Rusky

I picked this up from warfare.ru

Here:

The Madness of the F-22 Fighter

Tiffany's on wings. That's how one senate aide refers to the Pentagon and its contractor's latest dream weapon: the F-22. "It's showy, unimaginably expensive, fragile and utterly useless", the aide tells us. "But there's no stopping it."

The F-22, known to its press agents as the "Raptor", has been on the drawing board since 1981, at which time the Air Force announced that it wanted a generation of new tactical fighter planes to replace the F-15. In 1986, Lockheed was picked to lead the development of this plane, then known as the Advanced Tactical Fighter.

Across the next 15 years, billions of dollars have been poured into the project with little to show for it. Indeed, the F-22 has enjoyed the longest coming out party of any plane in the history of the Pentagon. And, according to Pentagon analysts, it's still nowhere near ready to go into production. Indeed, some argue that the plane, designed to attack an enemy that no longer exists, is already obsolete, both technologically and strategically.

But don't expect these trifling details to stand in the way of the Pentagon, Air Force brass, Lockheed and the F-22's two other prime contractors, Pratt/Whitney and Boeing. These parties are now rushing to put the troubled plane into what's called "initial low rate production" at a date as close as March 30 of this year. Unless the Bush administration intervenes, the Air Force will be saddled with at least 10 of these technological relics and billions more will flow into the coffers of the contractors.

Along with the V-22 Osprey, the F-22 presents a case study for the Pentagon's procurement pathology: call it the buy-before- you-fly syndrome. "One of the oldest tricks is putting off testing until production has begun," says Danielle Brian, director of the Project on Government Oversight. "As a result, the contractor gets paid twice: once to make a flawed system and once to fix it."

Even by historical standards the escalation in the price-tag for the F-22 has been jaw-dropping. Originally, the Air Force said it was going to purchase 880 planes for around $40 billion. Within a few months, the price doubled to $80 billion. In 1991, the Pentagon's Selected Acquisitions Review looked at the F-22 and decided that fewer planes should be built, scaling the order down to 680 planes for $64.2 billion. Then the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review cut the number of planes even further: 339 aircraft for the same price. The $35 million fighter has now turned into a $190 million plane, four times the cost of an F-15.

But that's not all. When the GAO looked at the mounting cost overruns, they estimated that the $64.2 billion cap would only enable the Pentagon to buy 254 planes, 630 hundred fewer than originally advertised. Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat, is even more circumspect. He predicts that only 150 fighters will be bought. In other words, the planes could cost as much as $350 million apiece.

None of this troubles Lockheed, as long as the entire $64.2 billion is spent. Indeed, the fewer "limited edition" F-22s Lockheed unloads on the Pentagon, the more "copies" it will sell to Israel, Germany, Chile and Indonesia.

But what has all that money bought? Not much when compared to the F-15 and F-16. Even the Pentagon's top testing officer disagrees with the performance status of the F-22. In a December 20, 2000, memo to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Phillip Coyle, director of Operational Testing and Evaluation for the Pentagon, concluded that the problems with the F-22 were so overwhelming that a decision on putting the plane into production should be delayed indefinitely.

Coyle's memo discloses a litany of problems with the plane, ranging from testing delays, cost overruns, mechanical failures, and serious problems with the avionics system. Coyle warned that the plane couldn't begin operational testing by August 2002 without encountering "unacceptable risks".

The F-22 hasn't proved all that safe to fly either. In one of its first test flights, the F-22 began to wobble uncontrollably as it attempted to land, finally smacking into the runway without landing gear, then skidding for 8,000 feet before it caught fire and partially burned. The third test flight was cancelled because the hydraulic gearing didn't work. In March of last year, the Air Force was forced to suspend test flights for six weeks after a review found problems with the plane's brakes, landing gear, environmental control systems, avionics software, missile launch detector, plus cracks in the cockpit canopy.

The Air Force touts the F-22's supposed stealth capabilities as a point of superiority compared with the aging but durable F-15. But the F-22 hasn't proved to be all that invisible, after all. From one discreet angle, the F-22 slips past radar screens. But from other apertures and latitudes, the plane, in the words of a Senate staffer, "lights up like the Budweiser blimp".

Because it's a fighter intended for aerial combat with other fighter planes, the F-22 will be restricted largely to daytime flights. But the plane is so large-partially because the designers put the missiles inside the fighter in order to lower its profile to enemy radar systems-that it will be easily detectable to the naked eye. It's five times the size of the F-16.

