shining eyes
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2010
- Messages
- 835
- Reaction score
- 0
I gave the vote to F22 and is now winning having 33 votes while PAK FA has 32 votes
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For something that cost as much as it does, I'd very much hope it'd work...The 'stealth is real' part is very debatable, of course. For example, I once read an article in AirForces Monthly about the F-35 and a very highly experianced RAF pilot said; "You'll be stealthy going in, but sure as hell you won't be stealthy coming out", when talking about a particular, quite simple scenario.There is no 'faith' about it. By the time you spent your money, you will KNOW that 'stealth' is real.
I'm aware of it. But what I'm getting at, at the end of the day, is what you feel safest in. I'm not comparing them in a "versus" way you understand, just a matter of choice. And choice wise I'd go for Typhoon. Its not not all what other manufactures think when they make a new promotional video for their fighter, i.e it flying in a straight line without a care in a world and getting shot down. Believe that then you're very much mistaken it.If you do have that thought, you might want to find the radar warning receiver control panel and change its mode to 'ON'. The radar warning receiver set is supposed to alert you if there are any seeking radar transmissions in the area. But only if it is powered up and working.
The same company, LM, when talking about the F-22, say its the best, nothing can touch it etc. Then when they talk about the F-35, they say the same thing...Rather silly really, their marketing department ought to think things through more thouroughly. It'd certainly make them look more intelligent.Avionics of the f35 are the best.
better then f22 these are said by those industries that made these aircraft.
Stealth is real.
it can detected.
but ofcourse. if you dont role what the int he books says you can be detected.
i think it has to do with speed and moves.
Besides that Pak fa from russia is a gaint thing.
its easy to detect and shoot down if you ask me.
also that greek dude that says that f35 will be surpassed sometime..
Ofcourse everything get surpassed thats why it gets upgraded.
and also designing new toys for the next decade can do wonders.
it might save your country.
The B-2 is giant too, so how easy is it to shoot down? also care to explain how you know, "its easy to detect and shoot down" did you detect and shoot one down?
Conditional? The proper word is 'fictitious'. Radar cross section calculations and values are essentially fictitious precisely because they do change.Gambit, sometimes I wonder.
I meant it's a conditional state because even things such as the aircraft orientation in relation to the observer can alter the "stealth" factor of the plane.
Since Stealth is "conditional" it's not real ! it's just a limitation of established infastructure. If someone decides to take the step and change said infastructure, voila ..the plane is pretty non stealth again
No I would not because radar detection, its avoidance and countermeasures depends on...what else but the existence of the radar detector itself?Would you call a Fokker Dr.1 a highly successful all aspect stealth plane because simply there were no radars at the time to pick it up ?
Absolutely they do. Here is your argument...That is what the F22 has done for current infastructure. It simply says.. "Guys its time you buy new radars/ Sensors " ... eventually somewhere down the line..someone will !!
The SR-71 and the B-58 have nothing to do with this argument. I was trying to say that since the F22 is a Colossal investment and a Colossal shift in operational tactics.. a dramatic shift in its ability to be stealthy would be a major economic setback for the US because you simply cannot justify such spending on human-machine interfaces and some sensor fusion technology alone,
The B-58 was defeated by high altitude capable surface-air missiles. It was a less expensive countermeasure than manned aircrafts. But the SR-71 was defeated by neither missiles nor manned aircrafts. Why not? No one 'decide' to defeat it? The reason why the SR-71 retired undefeated is because people searched in vain ways to bring down the aircraft, if even just once, and all methods failed. There were no decision making process for the B-58 and the SR-71. Cost was of secondary concern. So your question regarding sensor capability to electronically defeat the F-22 missed the point entirely -- That there is no decision at all. There is a need and so far no one have stepped up with the answer to that need.What if some people someplace decide they don't want expensive stealth planes but rather appropriate radars using bands that can pick up stealth planes.
I have. And everyone can see it.I think its YOU who needs to do a bit of thinking....
No one 'decide' anything.
Looks like you are having difficulties following your own arguments. So I will refresh your memory...So the F22 was born out of ...magic ??? No decisions were ever made during its inception ? well that is news for me...
This is the core of the argument.. you are a clear believer (it seems) of the principles behind the creation of the stealth fighters.. I am a supporter..but not a believer...
