Russia's Steatlh Fighter

TheStig · 07-14-2009, 12:35 PM

I think we better start making a hell of a lot more F-22 Raptors now...

http://www.paralay.com/pakfasu.html

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Are there any verified images of the Sukhoi PAK-FA ?

Chinese Stealth
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600141/posts

TheMentat · TheMentat's Garage

Seriously? Why not use drones?

TheStig · 07-14-2009, 01:29 PM

We are. Our possible future strategy is to use drones as a diversion supported by F-22s invisible to the radar while the drones are being detected. The Raptors can intercept and interdict to their hearts' content while being undetected while any and all enemies are engaging the non-stealh UAVs.

sammyg2 · 07-14-2009, 04:00 PM

We (the US of A) have already developed technology to detect and track stealth aircraft. It was pretty simply really, all it took was lower frequency waves from at least three different sources that are linked via some sort of network so they can talk to each other. The software does the rest.
or so I hear ........

pavulon · 07-14-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStig

I think we better start making a hell of a lot more F-22 Raptors now...

http://www.paralay.com/pakfasu.html

The author of that article has a mild tendency to ramble on.....

idontknow · 07-14-2009, 06:48 PM

Oh sure, attack the messenger, not the message

onewhippedpuppy · 07-14-2009, 06:55 PM

I don't read Russian and I see no photos of finished flying aircraft. Is there any meat there, or is it just pretty pictures? In their day the Soviet MIG-29 and Su-27 were pretty sweet planes, I'm sure they're plenty capable.

john70t · 07-14-2009, 06:58 PM

Carnards make a lot of sense.
Until they sucessfully mimic the dragonfly wing, the only features left are complete retraction of all wings, pivoting the main wings, and thining/crunching the profile (making the flat oval shape into a fat one/etc during low speed manuvers).

m21sniper · 07-15-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyg2

We (the US of A) have already developed technology to detect and track stealth aircraft. It was pretty simply really, all it took was lower frequency waves from at least three different sources that are linked via some sort of network so they can talk to each other. The software does the rest.
or so I hear ........

Those sorts of networks are useless for target acquisition.

MFAFF · 07-15-2009, 09:20 AM

They have been talking about this for years... so whilst here is no doubt that technically there is the ability.. is there the financial, political will to push the button and how long will it take them to 'acquire' the operational knowledge to deploy this effectively.....in thier won fashion and to the best of its ability.

The US took its time to learn how best to use Stealth with the F-117, the B-2 and now the F-22.. it will learn more to use the F-35. So whilst the learning curve for the Russains will be different it still needs to be taken.

m21sniper · 07-15-2009, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

I don't read Russian and I see no photos of finished flying aircraft. Is there any meat there, or is it just pretty pictures? In their day the Soviet MIG-29 and Su-27 were pretty sweet planes, I'm sure they're plenty capable.

The Russians best birds are the SU-35, and the Indian SU-30 MkI derivitave.

Vectored thrust, AESA phased array radar, very capable...but not stealth (in the slightest).

TGTIW · 07-15-2009, 09:58 AM

I guess Mitchell Gant will have to steal on of these too.

TheStig · 07-15-2009, 10:41 AM

I agree M21. However, the fact that they carry the R-77 Adder whose range is farther than our AIM-120C AMRAAM negates anything that is unstealthy.

The Raptor is needed to combat threats such as these. The Indian AF already proved the SU-30's capability of a 90% success rate against the F-15 in a Red Flag exercise.

The USAF is now 100% convinced it NEEDS the F-22 dearly.

m21sniper · 07-15-2009, 10:54 AM

Even if there were no SU-30MkI or SU-35 the USAF would still desperately need the F-22....the F-15C's are flat out dog-ass whooped tired.

TheStig · 07-15-2009, 10:57 AM

There is a picture of an F-16 in the magazine Combat Aircraft at Borders. It looks like crap. Very tattered and worn. Picture says all!

m21sniper · 07-15-2009, 11:04 AM

Yes, the early Vipers are extremely whooped too.

They'll be replaced by F-35s though, if all goes according to plan.

The A-10 fleet was equally whooped, but the USAF is rebuilding those. New wings, all new electronics, pretty much everything but new engines.

Seahawk · 07-15-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStig

We are. Our possible future strategy is to use drones as a diversion supported by F-22s invisible to the radar while the drones are being detected. The Raptors can intercept and interdict to their hearts' content while being undetected while any and all enemies are engaging the non-stealh UAVs.

There has been stealth UAS' in development for years and the Navy has an established carrier suitability program for the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System.

The real stealth UAS are the small, Class 2 and below UAS'. A lot of work is being done to quiet their aural signature and use stealth materials. They can roam undetected for up to 16 - 20 hours and provide critical ISR.

The best deep penetrating strike option we have is still Tomahawk.

Manned aircraft will never be replaced, but they will be better focused by UAS assets.

m21sniper · 07-15-2009, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seahawk

The best deep penetrating strike option we have is still Tomahawk.

I would think the B-2, or are you just referring to naval assets?

sammyg2 · 12:26 PM

One thing I learned from my father, if we know about something or there is a hint of something existing, it is nearly obsolete.
We have stuff we won't use, and if we use something it's usually because we already have something better in reserves.

Remember the patriot missiles used in desert storm? Military surplus. We had those missiles available in Viet Nam. He worked on developing them. We were using them up because that was cheaper than destroying them.

Cruise missiles were around a long time before we used them, they were originally outfitted with nukes to be launched from B-52s. My father worked on part of them back in the late 60s. He went on a business trip to Hawaii for months when I was a little kid, I found out later they were testing cruise missiles.

The F-117 was around well over a decade before we used it we already had something better before it was unveiled.
The only time we let people know about something is because we want our enemy to know about it and react. That was the case with the Valkyrie, the B-1, the B-1B, the F-117, the B-2, the raptor. We may not have built the replacement for the raptor yet but we have it designed. Drones are decoys in more ways than one.

Remember the U2? We wrapped that in radar absorbing material trying to make it stealth but it still got shot down over cuba in 1962. Yes, radar absorbing coatings have been around and in use that long.

We currently have the technology to detect incoming stealth planes and we have A2A and G2A missiles that can shoot them down. We can take out the F-117, the B-2, the raptor but our enemies can't.
We probably won't use them or make them public for 15 years or so. By that time 5th gen stealth will be old news.

Right now we have 7th generation. Star wars, fighting from space. Energy from above. That's why we poured so much money into the space shuttle program, it wasn't so we could build a space station and do science experiments on weeds and mice.
After that we get the romulan's technology, which we're already trying to figure out

It's a combination of chess and poker and we hold all the wild cards, and they are marked.