the decline of the US as global power.

Interesting tid bit there Mr. X. And what areas would these be if you dont mind me asking? Maybe we can debate that further?

As for the decline of the US, Yes and No. However, it appears as though the US is going the way rome went. Building bases all over the world and such (starting wars) is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue on down this current path. We, need not get our nose into everyones business either.

Which must be why it's trying to encircle Russia so as to bring to bear what little conventional weaponry may still be effective...

As said by me earlier, The US wants to be the "New Rome". It is not just Russia who the US wants to control.

A declining population is not a crisis unless you wish to decide it's such.

Perhaps. Theres a saying though 'Who will mind the mill' (implying when theres no one left?) At current, russia is on course to roughly lose half of its population by the year 2050.

Not sure how less people or more sickly people degrades it's ability to operate it's strategy and conventional arsenal...

That sounds a bit arrogant. Is what I meant by that was to show how severe the problem in russia is. Russia needs people, just as any great nation does for various reasons. Will the Russian federation last? Or will it start to dissolve?

So you really are sucking all of this out of your thumb?

Im not exactly sure what your trying to imply there, it makes no sense. One of the main threats to russia today is, "disintegration". I think what happened to USSR in the early 1990's could happen to russia at any time.

Who are these 'others' and why can the US not deal with the massive infrastructure that changing the climate probably requires? Why is it that the US needs new 2 billion dollar attack submarines and F-22 'stealth' fighters to fight the war on 'terrorism'?

Well. The American in me wants to say that "Its a small price to pay to stay ahead of the pack." Which is true. But your right. This isnt going to exactly do much to AK wielding foes hiding in mountains. You can thank the Military industrial complex for that Mr. X.

Maybe it's not so obvious to you but the next time the weather seems to be behaving in ways it rightly should not you should think about the balance of power than allows those 'others' to do this to you without your nation being capable of fighting back effectively.

I read that interesting tid bit of info that you provided. But im not so sure how or why you seem to be so convinced in the manner that you are.

"without your nation being capable of fighting back effectively."

Very interesting thing to say, as well as very ignorant (unless proven other wise). Im curious as to how you would truly know?

[edit on 15-8-2007 by West Coast]

Wow to say that Maneuverability, Training, Vietnam(history), RCS have no part in the debate of the best fighter is to deny all events and tech that makes the fighter what it is today. In fact you touched upon the theory of my next thread and I would welcom your feed back on it in the next day or two once I have it up.

They do have parts in what makes the fighters of today. However it's extremely difficult to prove things like RCS. Honestly, can you find a single source that tells us the RCS of the F-22 from many angles? Doubt it.

I do not beleive that maneuverability should be argued, as both aircraft can easily handle 9g's without bleeding off to much speed. A dogfight is, in my opinion far more dependant on targetting systems and pilot skill than maneuverability.

I think Vietnam is in the past and obviously a huge amount of things has changed since then.

Training? No training will make up for a bad aircraft, and I have not seen anyone ever say anything detailed about the training systems used in the USAF compared to the RuAF.

I don't think that the amount of targets one radar can track makes a diferance. Any modern plane can track many, many, many aircraft at the same time... and I highly doubt in _ANY_ situation you would come close to nearing that limit.

P.S. small nick picky thing is that how do you expect the pilot know how and when to fire the missile if the training is not important?

In the F-15 you fire when orange lights above the hud come on with the aural indicator, 'fire'. On the Flanker (atleast the earlier ones) you fire when a arrow on the left side (I think) of the hud points in inside an envolope which shows the range at which you can fire. This is accompanied by an aural tone.



[edit on 15-8-2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by West Coast
Well Mr. X I thank you for your input. Now if you will be as kind to listen to mine.

Always.

Interesting tid bit there Mr. X. And what areas would these be if you dont mind me asking? Maybe we can debate that further?

Direct energy weapons, ICBMs, ABM, air defense in general, civil defenses , conventional ground forces and even it's navy's submarine arm. Before you try to debate this maybe you should see who have tried, what they said and how baseless their claims turned out to be.

As for the decline of the US, Yes and No. However, it appears as though the US is going the way rome went.

