The West has lost it's military edge.......

a reply to: PurpleDog UK

Military voyeurism doesn't balance the budget unless the victor claims spoils. War without spoils (and I mean spoils for the folks who paid for the military's adventures, i.e. the taxpayers) is boneheaded. "Sharing" (forcibly) America's values and America's ideologies aren't worth expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill. If country XYZ wishes to be lead by and destroyed by some communist dictator, it is none of America's business and none of the taxpayers' responsibility.

Take the Iraq war, for example. Brilliant strategy... invade the country, destroy the country, subsidize the fuel bills for that country's citizens, and pay for the reconstruction of that country, never claiming any of the black gold under the sand or the bright yellow gold above the sand as a return on the taxpayers' investments. BRILLIANT!!! It's like Elvis shooting holes in his television sets because he didn't like the program that was on.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

They have to see it to shoot it. And they're not going to send every F-22 at once. They're going to operate in waves too. And the Russian fighters are going to be at more of a disadvantage if they're fighting in Europe. They have fewer tankers to support them, and less training.

I wouldnt put my Money on it. Russia can use many different assets of lower grade to make the F-22 show them selves.
Like using bate. Russia can flodd the sky With a lot of crap to bate and trap the F-22.

a reply to: spy66

What are you talking about?? you making stuff up now. First missions are flown in sorties as others head back to rearm and refuel others are already on station. I guess in your world they just turn around and leave. There is no secret stash the Russians have sorry most of that secret stash is non working airplanes they cannibalized for parts or sold. Trust me when i say thanks to satellites no nation on the planet has a secret stash of planes totalling more than 100. Basically airplanes have to have facilities and making hiding them ridiculously hard. As far as the F22 its job get in get out they won't be providing air defence. In Europe the most likely jet in air combat against say su 30 will be the Typhoon and F16s. Even in worst case scenario if all out war broke out within 2 months no Russian air force or air defense. Best case combines strikes from multiple countries 2 weeks.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

They have to see it to shoot it. And they're not going to send every F-22 at once. They're going to operate in waves too. And the Russian fighters are going to be at more of a disadvantage if they're fighting in Europe. They have fewer tankers to support them, and less training.

In Europe Russia would have the upper hand With out doubt. Non of the EU fighter would have a airfield or be able to prep a road in time for their fighters to land safely on. They would be targeted by Russiand ground missiles.

Russia have fewer tankers but still they have greater range. And greater missile range from different Fields of armament.

The US would have to keep their Aircraft carriers way out of Russian range....way out at sea. But where would we hide Our F-22s???

Where are the US going to station their F-22....? in the US and do long trips With 10 refuling stages to engage the Russians in the EU?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: spy66

What are you talking about?? you making stuff up now. First missions are flown in sorties as others head back to rearm and refuel others are already on station. I guess in your world they just turn around and leave. There is no secret stash the Russians have sorry most of that secret stash is non working airplanes they cannibalized for parts or sold. Trust me when i say thanks to satellites no nation on the planet has a secret stash of planes totalling more than 100. Basically airplanes have to have facilities and making hiding them ridiculously hard. As far as the F22 its job get in get out they won't be providing air defence. In Europe the most likely jet in air combat against say su 30 will be the Typhoon and F16s. Even in worst case scenario if all out war broke out within 2 months no Russian air force or air defense. Best case combines strikes from multiple countries 2 weeks.

I am talking about how would you use the F-22 in a war against Russia??

The F-22 is not safe any where in the EU. And they cant be on a Aircraft carrier. Are we going to fly them from the US to attack Russia?

a reply to: spy66

And if they can't lock them on radar or IR it doesn't do them a damn bit of good does it.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

They have to see it to shoot it. And they're not going to send every F-22 at once. They're going to operate in waves too. And the Russian fighters are going to be at more of a disadvantage if they're fighting in Europe. They have fewer tankers to support them, and less training.

I wouldnt put my Money on it. Russia can use many different assets of lower grade to make the F-22 show them selves.
Like using bate. Russia can flodd the sky With a lot of crap to bate and trap the F-22.

What are assets that would be able to track the stealth? I would be much happy to know about them.

I think radar signature of Mig 21 is different than that of Mig 29 and so on. F-22 can choose which targets to go after. Would cheap UCAVs fitted with couple of missiles be able to overwhelm the F-22s? possibly so. Main question however is to be able to see it and then track it. That's where the real challenge is and has been for two decades now!!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

And if they can't lock them on radar or IR it doesn't do them a damn bit of good does it.

It does. If you flodd the sky With old Tech MIGs and do the hunting With the New stuff. You will over run the F-22s.

Even the old russian Tech have long range and can play cat and mouse With the F-22s. making them burn fuel.

There are many ways to play cat and mouse. You dont have to bate the F-22s to show them selves in a Flock. You sendt out the baite on its own.

A F-22 wont fly alone. And it wont be far away from a tanker. If you find the tanker you find the F-22s.

originally posted by: victor7

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

They have to see it to shoot it. And they're not going to send every F-22 at once. They're going to operate in waves too. And the Russian fighters are going to be at more of a disadvantage if they're fighting in Europe. They have fewer tankers to support them, and less training.

I wouldnt put my Money on it. Russia can use many different assets of lower grade to make the F-22 show them selves.
Like using bate. Russia can flodd the sky With a lot of crap to bate and trap the F-22.

What are assets that would be able to track the stealth? I would be much happy to know about them.

I think radar signature of Mig 21 is different than that of Mig 29 and so on. F-22 can choose which targets to go after. Would cheap UCAVs fitted with couple of missiles be able to overwhelm the F-22s? possibly so. Main question however is to be able to see it and then track it. That's where the real challenge is and has been for two decades now!!

