What about Russia's Stealth?!?! What about the others?!?!

Well, Saddam did not think that the F-117 would work at all at the start of Gw1....

The fact is that while Russia may be able to detect the F-117 and shoot it down, newer planes like the B-2 and the F-22 are light years ahead. The f-22 has not even been flown out of the Us (i think) so how would Russia know if they could defeat it? Russia is not serious about stealth because they hold true to the massive numbers philosophy, if you through allot of units at one objective, even if you lose many units you will eventually destroy it.

Ronii, like the Zerg mentality. Mass production, get them out cheap and fast. Swarms.

yo Disturbed Dude, just, give me a link that states that they had to "light" up the skys just to shoot it down, if i'm not mistaken wasn't the F-117 shot down by an SA-3 or SA-6 and it was tracked by radar, there were multiple bullet holes, which were caused by a 23mm anti-aircraft gun, yet there was also a large amount of damage that was created by a SAM system www.aeronautics.ru...
here's a link, its the second large paragraph

the SA-3 was commissioned in 1961

www.fas.org...

and serial production of the SA-6 started in 1968 or 1967 and ended in 1983 or 1985 www.fas.org...

i know russiqa doesn't have an F-22 to test against, but they still have RAM and coat paintings, and that downed F-117 to test it on, they are a little back in american ways of stealth, but, it won't make much of a difference because russia's future T-50 has the same basic shape of the F-22, look at the third picture and is said to employ stealth technology in the form of RAM and paint coatings, but it mgiht be equipeed with plasma stealth technology www.rfforces.com...

the F-22 can take out 5 F-15's, that doesn't seem reasonable, because, FIVE F-15's can use their radars to triangulate the position of the F-22 to give a braod range of attack, and different methods of deception, like one goes low, one goes high, the other goes tot eh left and the other goes to the right, wtih one in the centre, i thik an F-15 would die to an F-22, but i don't think an F-22 can beat more than 3 or 4 F-15's, 5, mmmmmmmm, probably not, YES, Zerg strategy(Zerg are sick, but i prefer the Protoss)

the way u described the F-22, i agree with you, it has extremely advanced avionics suite, with a computing power equivalent to two Crey supercomputers, it has really advanced radar(is it passive?)APG-77 or something, long range, definitely because of its supercruise ability, accurate missiles, yes, but russia has better missiles, as Lazpla stated, and stealth, for which there are many counters to

the only thing i don't understand is that u said it can supercruise to move out of the way, i don't understand, Mach 1.5 is very slow for modern aircraft, the F-22 has good maneuverability, maybe thats what you were trying to point out

oh Laxpla, in my previous post with tons of links, i think like 5-7 links, read some of those, or all of them if u want to know the S-400 really well, and it states that it was designed to counter stealth technology, and a bunch of the other stuff, including the missiles used, the range, etc.

can someone give me a link on the F-15 excercise, i want to read one

thanx

Actually, the F-15's had the most current radar, but the Indian pilots got the shot off first because of their missle. That's the need for the F-22.

Finally, I have been saying this for forever, the F-22 is still out-matched by Russian AAMs...

LMAO at the Ruski's swiping the F/A-22 design! I never even noticed the similarity between the PAK-FA and the F-22...! or is the T-50 different from the PAK-FA?

Dima, I have been impressed with the points you make but I have to admit you make a few mistakes I.E. the B-2's being downed, I highly doubt that...

Originally posted by Dima
yo Disturbed Dude, just, give me a link that states that they had to "light" up the skys just to shoot it down, if i'm not mistaken wasn't the F-117 shot down by an SA-3 or SA-6 and it was tracked by radar, there were multiple bullet holes, which were caused by a 23mm anti-aircraft gun, yet there was also a large amount of damage that was created by a SAM system www.aeronautics.ru...
here's a link, its the second large paragraph

the SA-3 was commissioned in 1961

www.fas.org...

and serial production of the SA-6 started in 1968 or 1967 and ended in 1983 or 1985 www.fas.org...

i know russiqa doesn't have an F-22 to test against, but they still have RAM and coat paintings, and that downed F-117 to test it on, they are a little back in american ways of stealth, but, it won't make much of a difference because russia's future T-50 has the same basic shape of the F-22, look at the third picture and is said to employ stealth technology in the form of RAM and paint coatings, but it mgiht be equipeed with plasma stealth technology www.rfforces.com...