Rome lasted hundreds of years as a imperial force; the US is not comparable.

Building bases all over the world and such (starting wars) is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue on down this current path.

Actually i am fairly certain the US could have continued along that path and that it was sustainable had the object of it's leaders been a sustainable empire.

We, need not get our nose into everyones business either.

Well empires kind of have to but it does not help when the type of empire the leaders want to create are based on destroying the type of interaction that can in fact sustain empires.

As said by me earlier, The US wants to be the "New Rome". It is not just Russia who the US wants to control.

That's true but i will argue that those who currently run the US is not trying to build a empire but doing their best to destroy it...

Perhaps. Theres a saying though 'Who will mind the mill' (implying when theres no one left?) At current, russia is on course to roughly lose half of its population by the year 2050.

France went the same route decades ago and all it had to do was to allow foreigners to become Russian citizens more easily. If Russia wants people there are plenty of Russian speakers around the world who may be enticed to come back and hundreds of millions who will learn the language if that enabled them a better chance in the world.

That sounds a bit arrogant. Is what I meant by that was to show how severe the problem in russia is.

Well it's in my opinion accurate, not arrogant. A declining population is not a 'severe' problem when skilled workers can be hired from other countries if and when they are required. For interest sake there were more abortions than births in Russia during 2006 ( 1.6 million, 1.4 million) so these are CHOICES made by Russians who do not believe they are in a financial position to raise the child. If the Russian government at some points decides to stop building new ICBMs and holing out mountains they can give the type of subsidies that will allow the population growth rate to accelerate very quickly. As far as i can tell this is simply Russian state policy and they seem to have other priorities.

It seems they may have decided to reverse the trend after all:

Further, the population decline might accelerate in the coming years; if current rates persist, Russia's population has been projected to fall by a quarter to a third by 2050.[99] In an effort to stem Russia’s demographic crisis, in 2006 the government doubled monthly child support payments and offered a one-time payment of US$9,200 to women who had a second child.[100] Russia is the second country in the world by the number of immigrants from abroad, mostly from the former Soviet Union, and immigration is increasingly seen as necessary to sustain the country's population.[101]

en.wikipedia.org...

Russia needs people, just as any great nation does for various reasons. Will the Russian federation last? Or will it start to dissolve?

You don't in fact need very many to fight modern strategic wars with nuclear and direct energy weapons and industrialization does not require the same type of worker corps that it used to. Russia still has tens of millions of people that are unemployed or under employed so i don't believe this issue is truly serious.

Im not exactly sure what your trying to imply there, it makes no sense. One of the main threats to russia today is, "disintegration". I think what happened to USSR in the early 1990's could happen to russia at any time.

The USSR simply shed excess weight in 1990 so as to better streamline operations. It did not 'disintegrate' and the lack of violence employed to keep it together speaks volumes as to what the real motives were. Why you believe that Russia will 'disintegrate' today i have no idea but maybe it will help if you actually studied Russian history and notice just how long the current borders have been in effect and how just how little reason there is for any territory to try break away. Obviously the CIA and others do their best but so far they have not been as effective as they would like to be.

Well. The American in me wants to say that "Its a small price to pay to stay ahead of the pack."

Well it's a massive price to pay ( about 1/4 of federal income without counting Iraq costs) and the US lost it's last strategic trump back in 77'. Since then it's been downhill and sometimes very steeply.

Which is true. But your right. This isnt going to exactly do much to AK wielding foes hiding in mountains. You can thank the Military industrial complex for that Mr. X.

Please respond to the original question of who you believe are wielding these climate altering earthquake inducing weaponry.

I read that interesting tid bit of info that you provided. But im not so sure how or why you seem to be so convinced in the manner that you are.

"without your nation being capable of fighting back effectively."

Well why not crush the 'terrorist' who are employing these weapons? Are the terrorist so strong or are the US armed forces not even able to deal with a few men in caves who can 'alter the climate'?

Very interesting thing to say, as well as very ignorant (unless proven other wise).

So how would i go about proving that i am not 'ignorant'? Give ma clue!