"The only way to make the F-22 stealthy is to tear the eyes out of enemy pilots' heads," says retired Air Force Col. Everest Riccioni. Riccioni is one of the so-called "fighter mafia", along with the late Col. John Boyd and CounterPuncher Pierre Sprey (now the director of Mapleshade Records), who helped to design the F-16, probably the best fighter plane ever produced. The colonel is now one of the F-22's most savage critics.

One intractable problem involves the F-22's complex and unwieldy avionics system, being developed by Boeing.

"The avionics for the F-22 were obsolete before the plane even went into production", a Pentagon analyst tells CounterPunch. That's because the computer systems that act as the plane's brain are powered by five-volt silicon chips. These went out of date in 1992 when Intel introduced the 3.3 volt Pentium chip. Now most computers run on the even faster Pentium III, a 1-volt microchip. "Imagine if this plane ever joins the fleet and is running on computer systems that are already 10 years out of date and will be 30 years out of date in the future," a senate staffer said. "It will be like trying to run a spreadsheet with an abacus."

Just to keep the planes maintained the Pentagon will have pay Boeing and Lockheed to keep open old plants to make the archaic parts for the F-22. The Pentagon has already set aside a billion dollars to address the problem of obsolete parts, a problem that will only get more bothersome over the lifetime of the plane. "It'll be like the Pentagon's version of the blacksmith shop at colonial Williamsburg," the senate staffer tells us.

Even in the unlikely event that the F-22's technical and mechanical problems can ultimately be resolved, the plane still won't meet the Air Force's stated goal of rejuvenating an aging fleet of fighter planes. In fact, it will only exacerbate the problem. Under the F-22 program, the Air Force will find itself with fewer fighter planes with an older average age. This problem didn't just sneak up on the Air Force overnight. It was predicted as far back as 1991 in an independent report by Pentagon analyst Franklin Spinney.

In 1999 Republican congressman Jerry Lewis of California led a successful effort to cut off funding for the opulent fighter jet. The measure passed by an overwhelming margin: 334-45. But Lewis and his colleagues underestimated the Pentagon's power. In a budgetary sleight of hand, the $2.9 billion annual appropriation was simply reallocated by the House/Senate conference committee from procurement accounts to that gold mine of the defense contractors: research and development.

A year later Rep. Peter Defazio, the Democrat from Oregon, went back on the attack. In July 2000, Defazio denounced the F-22's cost as obscene and offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill which would have knocked down funding for the F-22 by $932 million. This blasphemy roused into action Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a California Republican and a fighter pilot in the Vietnam War.

Cunningham rushed to the floor of the House to defend the honor of the Air Force and its contractors. "Our liberal and socialist friends would tell us the Cold War is over and there is no threat," Cunningham blustered. "Our kids are going to die, and its amendments like this that have stopped our military from surviving and put us in a situation where we have got 21 ships along a pier that cannot be deployed because they are down for maintenance." When Defazio denounced Cunningham's tirade as "bizarre", Cunningham screamed that he had visited the Democratic Socialists of America website and discovered a link to the website of the Progressive Caucus, headed by Defazio.

The funding of a big ticket defense system usually hinges on where it's being built. For optimum appropriations, the factories must be located in congressional districts with political clout. The F-22 fits this bill nicely: the engine is being built by Connecticut-based Pratt Whitney, the troubled avionics system is being developed by Boeing in Seattle and the whole bag of tricks is being put together by at Lockheed's plant in Marietta, Georgia. This brings together a powerful cocktail of political powerbrokers, including Democrats Joe Lieberman, Christopher Dodd, Norm Dicks , and Zell Miller.

The plane also had a friend in Bill Clinton. As part of his final budget, Clinton included $2.5 billion for the production and purchase of 10 F-22s in 2001. It was the centerpiece of his $60 billion procurement plan. Lockheed was represented on the Hill by Peter Knight, Al Gore's closest friend and finance chair of the Clinton/Gore 1996 reelection campaign. During Clintontime Lockheed poured more than $2.1 million into DNC accounts.

There was some early hope that Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld might rein in the program, especially if it frees up money for any even bigger spending spree: the new Star Wars scheme. Cheney has a history of bucking Pentagon brass. In 1991, as secretary of defense, hre pulled the plug on the Navy's A-12 attack plane, a $57 billion boondoogle.