the F-22 can take out 5 F-15's, that doesn't seem reasonable, because, FIVE F-15's can use their radars to triangulate the position of the F-22 to give a braod range of attack, and different methods of deception, like one goes low, one goes high, the other goes tot eh left and the other goes to the right, wtih one in the centre, i thik an F-15 would die to an F-22, but i don't think an F-22 can beat more than 3 or 4 F-15's, 5, mmmmmmmm, probably not, YES, Zerg strategy(Zerg are sick, but i prefer the Protoss)

the way u described the F-22, i agree with you, it has extremely advanced avionics suite, with a computing power equivalent to two Crey supercomputers, it has really advanced radar(is it passive?)APG-77 or something, long range, definitely because of its supercruise ability, accurate missiles, yes, but russia has better missiles, as Lazpla stated, and stealth, for which there are many counters to

the only thing i don't understand is that u said it can supercruise to move out of the way, i don't understand, Mach 1.5 is very slow for modern aircraft, the F-22 has good maneuverability, maybe thats what you were trying to point out

oh Laxpla, in my previous post with tons of links, i think like 5-7 links, read some of those, or all of them if u want to know the S-400 really well, and it states that it was designed to counter stealth technology, and a bunch of the other stuff, including the missiles used, the range, etc.

can someone give me a link on the F-15 excercise, i want to read one

thanx

Okay, Ground Zero said that the F-22 dosnt look alike the PAK FA, yet you state it is?

Are you trying to state sources to make your thread look informational? Sams of 1968 is cool, but don't know why you posted them.

Speed is actually Mach 2.0 or higher ( Iffy source, I will try to find a more reliable source:

www.faqs.org...

Can you please show me some sources that the S-400 can counter the Raptor and UCAV and UAV? I showed you sources, now its time for some reliable sources from you. The S-400 can "Counter some" stealth technology. The F-117 was first generation stealth, The F-22 is light years more advanced.




[edit on 13-12-2004 by Laxpla]

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Laxpla]

impressed, lol thanks, never heard that one before, i'll keep trying to find it, but here's a site that gives a lot of info on future russian and american aircraft projects

paralay.narod.ru...

and this specific part of thte site gives some info, actually a lot on the T-50 which IS the Sukhoi PAK-FA, they have given it a designtaion now, but it might change in the future, exp. T-10, now its Su-27, so it will probably be disgnated by an Su-??

paralay.narod.ru...

look at the first pic on the left at the top, the T-50 looks very similar to the F-22 except the nose is more the shape of the Su-32/34, the tail has a larger surface area, and the wings are swept back slightly more, which provides greater maneuverability, it doesn't have canards, but it does have a leading edge that trails before the wing, it does the same as canards, but maybe to a greater extent, because it is larger, it lessens the chances of the aircraft getting into a stall and makes it more stable, it seems longer and thinner than the F-22, but then again that can be contributed to the distance of the aircraft compared to the F-22..............these "claims" mgiht be wrong, because its justba picture, but it gives us a rough overview on the actual aircraft that is to have a test flight in 2005, or 2007, forgot which year

hope you can read russian

Originally posted by Dima
impressed, lol thanks, never heard that one before, i'll keep trying to find it, but here's a site that gives a lot of info on future russian and american aircraft projects

paralay.narod.ru...

and this specific part of thte site gives some info, actually a lot on the T-50 which IS the Sukhoi PAK-FA, they have given it a designtaion now, but it might change in the future, exp. T-10, now its Su-27, so it will probably be disgnated by an Su-??

paralay.narod.ru...

look at the first pic on the left at the top, the T-50 looks very similar to the F-22 except the nose is more the shape of the Su-32/34, the tail has a larger surface area, and the wings are swept back slightly more, which provides greater maneuverability, it doesn't have canards, but it does have a leading edge that trails before the wing, it does the same as canards, but maybe to a greater extent, because it is larger, it lessens the chances of the aircraft getting into a stall and makes it more stable, it seems longer and thinner than the F-22, but then again that can be contributed to the distance of the aircraft compared to the F-22..............these "claims" mgiht be wrong, because its justba picture, but it gives us a rough overview on the actual aircraft that is to have a test flight in 2005, or 2007, forgot which year

hope you can read russian

Ha, knew I saw it some where:

Mach 1.7
Link

10th grader in ontario canada that speaks Russian and can read that all?

let me give u some info on the american economy, u'll be shocked by the extent of your debt, really, it shocked me to, k, here's the stuff

1.yes, u guys have a 10.99 trillion economy with a GDP of 37800, which ranks 1 and 3 in the world respectively, yet u guys are only grwoing at 3.1% compared to Russia's 7.3% and Moldova's 6.3%

2. okay lets get to public debt, now, america spends $2.156 trillion, and they make $1.782 trillion every year after taxes(well, all this info is 2004), now, that is a defecit of $374 billion/that was last year, and it will relatively be the same as this year, so basically its $370 billion a year, now that will increase the public debt by about 5.40% a year and america's total public debt is 62.4%, your total public debt amounts to $6.858 trillion

3. now in comparison to Russia's and Moldova's; Russia spends $73.75 billion a year, and he earns $83.99 billion a year, therefore, unlike america, they have a budget surplus of $10.24 billion, which will remain approximately $10 billion a year, okay, russia's apublic debt amounts to 34.1% of their economy, which translates to $437 billion, now, the $10 billion annually will decrease the public debt by 2.29%