Im curious as to how you would truly know?

Apparently not curious enough to do any research of your own. Have you looked at any of my 2000+ posts so far and if not when do you plan on doing so and save yourself a great deal of embarrassment?

Stellar

Originally posted by C0bzz
I thought they were simply because it was old, maintainence heavy, and had pretty bad performance? And as you said could be replaced by more conventional aircraft.

All true but strangely they are introducing yet another 'stealthy' aircraft are only marginally superior in basic flight characteristics; as for the avionics i have read some startling reports as to what some nations have managed to do with Mig-21's so i am quite convinced that the F-15 airframe could have been built on or simply put into serial production again.

It did successfully infiltrate 3rd world country hardware though.

Yeah, most times.

But 2 of 50 isn't so good though.

Not especially.

What I meant to say was, it's pointless that some people think the F-117 could stand up to modern hardware.

Well excuse me when that statement caught me off guard! It's not that you hear many people admitting that without lots of chest thumping and posturing in general.

It would be horrible for the pilots if red flag was staged.

I don't want to claim that it's 'staged' to deceive the pilots as i think it's far more subconscious than that. Modelling war in general is all about clarity and realism; not things the American culture is particular well known for. I do have some pages somewhere that indicates just what sort of fantastical assumptions goes into exercises such as red flag.

I thought the whole point of Red Flag was to help train pilots not give them unrealistic excercises?

Oh they do get trained and do learn very many things. What i am trying to say is simple that the American military machine assumes unrealistically stupid enemies and have paid dearly for it in the past. You may not be familiar with my postings but it's long been a theme of mine that there forces in the American military industrial structure and government that are deliberately destroying the ability of the US armed forces to fight and win modern wars. The second world war, Korea and Vietnam is not a testament to great planning or a great military machine but to the skill and bravery of American fighting men; i just don't believe that is going to be good enough in the next world war.

www.g2mil.com...

www.transasianaxis.com...

I just wrote that so you guys don't think I'm some moron who pretends to know everything about airwars. I (obviously) know little.

Well anyone who has actually flown a combat aircraft has one up on me and i will always give them room to inform me.

Reading the post, lol.

I read pretty much anything presented so if you think i need to hear or see it please pass it on!

Stellar

Apparently not curious enough to do any research of your own.

Oh Im curious Mr.X. Curious of what you had to say.

Have you looked at any of my 2000+ posts

Forgive me, for I have neither the time nor the desire.

so far and if not when do you plan on doing so and save yourself a great deal of embarrassment?

Only justing fellow. Though, perhaps you'll grow to regret such a remark?

France went the same route decades ago and all it had to do was to allow foreigners to become Russian citizens more easily. If Russia wants people there are plenty of Russian speakers around the world who may be enticed to come back and hundreds of millions who will learn the language if that enabled them a better chance in the world.

But, in my honest opinion, this does not solve the biggest problem facing russia in regards to its population crisis. Of course Im talking about Russia's first world birth rate, combined with russias third world mortality rate.

You are also going out on a very small limb in assuming People will want to come to russia Mr.stellarX. Russia, where outside of moscow, life isnt much better off.

Direct energy weapons, ICBMs, ABM, air defense in general, civil defenses , conventional ground forces and even it's navy's submarine arm.

Well Mr. X, Big assumptions on your part. But, theres a few things that need to be brought to light first, im afraid. As I have said earlier in this very thread in regards to the F22's true capabilities. No one here is qualified in expertise in neither fields (arm chair generals included). So, can you beyond a shadow of a doubt, confirm your expertise in such fields before making such baseless claims?

Interesting to say in the least. Most of what you speak of is highly classified. So, again, how would you truly know any better?

As for conventional ground forces, I assume you are speaking of the numerical advantage Russia has in tanks etc? fair enough.

Also. I have hard time putting to much faith in an army made up mostly of a bunch of malnourished, poorly trained conscripts.

Before you try to debate this maybe you should see who have tried, what they said and how baseless their claims turned out to be.

Forgive me if I seem as though im unfazed by your rhetoric. You have given me nothing of interest so far to debate. I have just heard your opinion. The only one coming off 'baseless' is you, sir.