But similar boldness with the F-22 seems unlikely. When the F-22 was under attack from a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, including Lewis and Defazio, on the Hill, Cheney and Rumsfeld both came to its rescue, signing a letter touting it as a vital component of the new military. Of course, these days Cheney and Rumsfeld keep talking about the modernization of US military hardware, a code-word for billions in expenditures for R&D programs and new high-tech systems-hence Bush's $310 billion defense budget.

A GAO report in 1994 concluded that it would be cheaper and perhaps even more effective from a military point of view to stick with the F-15. "Instead of confronting thousands of modern Soviet fighters, the US air forces are expected to confront potential adversary air forces that include few fighters that have the capability to the challenge the F-15-the US frontline fighter. Our analysis shows that the F-15 exceeds the most advanced threat system expected to exist. We assumed no improvements will be made to the F-15 but the capability of the 'most advanced threat' assumes certain modifications. Further, our analysis indicates that the current inventory of F-15s can be economically maintained in a structurally sound condition until 2015 or later."

So what's behind the F-22? The project's driven in large measure by what some Pentagon analysts call "the cult of stealth". In the mid-80s the Air Force, struggling to stay relevant, realized that "stealth" was a great marketing tool. The public was fascinated by those black, oddly configured, "invisible" airplanes and so were members of congress. It didn't matter if the stealth bomber was just as visible to most Russian radar system as the B-52 and cost 50 times as much to produce.

"The F-22 is not going to be a fighter-versus-fighter airplane," says Riccioni. "And if you want that capability, you can get it if you don't design for stealth. And if you don't design for stealth, you can make it affordable. And if it's affordable, you can get the numbers you want." Riccioni's right, of course, except for the fact that the Air Force doesn't even need a new fleet of planes because there's no existing fighter threat, hasn't been one since the Korean War, and there's none in the foreseeable future.

Some high-ranking Republicans are beginning to shake their heads at the Pentagon's incessant begging for ever-larger budgets and more expensive weapon systems, like the F-22, even in the face of epidemic cost over-runs.

"The Pentagon does not know how much it spends", says Senator Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who now heads the Senate Armed Services committee. "It does not know if it gets what it orders in goods and services. And the Pentagon, additionally, does not have a handle on its inventory. If the Pentagon does not know what it owns and spends, then how does the Pentagon know if it needs more money? Ramping up the Pentagon budget when the books are a mess is highly questionable at best. To some it might seem crazy....

=================

Yes it is possible to detect F-22 using some new Techno.

1. First one comes from Cell phones. It was reported about two years ago that Cell phones can actually help detect the aircraft flying above (even stealth). This is because the Radio-Wave comes from the Top, and not from Below the aircraft. A stealth (or any other) aircraft comes in the way, it Blocks the radio waves from reaching the Cell phone with the same intensity, hence causing interference.

2. The second method comes from my own knowledge. ( Blah ). One radar send signals to a modified radio (reciever) constantly. This is similar to how an AM radio works. You bounce the signal off the ionization layer of the atmosphere to reach the other radar at the receiving point. And then there are two other recievers (not radars) that are placed at 180% to each other. All three units are placed on a circular rim.

When a stealth aircraft comes inside this rim, the deflected rays are detected by all four recievers, and the exact position is determines using a computer.


If I were you, I would go with the first one. :megalol

====================

Bye Bye F-22, THE INVISIBLE BECOMES VISIBLE?

As you well know superior USA government - leader of the "free" world has canceled the F-22 air "superiority" fighter program.

The main reason for that is a new very sophisticated Russian radar, which unexpectedly appeared on the market, and which will make F-117, F-22, B-2 radar signature as large as that of Boeing 737!

A miniature version of this RADAR was briefly tested in Yugoslavia. It was quite successful "field trial". One trial - one US stealth warplane down.

To me it is yet another evidence of superior Russian brainpower!

The new radar boasts one principal plus: its ability to function in the meter-wave band makes it invulnerable to homing and anti-radar missiles effective in other wave-bands. Secondly, the radar can detect so-called "invisible" aircraft, including STEALTH technology planes, F-22, F-117A, B-2 etc.

These radars are manufactured by Nizhni Novgorod Plant.