You dont need stealth to fight stealth.

a reply to: spy66

No they don't. Russian fighter ranges are similar to Western fighter ranges. The Su-27 family has a combat radius of about 930 miles. The F-22 has a combat radius of between 800 and 1,000 miles, with up to 300 nm in supercruise. Add external fuel tanks they can drop before getting in range, and that goes up. Neither side has an advantage in range, but if they're fighting over Europe the allies have the advantage in shorter supply lines.

a reply to: spy66

You've never bothered to study this I see if you're claiming Russian equipment has longer range, and F-22s aren't going to leave their tankers.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

No they don't. Russian fighter ranges are similar to Western fighter ranges. The Su-27 family has a combat radius of about 930 miles. The F-22 has a combat radius of between 800 and 1,000 miles, with up to 300 nm in supercruise. Add external fuel tanks they can drop before getting in range, and that goes up. Neither side has an advantage in range, but if they're fighting over Europe the allies have the advantage in shorter supply lines.

Really We have the upper hand in the EU because we have shorter supply range. I bet we have for a few minutes and then they are gone.

I bet there wont be a single landing strip for the F-22 to land and rearm any where in the EU. As soon as it lands it will be targeted no mater where it lands to rearm. If there exists a strip or a road for it to land on.

Non of Our tanker can be any where over the EU and they would probably not be able to land there to bunker up either.

a reply to: spy66

Well if we're going to play imaginary wargames, the F-22s will have lasers.

How exactly is Russia going to eliminate every single runway that could be used in all of Europe simultaneously? That would be the most amazing feat ever seen in history.

It would take weeks to destroy every airfield in Europe. And what do you think the allies would be doing? Sitting on their thumbs watching it happen?

The blow back of the Iraq war was the Planners of it were so out of touch with reality they thought they would be welcomed on the streets with flowers thrown at their armies feet

There not idiots but have no empathy and clearly live in another bubble to all of us

a reply to: Zaphod58

Forget about runways, fighters and even C-130s etc. can take off and land from highways. So who will in their right mind think of taking out Highways? Will run out of the bombs very soon while Highways will be still starring them in the face.

Probability of Kill per missile unleashed is maximum 20% (correct me if I am wrong). So this is where the opportunity to play draw game with Raptor arises. Avoid its missiles and soon the Raptor is headed home. However, there will be another wave of Raptors ready to take over and the new ball game begins once again.

Btw, in a serious Pacific theater war game by USAF against China, assets like AWACS, Tankers etc. lasted atmost for 7 minutes for both the sides. Also like the logic by Spy66..........i.e. find the tanker and Raptor is somewhere nearby.

Also in 300 x 300 miles battle area, might help to throw in couple dozen UCAVs fitted with IRSTs with 60 mile range each. These alone might give a good idea of where the "stealth squadron" is located and that may reduce the area box to 100 x 100 or so. Mobile ground based IRSTs looking up at various adjustable angles, in an area grid much forward to say a air base or strategic city will also help in giving a solid sniff on the stealth's location in advance.

a reply to: victor7

PK depends on a lot of factors. The closer you can get the higher it goes up. BVR PK with current missiles is rather low.

As for the tankers, they are usually hundreds of miles away from the fighters back away from the combat area. They're not going to be hanging around near the F-22s or any other fighter.

IRST has an maximum airborne range of about 90 miles, looking straight up the tail pipe under absolutely perfect conditions. From the front it's closer to 50 miles. Ground based IRST is more limited because of the thicker atmosphere.

If you're talking about the Rand paper, it was weighted so heavily towards China that there was no way for anything to last longer than 10 minutes.

a reply to: Zaphod58

IRST has an maximum airborne range of about 90 miles, looking straight up the tail pipe under absolutely perfect conditions. From the front it's closer to 50 miles. Ground based IRST is more limited because of the thicker atmosphere.

Thanks for the clarification. At what height does atmosphere thin out...........15,000 feet or less?

Airborne UCAVs or even ground handled drones with IRSTs make more sense then.

Also, is it true that F-22s are less stealthy from the top area and most stealthy when looked at from the front?

a reply to: victor7

The higher the altitude the better for IRST. Usually between 10-12,000 feet it starts thinning.

To an extent. All stealth aircraft are optimized for head on being the lowest RCS. The difference between front and top is the difference between a bb and a marble.

The problem with UAVs is the datalink. In a full air/sea battlespace engagement there will be hunters looking for those links and either jamming them or killing them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Btw, I have been harping on UCAVs but after Stealth, the area where Russians are much behind the west is in the UCAVs, Drones etc.

Infact, Russians wanted to import Israeli stuff but 2008 Georgia war led to breakage in the deal.

Also, item like MQ-9 Reaper comes at good $16 million each so having a dozen Mig-21-Bis for same price makes more sense. Although plain vanilla simple cheap drones can also be made to scan the area with their IRSTs etc.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

Well if we're going to play imaginary wargames, the F-22s will have lasers.

How exactly is Russia going to eliminate every single runway that could be used in all of Europe simultaneously? That would be the most amazing feat ever seen in history.

It would take weeks to destroy every airfield in Europe. And what do you think the allies would be doing? Sitting on their thumbs watching it happen?

Well we have to play imaginary wars because we are not at a military conflict right now.

The F-22 dosent have lasers.

The EU dont have the capasity to prevent Russia from bashing them With missiles. It will be a hail storm of it too.

Russia dont have to fly in to the EU do anything. They can do everything from their own home base conventionally.
And use their air force and other accets to protect them selves. The Russian attack comes when this is done. And at that time there will be no F-22 to greet them ower the EU airspace. The US wont use their F-22 fleet to protect the EU. They will be used to protect the US borders.