It seems they may have decided to reverse the trend after all:

Its a positive, however, is it significant enough? I happen to think not.

You don't in fact need very many to fight modern strategic wars with nuclear and direct energy weapons and industrialization does not require the same type of worker corps that it used to. Russia still has tens of millions of people that are unemployed or under employed so i don't believe this issue is truly serious.

And what are the reasons for them being unemployed Mr. X? I think that is the question that needs to be asked/answered, instead of assuming "every thing, is going to be alright" someway, somehow.


[edit on 15-8-2007 by West Coast]

The USSR simply shed excess weight in 1990 so as to better streamline operations. It did not 'disintegrate' and the lack of violence employed to keep it together speaks volumes as to what the real motives were. Why you believe that Russia will 'disintegrate' today i have no idea but maybe it will help if you actually studied Russian history and notice just how long the current borders have been in effect and how just how little reason there is for any territory to try break away. Obviously the CIA and others do their best but so far they have not been as effective as they would like to be.

Such rhetoric is as the "Pro Putin youth movement" (the governments cheerleaders if you will) would have you believe. What is that for anyways, the "pro Russian youth movement"? It is a last ditch effort to restore nationalism and pride to a once proud nation. ( Lack of unity and nationalism are also another thing that could potentially dissolve the Russian federation, thus the pro putin youth movement.)

Putin once described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest social catastrophe of the 21st century. There is a reason he said that. Its the reason that I have eluded to, and you have ignored, or simply chosen to brush off as western propaganda. And again, I repeat, Mr. X, this is the whole reason for the pro putin youth movement in the first place. To 'help' restore unity and pride to a miserable populous.

Please respond to the original question of who you believe are wielding these climate altering earthquake inducing weaponry.

Well Mr. X. How about Extraterrestrials?

Please first prove the existence of such devices. And I am aware of HAARP as well as Sura....

Well why not crush the 'terrorist' who are employing these weapons? Are the terrorist so strong or are the US armed forces not even able to deal with a few men in caves who can 'alter the climate'?

And how do you suppose this is plausible? Or is this sarcasm?

So how would i go about proving that i am not 'ignorant'? Give ma clue!

For starters, by answering my original question.

""without your nation being capable of fighting back effectively." - stellarX

"Very interesting thing to say, as well as very ignorant (unless proven other wise). Im curious as to how you would truly know?"

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
That is very flawed logic.

That really is.

The thing is, russia doesnt know how good the F-22 actually is.

If we but look at the open source material even WE know the F-22 is not nearly a super as they claimed it was and i have absolutely no reason to believe that the FSB and Russian intelligence does and have not known enough to prepare for the arrival of the F-22 for a decade or more. The had the B-1, B-2 and F-117 to practice on and i have don't see why we have reason to assume that the F-22 will come as any surprise to them.

The released specs are obviously inaccurate and understated.

The released specifications can be validated by appealing to 'physics' and other rather mundane and well understood areas of knowledge and at least the basic data can be easily validated , and shown to be less than 'super', against it. As for that appeal to stealth i can assure you that those planes are no more able to operate without massive SEAD support, if for not other reason than their tremendous cost, than anything else in the admitted US arsenal.

Russia has no idea how understated they are. Neither do americans.

The USAF does not have a history of understating their capabilities or equipment and it's reaching to claim that they have suddenly turned over a new page. If you wish to try prove that the F-22 has some kind of wondrous capability that has so far been entirely hidden from us go right ahead as that might start explaining the current massive cost of 360 Million USD per plane.

Therefore, they can only build an aircraft superior to its specualted real limits.

But they already have aircraft that can with proper ground control deal with the F-22 at long ranges.

On top of that, building something inferior is not a matter of just not bothering to build something SUPERIOR, its a matter of how good you can ACTUALLY build it.

The Germans could have built ONLY Tigers from 1942 onwards but they well understood that they would not be able to build very many however much the tried and knew that other systems with superior, or greatly inferior, specifications were required for the different strategic needs.

Such as avionics, you cant just say "it will be better because they wouldnt bother building it if it wasnt" because there is a chance russian tech JUST ISNT THERE.