It is interesting to note that throughout its 78 year-long history, Nizhni Novgorod "Television" Plant has never kept a low profile, despite the fact that nearly 80% of the hardware it produced was ordered by the military.
Contrary to usual procedures, this enterprise always had fairly famous names. The names changed, as did production. Whereas in Spring 1917, the Electrotechnical Works (the plant's first name) commemorated its birthday by producing military field and outpost telephone versions for the warring army, now the plant specializes in the production of unique meter-wave radar sets.

The latest novelties, the radar sets, types 55Zh6-1 and 1L13-3, were shown twice, in 1992 and 1993, at Nizhni Novgorod

International Fair and at MOSAEROSHOW exhibition in Moscow. They attracted the interest of experts at the recent exhibition of weaponry in Abu-Dhabi.

Times have changed and now the plant can openly demonstrate its
weaponry and offer it for sale. Now, let us consider the specifics of the radars, which impressed the specialists, both Russian and foreign, and led them to be frequent guests at the plant ever since. The 55Zh6-1 is a high tech, ground-based, three-coordinate circular scanner set operating in the meter-wave band.

It detects current (and future) airplanes, helicopters, cruise missiles,
balloons and other air objects in the Diagram depicting the operation of
55Zh6-1 and 1L13-3 meter-wave radarface of the most intensive clutter
and electronic countermeasures.

Both radar function in the meter-wave band makes it invulnerable to homing and antiradar missiles effective in other wavebands. Secondly, the radar can detect so-called "invisible" aircraft, including STEALTH technology planes. Indeed, this aircraft's invisibility is based on its special shape, which produces an extremely small signal return. In the meter-wave band used in radar technology, an aircraft's size is commensurate with wavelength, and its shape is no longer important. The "invisibility" of such aircraft is also due to their radio-absorbent coating.

However, to attain a marked decrease in "visibility" in the meter-wave band, one must ensure a substantial increase in the thickness of the "smearing".

This inevitably ends up with a greater mass of the aircraft and, consequently, a degradation in its flying characteristics.

The radar reveals its reliability in all meteorological conditions. It ensures fail-proof performance at minus 50 °C and can withstand almost unlimited heat.

Environmental humidity doesn't affect its performance. An apparently cumbersome antenna mast retains its serviceability under conditions of an ice-slick and 35 m/s wind.

The radar reveals good mobility. Its structures, devices and mechanisms are arranged on eight semi-trailers towed by trucks and can be moved by rail, air and water. It can be set up by a crew within less than 24 hours (22 hours, to be precise) without preliminary training, by merely looking in the manual. After turning on the power, it is operational within seconds.

The radar may be controlled equally well from the radar post located in the van and a remote control station equipped with seats for the commander (or operations duty officer), guidance navigator and operator. The remote
station contains radar control equipment and three indicators. It uses a cable link and is effective at a distance of 1km from the radar. In addition, it allows connection of another similar radar.

The radar displays target position in a three coordinate system.
Its coverage is 500 km in range, 40 km in height (16 deg. in
elevation) and is unlimited in azimuth. The guaranteed detection
ranges for a fighter flying at altitudes of 10,000 m and 20,000 m
are 300 km and 400 km, respectively; the targets flying at an
altitude of 500 m can be detected with confidence at a distance
of at least 65 km. It has a fighter detection ceiling of 60 km. As
well as the numerous indisputable advantages of the meter-wave
band, the radar also preserves a coordinate measuring accuracy.
The rms errors do not exceed 500 m in range, 850 m in height
and 24 in azimuth.

The electronic altimeter determines target elevation as well as range and azimuth, and also ensures a fairly high rate of output of the coordinates in two modes: in semi-automatic mode, when the operator singles out the targets for tracking, and in automatic mode - the coordinates of the locked-on targets are produced by a special computer. By sending an interrogation radio signal via the "Parol" (password) IFF system, the target can be identified to establish its national status.

It also provides for an air situation simulator, which displays the picture on an indicator screen without emitting radio pulses.

This is extremely useful during the training of radar crews. It also comprises a built-in functional test and diagnostics system. Information can be obtained on full readiness of the radar for operation or location of a trouble within the shortest possible time. As the equipment is built of units and the optimum number of spares is furnished with a set of spare parts and accessories, the location and replacement of the faulty component do not affect, for all practical purposes, the promptness of the crew's actions.

