Could Russia Really Shoot Down an F-22, F-35 or B-2 Stealth Bomber in Syria?

braindrain said:

What in heck are you talking about. Where exactly did I say we are the best at everything. That's right no where. And it's not even close to how I feel. I think the F35 system in particular and the DOD procurement systems in general is a nightmare. Some of that is DODs fault. Some is because of nonsense from congress. There are many things other countries do much better then us.

I am feed up with many of those same issues as you. The difference is that I don't let those feelings close my eyes to what by all actual combat related testing is a plane that is most likely the most lethal plane in the sky.Which is rather obviously something you struggle with. The fact that you now have to resort to na,e calling just further proves that your emotions are impacting your judgment more then facts.

The F22 is not perfect and has its share of problems as all planes do and in fact due to its advanced design probably more then most planes. Doesn't change how lethal it is in the sky.

So how about you stop trying to put words in people's mouths and stick to what they actually say. It's makes for a more honest discussion.

Click to expand...

You were the one that keeps putting word's in my mouth and you were the one who started the name calling Mr. Pot calling Kettle black.

I have stated a number of times that the F22 is deadly (it is a fighter Jet after all) but that we do not know how it will stack up against other modern planes or modern missile defense.

This is a simple statement of fact.

The main point I have been making is more in relation to the purpose and process of the F22/F35 program.

What is the purpose of this plane ? To attack Russia ? ... China ? if it is for some third world country and F-15/16 is fine.

This idea that a war against Russia is winnable is a "necessary illusion" to justify a nearly half a billion dollar per plane spend. If one buys into this Hollywood fantasy this spend "might" be justified. If one does not believe this nonsense it is a complete waste of treasure and a threat to our national security.

In 2000, Total Military Spending was roughly 300 Billion. After 8 years of Bush it was 900 Billion and rose to over 1 Trillion under Obama.

Even with increasing for inflation .. had we maintained 2000 spending levels we could have diverted 500 billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars on roads, infrastructure, technology and ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium.

Instead we threw it down the toiled - feeding the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster that runs this country.

We have 19 Aircraft Carriers. Russia has one (1). What are we doing with these planes and carriers ? Starting more useless wars that do little but create more Jihadist wonderlands so that the mainstream media can use fear of these Jihadists to justify war ... to create more Jihadists.

In a war against Russia both countries get completely destroyed .... turned into red no go zones on the map for the next 30 years ... end of story.

The real war is "Economic" .. not "military" and our once massive lead is rapidly fading. This is the biggest threat to our national security. No empire has ever maintained when it's economy goes south.

After it became operational, the first time the F-22 was grounded was when a flight of about 6 ships were flying from Hawaii to Japan, and crossing the International Dateline the computers became confused. Something I suppose they never thought about in the computer programming.

The flight turned around and went back to Hawaii. I cannot remember how long it was grounded, but the issue was resolved and life went on.

Thoreau72 said:

After it became operational, the first time the F-22 was grounded was when a flight of about 6 ships were flying from Hawaii to Japan, and crossing the International Dateline the computers became confused. Something I suppose they never thought about in the computer programming.

The flight turned around and went back to Hawaii. I cannot remember how long it was grounded, but the issue was resolved and life went on.

Click to expand...

They like most other planes in the US inventory have been grounded or had flight restrictions for various periods of time during their operation. Including the F15's and F18s. Generally not because the planes could not fly, but for general safety of the pilot and plane (inspections and or repairs)

For the F22 I believe the most significant grounding/restriction involved the oxygen supply system which was for a time not functioning properly and I believe was found to be the cause of at least one crash. It is in general a very good plane, is it the best in all aspect, of course not, but as an interceptor/air superiority fighter probably the best in operation today

Lord Tammerlain said:

They like most other planes in the US inventory have been grounded or had flight restrictions for various periods of time during their operation. Including the F15's and F18s. Generally not because the planes could not fly, but for general safety of the pilot and plane (inspections and or repairs)

For the F22 I believe the most significant grounding/restriction involved the oxygen supply system which was for a time not functioning properly and I believe was found to be the cause of at least one crash. It is in general a very good plane, is it the best in all aspect, of course not, but as an interceptor/air superiority fighter probably the best in operation today

Click to expand...

Yes, the oxygen generator had issues. I suppose they've been resolved by now.

Lord Tammerlain said:

They like most other planes in the US inventory have been grounded or had flight restrictions for various periods of time during their operation. Including the F15's and F18s. Generally not because the planes could not fly, but for general safety of the pilot and plane (inspections and or repairs)

For the F22 I believe the most significant grounding/restriction involved the oxygen supply system which was for a time not functioning properly and I believe was found to be the cause of at least one crash. It is in general a very good plane, is it the best in all aspect, of course not, but as an interceptor/air superiority fighter probably the best in operation today

Click to expand...

This is exactly correct. All new planes have issues and the more advances a new plane has the more likely it will be to have teething problems. It's really just common sense

Casper said:

True, Offensive or Defensive, the question is, which is which.

Click to expand...

Neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact were as powerful as they liked to pretend and project. I doubt Soviet Air Defense systems would've been completely foolproof against a NATO airstrike and SEAD campaign, but NATO certainly doesn't run rampant.

Up until the mid-80s, the Soviets had conventional superiority that likely would've meant a Soviet victory in a non-nuclear conflict. But after that, the declining Soviet economy and widening technological gap brought NATO to the forefront.