Sure there was a chance back when the F-22 was conceived but the data shows that it's now little more than a pipe dream. You don't win wars because you dream and try to create 'invulnerable' fighting systems that can not be deployed in numbers.

Russia has a general lag in computer technology.

And that lag only became readily apparent by the 70's when the USSR had already established strategic superiority in very many other realms that rather invalidated any lead in this area.

It's possible they just dont have the tech to match the F-22. Or stealth, same thing, maybe russian stealth JUST ISNT THERE. There is a chance that the Russians CANT build something better.

Well sure there is a chance but first you will have to show me why what they had since 1980 are not good enough to deal with the F-22.

You cant just...POOF...worlds best technology because we want it to be better than the F-22...its harder than that.

Which is based on the mistaken assumption that the US leads in military application of weapon technology in particular and scientific breakthroughs in general.

Analogy...its like Russia and America are climbing paralell ropes. You seem to think that when America takes the lead, russia can just climb higher. But in reality, you have to weave the rope you are about to climb a step higher on if you want to get higher.

Ok...bad analogy

Pretty bad one, yes. I am not going to pretend to know which country is currently highest on the rope but i know that the US have failed to implement whatever technological lead it may have had back in the 60's thus leading to their current precarious and very vulnerable strategic position.

Stellar

Originally posted by West Coast
Oh Im curious Mr.X. Curious of what you had to say.

If you were truly curious you would have gone back and read some of my hundreds of prior posts.

Forgive me for i have neither the time or inclination

Or the perspective and knowledge to understand most of it.

Soon then...

Only justing fellow. Though, perhaps you'll grow to regret such a remark?

Good luck.

But, in my honest opinion, this does not solve the biggest problem facing russia in regards to its population crisis. Of course Im talking about Russia's first world birth rate, combined with russias third world mortality rate.

That must be why the Russian government doubled child support payments and are now paying a once of sum of almost 10 000 USD for families who has a second child. You must take into account that in the years before more than half of all pregnancy's were aborted and that this would change if Russians were confident that they government would now support families better.

You are also going out on a very small limb in assuming People will want to come to russia Mr.stellarX. Russia, where outside of moscow, life isnt much better off.

Life in Russia is still orders of magnitude better than it is for the vast majority of the world's people. As Russia has the second largest immigrant community in the world people clearly go there and will continue to go there as the economy and real wages ( 20% in the last year) expands ever faster.

Well Mr. X, Big assumptions on your part.

Few assumptions as i have extensively sourced all those claims in the past; a past record i have asked you to look at before making your uninformed opinion more widely known.

But, theres a few things that need to be brought to light first, im afraid. As I have said earlier in this very thread in regards to the F22's true capabilities. No one here is qualified in expertise in neither fields (arm chair generals included).

I am more than qualified to judge what physics allows and what it does not and i can tell you that the F-22 is at best worth the cost; it's not a force multiplier.

So, can you beyond a shadow of a doubt, confirm your expertise in such fields before making such baseless claims?

Yes i can but without specific questions , or rather allegations it seems, your just wasting my time.

Interesting to say in the least. Most of what you speak of is highly classified. So, again, how would you truly know any better?

It's not nearly as classified as you might think but the problem may be that your only thinking and not researching the issues as i have.

As for conventional ground forces, I assume you are speaking of the numerical advantage Russia has in tanks etc? fair enough.

Qualitative and numerical advantage.

Also. I have hard time putting to much faith in an army made up mostly of a bunch of malnourished, poorly trained conscripts.

If that was the truth so would i.

Forgive me if I seem as though im unfazed by your rhetoric. You have given me nothing of interest so far to debate. I have just heard your opinion. The only one coming off 'baseless' is you, sir.

I have noted how full of bravado people are during the opening statements and how quickly the disappear when the facts start contradicting their propaganda inspired view of the world. Just keep it up and you too might learn a thing or two.

Its a positive, however, is it significant enough? I happen to think not.

You would not as you are clearly here to tell me that i am wrong whatever the sources i employ might have to say about it.