The highlighted 'decide' imply that electronically defeating the F-22 is optional. No...There is no option. Even if one fail in the attempt, failure does not negate the necessity. That is why I said no one 'decide' anything. The US felt that creating a new generation of aircraft, based upon new technology, to elude radar detection is a necessity. Our 'decision' was not so much driven by whims as it was from financial limitations. So...No...'stealth' was not an option, it was a necessity waiting for resource allocation to come to being. Once 'stealth' proved to be viable and overwhelmingly advantageous to one side -- US -- its defeat also became a necessity and THAT is also a need waiting for resource allocation.What if some people someplace decide they don't want expensive stealth planes but rather appropriate radars using bands that can pick up stealth planes.
I do not have 'faith', only a realist's attitude that we should create and maintain every possible advantage for at least 10 yrs. The F-15 proved to be dominant beyond expectations. From what we have seen so far, the F-22 and its cousins are likely to have the same record.It's not your understanding of what the aircraft (F22,F117,B2, not F35) can do that ...I don't share.. it's your faith in the whole species of ( US only ) stealth aircraft.
And let us not kid ourselves on the importance of parsing who benefited more from the SR-71, the military or the CIA.The SR-71 situation was very far from what you described.
First of all, the SR-71 was not really a USAF plane..its was more a CIA plane and let's not kid ourselves about that..
Fine...You are wrong.and second Gambit...
as far as I know, it never actually overflew USSR space...at least officialy ... and please do correct me if I am wrong...
SR-71 pilots are practically astronauts. For those who were privileged enough to have listened to mission tapes, whenever these pilots felt a potential threat is rising from the ground, the pilot would just casually said to the guy-in-back (GIB) that they should head out to 'space', which is pretty much at 100k ft or 74 km altitude. Why did the US stopped U-2 overflights of Soviet airspace...???but my understanding of flying tells me that the USSR could successfully intercept such a high flying high speed target using their MiG 25s and later their MiG-31s ...
And before you jump off your seat, I don't mean use them to get the SR-71 in dogfilghts... you are a military man, you know what intercept means. ..
So from a physics and flight characteristics point of view, ( and a little knowledge on the AA missiles available at the time) one can conlude that interception was possible....
So................ I will not hold my breath over your argument on the blackbird... first i got to be convinced it actually overflew the USSR
The U-2 overflights, and of course violations of Soviet airspace, were stopped because eventually Soviet air defense became capable enough to reach the U-2's operational altitude, aka the Powers U-2 shoot down. But here you are telling everyone here, people who can be cynical enough, that the US never sent the SR-71 over Soviet airspace? Give us all a break, will ya...??? May be you need a transfusion of said cynicism.On every flight, the pilot reported seeing Soviet fighters flying beneath him at various times. They were too far below to pose any danger, but it was obvious that they were searching for a target that their ground controllers had identified. The bad news was soon confirmed by the US National Security Agency, whose ground stations intercepted the voice reports from the Soviet Air Defence Troops.
Soviet air defences were better than expected! However, the early U-2 overflights strongly suggested that Soviet offensive airpower had been over-estimated.
Why should Soviet missiles be confined to Soviet air defense when Soviet military prestige would gain global eminence and desirability if even just one SR-71 was shot down?Between 01 January and 31 March 1968, six missions were flown: four over North Vietnam and two over North Korea.
they threw up their hands and pretty much gave up, for the SR-71 as well as the F-22.
Please spare us the sarcasm.. (+ you ain't good at it)
I must admit I didn't realise you were talking about my phrase, I do however find your reasoning behind the "noone decided anything" thing wrong.
1) It's not just a question of resources and I think as a US military man by now you should have learned that just because the US does it a certain way , that doesn't mean the whole world does it that way.
2) The SR-71 thing...man you are so all over the place I can't even begin to think were to start..let me see...
a) First of all the MiG 25 and the MiG 31 are capable of almost the altitude the SR-71 can achieve...for an interception it's more than enough
b) The SR-71 had no sensors on board to tell it if a plane was after it... I wonder how your SR-71 pilots were going to simply go stratospheare if they saw a chaser !!! I don't think a SAR is a good airborn AA radar ... i pretty much doubt it ...
C) 12 or 13 SR-71s were lost... who tells me besides your bloated US ego that some were not due to interceptions ( I don't believe it myself but from an arguments point of view..hey...)
So please.. sarcasm ...not
New Recruit
New Recruit