The radar may be supplied with electrical power from industrial mains. If
such a power source is not available, it can be powered by a self-contained power supply system, consisting of two Diesel-driven power plants (four 100-kW and three 50-kW Diesel-generator sets, including the reserve ones) and a distributor-converter. The self-contained system is energized and controlled from the radar post.

The radar's designers took into account safety and life-support systems
and ensured that comfortable conditions were provided for the crew. The
hermetic sealing of the work stations and equipment used to clean the outside air provide reliable protection for the crew against the ingress of the chemical and radioactive agents. The radar boasts an effective fire-protection system. An air conditioning system contributes to the work's convenience during combat operations.

The other meter-wave band radar, 1L13-3, is successfully employed to monitor air space and integrated in a system used to ensure air traffic control of military and civilian targets. It may also be used in an automated air defense or air force control system, or may be employed independently (e.g., as part of a rapid deployment force).

The radar is highly, mobile: its equipment is arranged on three trucks and
one trailer. The crew sets up the radar equipment within 45 min. The
radar makes it possible to feed at a high rate data on the positions of
flying targets in two dimensions: in azimuth (unlimited) and in range (up to
300 km). The highest altitude a fighter aircraft can be detected at is 27
km. Like the 55Zh6-1, the 1L13-3 is equipped with an automatically
controlled anti-jamming system, which uses multi-channel self-balancing
and digital scan-mode selection equipment. It is also provided with
monitoring and automatic trouble location equipment. The radar may be
powered from the industrial mains or itsown electric power plant,
comprising two 30-kW Diesel-generator sets.

The air conditioners guarantee operators' comfort, while the automatic
fire-fighting system and filtering-and-ventilating units ensure their safety.


The most important feature is its ability to detect "the invisible" aircraft. Clearly, these radars are related to the world's most advanced class of military hardware.

::::::::: =================================

STEALTH IS NOT AN UNBEATABLE TECHNOLOGY !!!

Stealth is combination of the followng things :-

1. Stealth design - Reduces the RCS (Still detectable)
2. Proper Mission Planning (Waypoints, Altitude etc) - To fly through low-threat areas
3. Practicing EMCON (Emmission Control - Radio silence, Limited Radar Use, No ECM stuff) - Commonly trusted practice

F-22 will have to violate the last 2 conditions to carry out Air Superiority missions.

And by the way, it just reduces the detection capability of the enemy radars but does not disable them completely.
It creates holes in the enemy's Air Defense network so the AC can fly through them.

And this sort of flying is tailor-made for Strike Missions, not for Air Superiority missions. Because in the latter, the AC will have to face moving radars (other ACs). You cannot predict the enemy pilot's movement and therefore cannot maintain proper position.

So if the F-22 is sent for an aggressive fighter sweep inside enemy territory, it will fly at a modest altitude (to let its radar detect targets), will use its radar (obviously) and once engaged, will not follow the planned path in the exact manner.
Therefore it will be detected (AWACS is watching). And even a frequency agile radar (APG-7 is not good enough if you are over enemy territory with Ground radars, AWACS, Fighters etc looking for you.
Russian MiG-31 interceptors have very powerful radars and Flankers also have good ones.
AND BTW, the Su-30MkI and Su-37 Flankers have state-of-the-art Electro-Optical detection system which uses LONG WAVE INFRA-RED S/T SYSTEM - A proven counter stealth system, thats why the F-14D Super Tomcat has it.

If I'm not being too optimistic, i suppose a counter stealth radar would have been developed by now in Russia - Its been a long time since stealth was revealed.

In a dogfight, Su-37 will beats the living hell out of the Raptor.

F-22 is agile, so is the Flanker. F-22 has JHMCS, so does the Flanker (HMTS). F-22 has stealth (no use in dogfights). F-22 wil have the AIM-9X, so what - Flankers have the R-77 Archer.
Turn rate(both inst and sustained) - Flankers is better (It can cut speed rapidly to turn tight and can also make a larger arc if required, all due to its canards).
Flanker has better top speed and acceleration (F-22 has tremendous sustained speeds, but not instantaneous).

In a nutshell, F-22 can be ecountered with Su-37 Flankers (But a true Raptor Killer has to be developed, like the MiG-1.42)

NOTE: F-22 will be fitted with the JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System) when the AIM-9X arrives. (Boeing's Site)
German MiG-29 wt HMTS kicked US F-16's by locking onto them in the forward 45 degrees on the nose - Annoying .