And what are the reasons for them being unemployed Mr. X?

Why are tens of millions of American citizens underemployed? The world is not a safe place for the industrial worker and not all countries , including Russia, China and the US are handling it as effectively as they could be.

I think that is the question that needs to be asked/answered, instead of assuming "every thing, is going to be alright" someway, somehow.

I try not to assume much but as far as i can see you should not not thing of pointing fingers.

Originally posted by West Coast
Such rhetoric is as the "Pro Putin youth movement" (the governments cheerleaders if you will) would have you believe.

I don't like Putin....

What is that for anyways, the "pro Russian youth movement"? It is a last ditch effort to restore nationalism and pride to a once proud nation.

Their more nationalistic than ever now and that's not hard with a big bad US government that attacks defenseless countries. They still have proportionally the same strategic power they had when it country broke up so i'm not sure why you think they need nationalism or much pride....

( Lack of unity and nationalism are also another thing that could potentially dissolve the Russian federation, thus the pro putin youth movement.)

Talk about wild speculation. Where does these ideas come from?

Putin once described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest social catastrophe of the 21st century.

Well he was lying; no surprise there.

There is a reason he said that. Its the reason that I have eluded to, and you have ignored, or simply chosen to brush off as western propaganda.

I did ignore it because the western media is doing it's best to paint Russia as a weak battered shell of nation that have no strategic clout. It's interesting then that things are going ever better in Russia while living standards and wages are still declining in the USA.

And again, I repeat, Mr. X, this is the whole reason for the pro putin youth movement in the first place. To 'help' restore unity and pride to a miserable populous.

Your going to believe what you like and frankly every country has youth movements that do similar things...

Well Mr. X. How about Extraterrestrials?

If you want to involve extraterrestrials that's fine but i am not sure how you think they will be fought with submarines and F-22's...

Please first prove the existence of such devices. And I am aware of HAARP as well as Sura....

"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

What do you want me to prove? Should i prove that the technologies are real or should i try to show that Russia is the primary operator?

And how do you suppose this is plausible? Or is this sarcasm?

Mostly sarcastic but the question should still be answered. Who are these 'others' and why would you rather involve aliens than consider the possibility that Russia has only built on the massive strategic superiority it had achieved by the mid 1980's?

For starters, by answering my original question.

""without your nation being capable of fighting back effectively." - stellarX

Iraq shows that either the US armed forces are incapable of winning a conventional war against a insurgent movement or that US political establishment are not being allowed to let them win it. You can pick which suits your interests best but there are no serious alternatives.

"Very interesting thing to say, as well as very ignorant (unless proven other wise). Im curious as to how you would truly know?"

By studying the subject matter? I may not 'truly know' everything or most of it but why do you know so very very little?

Stellar

[quote

If you were truly curious you would have gone back and read some of my hundreds of prior posts.

With all due respect Mr.X, I havent the time nor the desire to go through hundreds of your posts just to get the answer im looking for. Please do try to make it easy for me, thats why I asked.

That must be why the Russian government doubled child support payments and are now paying a once of sum of almost 10 000 USD for families who has a second child. You must take into account that in the years before more than half of all pregnancy's were aborted and that this would change if Russians were confident that they government would now support families better.

Its not quite 10,000 USD. More like $9,200 USD. Lets get the fact straight Mr.X 
The average Russian makes 300 USD per month. You talking about nearly 3 months more pay which is huge for the average Russian. So I ask that we do try and keep the facts straight, thanks . 

I applaud the Russians attempt at 'trying' to fix a sinking ship. There is just to many holes though.

Simply put, its not going to work. Many Russian Mothers are not persuaded by such an offer. To them. Its not enough.
A second baby? Russia's mothers aren't persuaded.
www.csmonitor.com...
It’s a band aid solution for a bullet wound.

An Aids epidemic, homelessness, alcoholism and infertility is something that is on a steep rise in Russia as well. And this, still, doesn’t explain how this will help russias first world birth rate, compared to its third world mortality rate problem.

Life in Russia is still orders of magnitude better than it is for the vast majority of the world's people.

Compared to various places in Africa, Yes.

