reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I believe they do employ plasma stealth for many reasons, first being that Russian brass has claimed successful tests of it on Tu-160s over
northern NORAD airspace... which is interesting because it is only the Tu-95s that NORAD seems to intercept up there.
That's not what I got out of the claims: Link
What he said was to the effect of
: "We were doing some exercises and were never counter-detected or challenged by aircraft on patrol or
Plasma stealth enthusiasts don't all of a sudden claim it makes aircraft invisible, too, surely.
The Tu-160's mission profile is a Hi-Lo-Hi one. You fly in high level (efficient), drop down supersonic for a strike (survivability and to avoid
early warning and search radars), then you climb and fly back out high.
Radars are not the all-seeing-eye. Many of the land based air defense radars could really stand to be retired and replaced with newer systems that
are far more capable than the ones in service. However - no one seems to think the Russians are going to turn around and bomb us.
It should be noted that this is more of a demonstration of defeating radars with strategy as opposed to technology (certainly a very Russian way of
American war machines require extensive maintenence, almost on an insane level. For instance the M1A1 Abrams might seem like a fast, powerful
and heavily armored tank which could make it the best MBT in the world... until it is combat proven to need an entire convoy of fuel trucks and
engineers to support a group of Abrams. Same story with carrier fleets, AWACS support groups, and of course fifth generation fighters.
Hate to break it to you - but Soviet military strategy is not all that different. While the U.S. tends to revolve around higher-tech and
higher-maintenance solutions than Russian designs - you have to look at the difference between the two nations and their respective markets. The U.S.
has, for about the past century, been a leading industrial and technological power. We also live in a temperate climate and have planned most of our
combat to take place around Europe - which is largely temperate and the climate is not all that harsh.
Russians have to put up with far harsher winters, and have many arid and sandy nations as part of the former USSR. Most of their designs are built to
be simple and easy to maintain in those environments - arguably at the sacrifice of performance.
According to this, 152 American aircraft have been downed in the Iraq war with only 45 resulting from insurgents with .50cals and MANPADS. Also
American generals are concerned about the inability to replace these downed aircraft fast enough, pointing out the logistical nightmare that is the US
Most of these deal with Helos. Surprisingly, the turbine engines helos use do not run on sand.
When you consider the length of time we have been over there, and the amount of forces we have operating - we have more combined military presence in
that region than many of those countries do, combined. They are also flying more sorties than any of those countries would have the need or economy
I'm not sure there is anything remotely approaching this scale of deployment in that region undertaken by the Russians to accurately compare it
My point here is that Russia has always built its weapons, not to be flashy and expensive, but to be cost effective and reliable in the actual
conditions of war. This is where I see the true superiority of the T-50 over the F-22, which like the F-35 is just an economical joke.
People often blend strategic and tactical value together. The tactical value of something like the F-22 is immense and does open up the possibility
of undertaking missions that would, otherwise, be very costly to human life and resources using other aircraft.
The strategic value, however, is a little bit different, as there are too few aircraft to really provide an effective presence, and their logistical
demand is very high for their tactical value.
It's a case where the Raptor can win a lot of battles, but lose the war.
The Soviets have always tended to favor the strategic policy over the tactical one. Not simply quantity over quality, but a more balanced approach to
quality and quantity that they can produce effectively. In short - they will get the job done.
It's a slightly different philosophy on similar goals and influenced by different environmental and geographical considerations.
As for the pilot's role, I believe their training should only be to introduce them to the aircraft's systems, high-gravity flight, and combat
training. A true pilot will find their place in the fight when they get to the fight, not during countless simulations. If a pilot relies on
simulation, then they'll have a hard time adjusting to the individual characteristics of enemy pilots, if they survive at all. A pilot must study the
combat capability of other pilots to be effective in shattered skies.
Pilots with more simulator training and flight-hours doing combat exercises tend to do better in joint exercises and combat operations.
I go outside on almost any given day, and there are a few F-15s from Whiteman doing a dogfight out over the North-Eastern end of town. I'd have to
check, but I think the squadron is deployed, as I haven't heard them for a while. Similarly, the A-10s operated by the guard fly by the house in
pairs and trios quite regularly - they stepped up exercises a few weeks ago and I haven't heard much of them since (I suspect they deployed).
It is this valuable time in the cockpit of a flying aircraft that the Russians have difficulty affording.
By the way, thanks for the long and detailed post
Thanks, I am glad someone out there on the internet actually enjoys complete thought (even if it is in disagreement).
3x Edit: For the love of all things holy, that link just does not want to work - worked fine in the preview last time....
[edit on 23-6-2010 by Aim64C]
[edit on 23-6-2010 by Aim64C]
[edit on 23-6-2010 by Aim64C]