Yarmuk

Maybe..... maybe not.....


I would think that the US military would have thought of all these factors quite a long time ago. After all they are not exactly dumb........maybe.....joking ppl .

The_Burning_Kid

This is halarious. I can tell this entire article is BS just from reading it because of a couple of points:

1) If this article was true, then they would've actually stated that the F-22 is in fact outdone all its initial goals. It is a fact that you can't deny.
2) If the F-22 is so ineffective then tell me, why can it down over 5 F-15Cs repeatedly and only losing once because of a kidding joke when a F-15 turned around a shot down a Raptor after the excercise was over and the Raptor had switched off and was getting ready to do a landing procedure.
3) Its description of the F-22's computers are in fact wrong. The F-22 has a computer that is more powerful than 2 Cray Supercomputers in it. Tell me how is that obsolete? Also did the guy that wrote this ever look at a picture of the cockpit of the F-22? He's pretty dum, I guess.
4) They tried upgrading a F-15 to gain a similar stealth capability to the F-22 (not actual performance) and the thing cost more than the F-22 and didn't even still match its performance. It shows that. Also here's an interesting thing I found out that pretty much shreds all your arguments:

"In a November 2005 long range strike mission, 4 F-22A Raptors from Langley AFB were used in conjunction with B-2A stealth bombers and F-117A stealth fighter aircraft. The goal of the exercise was to penetrate the heavily defended airspace of a simulated near-peer adversary and clear the path for the B-2s and F-117s to attack their targets. F-15Cs flew in the roles of Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30MKI aircraft and SAMs were simulated. During the nearly seven-hour mission, the unit's four Raptors, working for alternating periods with four F-22As based at Nellis AFB, Nevada, dominated the skies and enabled the strike waves to safely carry out their runs. The F-22A Raptors were able to shoot down 33 F-15Cs without the loss of a single friendly aircraft."

Rusky

Poor simulation, no AWACS for F-15Cs, the radar of F-15C does not use the same anti-stealth technologies in their radars Russian does, or which is more probable somebody pulled this out of their ass (i am not going to say you did it, it seems too well written for someone of your intellect). I can name a thousand reasons. Either way you simply can't refute any of what i posted, i doubt you even read all of it. It doesn't matter what the cockpit looks like, you can't see the microchips used if you look at the cockpit. Grow up and stop acting like you're twelve. I am not going to try to reason with you, you are too deep in your fantasy world, reasoning with you is pointless. Funny thing is that you're the only one who doesn't realize it. And thats refering to everyone, including those who oppose your views and those who support them.

Either way, anybody have an actual argument against this?

The_Burning_Kid

Its halarious how much you show of true intelligence. I do ask you, where did you get that assumptions from? In the bathroom toilet after a number 2? And exactly how do you conclude that this is BS? Its funny how you assume that all links to counter whatever you say are usually BS, even ones like these (I could see you being suspicious on tech links but there is really nothing to lie about on that). And yes I did tell you about the avionics on the inside, 2 Cray Supercomputers. I'm not sure about you, but most experts consider that a lot of processing power. I'm not going to argue with someone that can't make any good counterarguments for their life and have to ignore someone when they can't win. Its a pitty. Also if I was truely making so many pointless arguments, why do people still debate with me and not ignore me? Maybe because they have something on it. I'll let you ponder that question yourself.

Insomniac

Well, I have always had my doubts about stealth and now Rusky just confirmed them. Thank you, Rusky, for sharing this knowledge with us.

Wow, I just realized that with all these faults the F/A-18E Super Hornet with a the better APG-79 is actually superior to the F-22A Raptor. I guess every military has its idiots, but the USAF was just foolish.

The_Burning_Kid

Do you honestly think that a force with tons of people that have degrees in aerospace engineering and have this type of expertise are idiots compared to Rusky? If you think so, that is wrong. He didn't confirm anything other than baseless facts. His article's credibility is questioned by me, but since he's ignoring me, that won't be addressed.

Defcon 6

Gee I wonder if this article might be biased!!!



Yes, it is mad crazy amazing.

It actually isn't all that costly.


Enemy that no longer exists? Will excuse me, evidently the world outside the U.S has stopped using fighter planes!