As Russia has the second largest immigrant community in the world people clearly go there and will continue to go there as the economy and real wages ( 20% in the last year) expands ever faster.

But, is Russia posting a surplus or a deficit in regards to this (ppl going in and out of the country)?

While many countries manage to make up for demographic problems by attracting immigrants to buttress their populations, Russia is posting a deficit in this regard as well. Only about 70,000 immigrants enter Russia per year, while about 100,000 leave the country. www.rferl.org...

Also, why are the meshket turks unwelcomed in Russia? Why does the Russian government not look at them as Russian citizens? Racial profiling is something Russia is going to have to get past in order to ‘survive’ as a nation in the 21st century. Though even that has its problems as the above quote excerpt states. This could also threaten unity in Russia as well (having to accept more ‘non russians’). But to say in the least, its worth a try. If they don’t, Russia faces a grim outlook.

(I am happy and proud to say, that we, the United States of America have accepted all 30,000 meshket turks from Russia.) Russias loss is our gain.

It's not nearly as classified as you might think but the problem may be that your only thinking and not researching the issues as i have.

For debates sake, I was more or less asking you to provide comparative illustrations. You were the one who made the allegations in question. Not me. Therefore the burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.

Qualitative and numerical advantage.

And your argument for this is?

If that was the truth so would i.

How have they faired versus Chechen rebels?

Why are tens of millions of American citizens underemployed? The world is not a safe place for the industrial worker and not all countries , including Russia, China and the US are handling it as effectively as they could be.

Agreed. However, US unemployment rate is (I believe ) hovering at 4.6-5 %. But, you do have a point.

I don't like Putin....

Well Mr. X. that makes two of us. 

Talk about wild speculation. Where does these ideas come from?

Mostly TV (I kid of course) And it is speculation on my part (perhaps you missed me saying “could potentially”) But its no more speculation then yours. Russia faces problems, and, as I said before, what happened to the USSR in the early 90’s, could potentially happen to Russia at any time. History doesn’t lie.

Well he was lying; no surprise there.

Lying? Or does this not support your opinion/agenda? Well. Regardless of what you think Mr. X, he said it.

I did ignore it because the western media is doing it's best to paint Russia as a weak battered shell of nation that have no strategic clout. It's interesting then that things are going ever better in Russia while living standards and wages are still declining in the USA.

Well that’s because Russia could go nowhere but up. Don’t try to turn this around. If you would like to make separate thread relating to the American decline, I would happily follow along in post in such a thread.

Your going to believe what you like and frankly every country has youth movements that do similar things...

But not usually sponsored by the president himself.

If you want to involve extraterrestrials that's fine but i am not sure how you think they will be fought with submarines and F-22's..I

LOL that was sarcasm on my part.

What do you want me to prove? Should i prove that the technologies are real or should i try to show that Russia is the primary operator?

I am aware of the fact that the implications are being steadied of such a weapon (the USAF plans to own the weather by 2025 I believe, and has plans out for it) Proving russia is any more advanced then the US in these regards would be nice. I happen to think that the current technology infrastructure is no where near to making this a reality at the time.

Mostly sarcastic but the question should still be answered. Who are these 'others' and why would you rather involve aliens than consider the possibility that Russia has only built on the massive strategic superiority it had achieved by the mid 1980's?

Well Mr.X, I thought it was sarcasm, which is why I responded the way I did. I suppose it would be Russia that they are talking about, possibly the Chinese.

Iraq shows that either the US armed forces are incapable of winning a conventional war against a insurgent movement or that US political establishment are not being allowed to let them win it. You can pick which suits your interests best but there are no serious alternatives.

I think one thing that needs to be said is that, this is no longer a conventional war, that was done and over with in 3 weeks time.Right now, the US is asking to much from its brave men and women. They are not a police force, and should not be treated like such in my honest opinion.

By studying the subject matter? I may not 'truly know' everything or most of it but why do you know so very very little?

The point of the question was to prove that no one is a qualified expert (especially here, even though some might think they are )when it comes to such ‘subject matter’. Now,you might know more in a few select fields, but an expert that does not make.