Moldova on the other hand spends $443.4 million and earns $474.8 million, therefore, just like russia, they have abudget surplus of $31.4 million annually, so basically thats $30 million every year, now their public debt accounts for 88.4% of their GDP, which is the most of America and Russia and one of the highest in the world, yet this translates to $6.89 billion, the $30 million a year will decrease the public debt by 4.36% a year, which is even higher than Russia's

4.now, onto the second last thing, trade turnover, america imports products and services worth $1.26 trillion every year, yet it only exports $714.5 billion, therefore, the trade turnover is a defecit of $713.24 billion, thats annually, now, your current position in trade turnover is at -$541.8 billion, lets compare this to Russia's and Moldova's

5.Russia imports $74.8 billion, while they export $134.4 billion, which gives a positive trade turnover of $59.6 billion a year, and their current situation is at $35.91 billion, its positive

Moldova imports $1.34 billion and exports only $790 million which means that they have a trade defecit of $550 million annually, their current situation is at -$135 million

last points: america has $85.94 billion in their foreign echange reserves, and russia has $76.94 billion(but it is now close to $120 billion as of December 1), and Moldova has $302.3 million

america's debt is $1.4 trillion and is precisely 70% of WORLD debt which totals to $2 billion, russia has a debt of $175.9 billion which amounts to 8.8% of total world debt, and Moldova, has a debt of $1.515 billion which is worth 0.076% of world debt

now, let me explain a few things, if a ntion has a budget defecit, then if they have a positive trade turnover, they can use that money accumulated by the trade to pay off their debt, therefore, remaining neutral, or vice versa, u can use the budget surplus to pay off negative trade turnovers, the problem with america is that, it has a negative trade turnover and a negative public defecit, so, in short, u have no spare money, except that in your foreign exchange reserves, which is only reserved for severe economic hardships, to ensure that the economy does not crash, so, to lessen the amount of public debt and its trade turnover, it borrows money from other countries, but u can't pay it back because your in a total economic defecit already, so the external debt builds up and builds up, eventually it reached $1.4 trillion, and its just going to keep on growing

now Russia is an absolutely totally different situation, both the economic trade turnover is positive and the budget, which leaves a LOT of money for spending, and their foreign exchange reserves are higher than america's right now, therefore, the case that russia can't afford to buy anything is irrelevant for their military, they've increased spending by 27.7% for next year

now Moldova is the middle situation, we have a budget surplus, yet we have a negative trade turnover, because the trade turnover is bigger than the amount of surplus we receive from our budget, we cannot pay it off, which causes us to borrow money and increases our external debt, yet Moldova's a developing nation, so, the situaion will hopefully change later on

i hope this has cleared all your thoughts about the american economy and has removed the blind fold that Bush has sneakily placed on your eyes

Dimitri Mikhailitchenko is done

Originally posted by Dima
disturbed deliverer, u're foolsih, of course they've tested the SAM system, then they wouldn't start purchasing them next year if it wasn't tested, the S-300 tracked an F-117 in Yugoslavia , and the S-300 is older than the F-117, it wasn't even created to counter stealth, yet it still did!

about the F-22, i heard that it had the RCS of a tricycle from someone here at ATS, the S-400 has detecting stealth in mind

here are some links on the S-400 and it has been tested

www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org...
www.wonderland.org.nz...

the second one nearly to the end gives some info no the S-400 and the S-400 mentions that the SAM can lock onto targets without giving a signal

www.fas.org...
www.astronautix.com...
www.missilethreat.com...
warfare.ru...

the russians are also devloping a new type of radar that scans the desnity of the air, if the density is higher than the expected density of the air, then they immediately know to scramble their interceptors

and since they first developed the passive array radar, they have a lead in that technology

here Laxpla, here are the links, look at these, to lazy to dig up more, this was on just one page of google search for "radar of S-400"

The top image shows shaping problems. A stealth plane needs to have very blended skins surface, if it doesnt it will reflect too much radar that there will be no point in having a stealth configuration. The back tail plane mounts are tubular, which is a very good radar refector. That is why planes like the sr-71 have flared skin and planes like the B-52 have a giant RCS. Also the control surfaces have some sharp angles which show up on radar well.

In the second you can see that the plane is carrying its missiles on the outside, which basically counteracts the effects of stealth. Why have a stealthy plane if the enemy can see the missiles your hanging off the plane. Also the boom in the middle is just horribly shaped and will reflect radar well. The engine exhausts dont have any flairing and as a result will have massive infared signatures. ti also does not have much Snaking, which exponentially increase the RCS.

also the materials recovered from the F-117 and the D-21 are extremely old and are far surpassed by new RAM on the B-2 ect. also The RAM is not overwhelming advantage without shping, and a crashed F-117 isnot in dange of giving up such secrets.