Gee, maybe we'll be the non existant Su-47 instead







OH RIGHT! LOL. And some russian military site managed to get their hands on this type of black project data! what a load of b.s



Evidently the journalist can't even name the most recent processor called the pentium 4, nor does he know what software and avionics are running the F-22.






rhetoric. this was the best part of the article. what a joke. Evidently this new Russian Radar is so groundbreaking that the laws of physics cease to exist in its combat radius.

Really? Thats not what we've seen so far in Baghdad and other such places. Pretty unbeatable vs. ground threats.


It's a no show. The F-22 can track, lock and shoot down 7 targets simultaneously. The Su's would get annihilated.



ooh boy. this obviously isn't bias. The Mig 1.42 that doesn't exist.

Bluesman

Awesome. So, the NEXT time US-made aerospace encounters Rooshan products, it'll be a complete and total reversal of what has gone before, over the last fifty years. Yessirree, look for the idiots flying them crappy and obsolescent Yank expensive deathtraps to be nothin' but a buncha smokin' holes, and the lucky and talented aces in those world-beating ROOSHAN sooper-dooper whiz-bang crackerjack winged wonders will have nothing to worry about.

Unlike each and every single time they encountered each other since the Korean War.

When American-built fighters beat the living CRAP out of the best that the entire rest of the world could put up against 'em.

EVERY.


SINGLE.


TIME.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Bluesman

I've had that sig block for some time now. But today, I love it more than ever.

Rusky

Factual information in it is not.

Is that supposed to be the extent of your argument?



Actually, yes it is, if it wasn't you guys wouldn't be trying to develop a less expensive JSF. Just read, its not hard. Also i am gonna trust the American Senate on what they consider expensive and what not over what you think, no hurt feelings i hope.



The kind of enemy you are fighting now does not use airpower, yes USSR no longer exists, thus there is no threat of war with it, the only nations that are hostile towards you do not use air power on any massive scale.





Su-47 exists, i don't get your point.


denial, one thing yanks on this board are good at.



Eh.....what black project data? They show this stuff on C-SPAN.



The article was written before pentium for came out. Also once again i am going to go with US senate to know more about F-22 avionics then you.



Evidiently you do not know the laws of physics.



Iraq didn't have ground threats.




Right, and the fact taht there is nothing to support this is okay with you.





It exists once again, but Russian next step is PAK-FA.

Is this the best you can do? 100% BS comments and zero factual content? Why are where so many 12 year old yanks in denial on these boards? Is where a sign some there that atracts them?

Rusky

Haha. Put something on that redneck and read history.

Rusky

Can anyone actually refute any points in that article with factualy backed up counter-points?

Horrido

Actually, yeah, I can refute pretty much all of it. I just don't have the motivation to sit at the computer and track everything down, so it will probably take me a few months to gnaw my way through that monstrosity of erroneous jabber.

I will mention, Rusky, that while the US Senate isn't the last group I would trust, it's pretty darned near close. Politicians are natoriously willing to whine, defame, or lie about ANYTHING if they think it gives them a chance at either more votes or more money for their pet projects. Take what you read from anything other than a trade journal with a block of salt. Also be cautious about statements regarding Russian "super radars." They've never had stealth aircraft to test against, and wouldn't know it if they did. We have equivalent radar systems with which to test the strengths/weaknesses of our stealth aircraft. If they supposedly shot down ONE F-117 with such radar, why no B-2's or other '117's were lost (we have also lost ONE F-117 at an airshow, perhaps our opponents should start putting on airshows, as well?). Please keep in mind that while some of the described radar can DETECT stealth aircraft, these are simply tripwire systems that let you know that something has PASSED. They CANNOT either TRACK stealth aircraft nor GUIDE missiles to them, it is simply the wrong wavelength with which to do so. I also can't help but think of the GPS-jammers Russia gave to Iraq, only to have them destroyed by our GPS bombs. Again, I'll post articles on the before-mentioned subjects when I have time, or better yet, run a search for yourself. The best way to be safe in your arguments is to try and find articles that may disprove your position from sources whose purpose is other than patting mother Russia on her own back and providing a badly-needed ego boost.

__________________
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

Defcon 6

YES. A voice of reason in a sea of b.s

Nobody is going to track down sources for that b.s article you posted since it A._ has a .ru address and B.) Isn't an official source of any kind