It will be stealthy as the EF-2000 or the F/A-18e/f but not a stealth plane

Originally posted by Dima

Originally posted by Dima
disturbed deliverer, u're foolsih, of course they've tested the SAM system, then they wouldn't start purchasing them next year if it wasn't tested, the S-300 tracked an F-117 in Yugoslavia , and the S-300 is older than the F-117, it wasn't even created to counter stealth, yet it still did!

about the F-22, i heard that it had the RCS of a tricycle from someone here at ATS, the S-400 has detecting stealth in mind

here are some links on the S-400 and it has been tested

www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org...
www.wonderland.org.nz...

the second one nearly to the end gives some info no the S-400 and the S-400 mentions that the SAM can lock onto targets without giving a signal

www.fas.org...
www.astronautix.com...
www.missilethreat.com...
warfare.ru...

the russians are also devloping a new type of radar that scans the desnity of the air, if the density is higher than the expected density of the air, then they immediately know to scramble their interceptors

and since they first developed the passive array radar, they have a lead in that technology

here Laxpla, here are the links, look at these, to lazy to dig up more, this was on just one page of google search for "radar of S-400"

You still never answered my first question, where does it say it can take out F-22, B-2, UCAV and UAV?

I showed sources of it saying UAV, UCAV are able to bypass the system along with the Raptor.

yo Ronii, the pics don't work, can u give me the original site or try them again, thanx

what are u talking about, no u didn't, give me your articles again, they don't specifically say S-400

k, let me look on google

www.aviationnow.com... ry%26id%3D%2Fnews%2Fmusafpl0223.xml

Iam going to bed. I will reply tommrow.

so what do u guys think of my economic post?

here are some links when i searched for S-400 can detect F-22

www.politicsforum.org...

wait, here, let me check a few more times, most of the links don't work, friggin internet

Probably your strongest argument ever on here, I think the delay in anyone from the USA ripping it to shreds says quite a lot.

What was your point with the "economy" thing for? Or do you just want to rub it in america's face that they spend to much.

Your right, but hey, what can you do.

When Clinton was the Pres the usa debt actually went smaller , But thats because he was a prick and sold secrets, plus Bush has the War on Terrorism, so thats why it will continue to rise, but in around 2-3 years (unless another major event happens) I think that our debt will get smaller once again. (aka: If Iran calms down)

Originally posted by Dima
yo Ronii, the pics don't work, can u give me the original site or try them again, thanx

if ur using Firefox right click and say view image, the other browsers I dont know.

urls
image32.webshots.com...
image30.webshots.com...


[edit on 14-12-2004 by roniii259]

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Our economy grows at the highest pace of any developed nation. We have low unemployment. We have a GDP twice the size of the nearest competition, and they have an economy mulitple times the size of our own.

The American economy is just fine.

I think Dima was replying to this.

thanx ronnii, wow, u guys ar pretty nice, unlike american mad man and engineer, i don't really like those guys, especially engineer

anyways, i doubt your debt is going to go down because, even if i take out the cost that Iraq had on the american economy which was $60 billion if i'm not mistaken, your expenditures will still be at $2.096 billion, and that will still give u a negative

and u're trade, wow, i'm actually surprised though, i never thought that america imports almost double what they export, but thats not gunna change in 5 years, nope, maybe 8-10, but that would involve drastic reforms, and the government would have to do something, raise prices on the international level to earn more, but then again, the products will become less competitive because everyone else is selling them cheaper

u're debt went down during the Clinton years, really, can u rpovide a link? for some reason i doubt that, but i could be wrong, i got all my info from www.cia.gov by the way, great site, it has everything, i'm making a MASSIVE database on all countries in Europe and the Former Soviet Union, and i'm putting in info on everything dealing with the economy and population growth, it'll be absolutely sick

wait ronni, did u use frigg, whats that program called?anyways, to highlght the pictures?

there are some faults with the F-22 as well, the trailing edge ahs more of a degree than the T-50, its really sharp, and that tiny space between the wing and the tail, there's a gap, and it looks like an obtuse angle, it looks pretty sharp

i don't understand half the things u said about the T-50, everything looked okay to me, u circled the cockpit, because, it looks fine, very curvacious, then theirs this mysterious shadow right before the tail, i wonder what that is, u circled that, then u circled the horizontal tail plane, i don't know why, i think the T-50 looks more curvacious than the F-22, except the nose, that looks like it will deflect some Radar waves

can u explain your detailks further

thanx

The reason other countries have not delved into stealth to the extent of the US is economics. The US's defense budget is almost 29% of what Russia's total GDP is, $370 billion dollars. The US, simply, is at the liberty to spend the money to aquire such technology.