Jredbaron96 said:

Neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact were as powerful as they liked to pretend and project. I doubt Soviet Air Defense systems would've been completely foolproof against a NATO airstrike and SEAD campaign, but NATO certainly doesn't run rampant.

Up until the mid-80s, the Soviets had conventional superiority that likely would've meant a Soviet victory in a non-nuclear conflict. But after that, the declining Soviet economy and widening technological gap brought NATO to the forefront.

Click to expand...

I doubt that. In a conventional war, I think a few old Russian tanks could drive us out of Europe now. NATO is about as useful as tits on a boar hog.

JohnPaul said:

I doubt that. In a conventional war, I think a few old Russian tanks could drive us out of Europe now. NATO is about as useful as tits on a boar hog.

Click to expand...

No, not really.

To drive us out of Europe would involve a major mobilization of Russian ground and air forces, since recent reports indicate that Russian Motor Rifle Brigades don't have the capability to sustain high intensity operations for long. Since Russia still heavily relies on rail transportation to move the bulk of their conscript-based forces, the buildup would be immense and easily detectable. An immediate response would be a full scale NATO mobilization, which would easily dwarf the Russians in manpower and resources.

To drive us out of NATO would have to involve a major strategic operation encompassing all of the Baltics, Poland and Ukraine. Because of the short supply paths and logistical requirements, the Baltics do represent a workable invasion route for the Russian ground forces, but such victories would be largely tactical and have little strategic implications.

Advancing through the Ukraine is a strategic necessity given the political affiliation of the Balkans, but in doing so the Russians would be forced to defend a rather extended front, one that would be made very vulnerable to air strikes launched from Turkey. Furthermore, the Carpathian mountains would provide a good basis from which to sustain a defensive posture that would blunt the Russian advance.

The principle Russian thrust would have to come through Poland, but that's also where the bulk of the NATO ground forces would be concentrated. Once a major buildup on the Belorussian border is detected, the Poles would be reinforced by British, French, German and American forces. Lacking the numerical superiority of the Soviet Union, the Russians would be forced to contend with a force that not only can match them man-to-man, but has far more modern fighter aircraft than the Russians.

So while the Russians might be able to score a victory in the Baltics (for the same reason America would win any war in the Carribean), the Russians don't really have a great chance at pushing us out of Europe. The logistical demands themselves are massive, not to mention facing a conventional force that would outnumber the Russians significantly.

Jredbaron96 said:

~ the Russians don't really have a great chance at pushing us out of Europe. The logistical demands themselves are massive, not to mention facing a conventional force that would outnumber the Russians significantly.

Click to expand...

When I was in service the difference in training made up for being outnumbered, I doubt this situation has changed that much. The quality of troops, equipment and planning would still make the difference in a non nuclear conflict.

Infinite Chaos said:

When I was in service the difference in training made up for being outnumbered, I doubt this situation has changed that much. The quality of troops, equipment and planning would still make the difference in a non nuclear conflict.

Click to expand...

Quality of troops will only get you so far.

Yes, one on one NATO soldiers, tanks, aircraft and helicopters were better than their Warsaw Pact counterparts.

But war isn't determined by one on one match ups. The Soviets had numerical superiority, but most importantly the Soviets had a well developed doctrine that would allow them to make full use of their numerical advantage.

The real reason behind a Soviet victory would be based primarily on the strategic situation and doctrine, not numbers and troop quality.

Jredbaron96 said:

~ were

Click to expand...

Do you feel the situation is equalised now? I see a lot of claims on pro Russian websites about the Su-35 for example and the Russians also introduced the Armata tank last year which is supposedly an advance on anything we have. Just wondering as times have drastically changed if they do have superiority at last.

Jredbaron96 said:

~ But war isn't determined by one on one match ups. The Soviets had numerical superiority, but most importantly the Soviets had a well developed doctrine that would allow them to make full use of their numerical advantage.

The real reason behind a Soviet victory would be based primarily on the strategic situation and doctrine, not numbers and troop quality.

Click to expand...

Yes but at that time, the thinking was that we would inflict heavy losses and there was the problem of them maintaining extended supply lines - however there was a recognition that while Russian tanks could push all the way to the Atlantic - the problem of maintaining, supplying and servicing those forces was pretty serious. I remember at the time that not much else in the Soviet armoury would have worried us.

Infinite Chaos said:

Do you feel the situation is equalised now? I see a lot of claims on pro Russian websites about the Su-35 for example and the Russians also introduced the Armata tank last year which is supposedly an advance on anything we have. Just wondering as times have drastically changed if they do have superiority at last.

Click to expand...

The Russians do have several very capable pieces of military equipment. Their super-sonic and hyper-sonic cruise missiles are second to none. Their air defense systems are unmatched.

But while they do field some very advanced and modern fighters and tanks, neither of them currently exist in large enough quantity to offset NATO's conventional superiority. What a lot of Russian and Putin fanboys on the internet forget is that Russia is, while not a poor country, not overwhelmingly wealthy either. Much of their economy is based on the exporting of energy, natural gas and oil in particular. Since the fall of the Soviet Union they also no longer have the sheer weight of manufacturing to support them.

The Russians certainly are capable and are not to be underestimated, but the idea that they could simply roll over half of Europe with ease is silly. The bulk of the Russian Army is still conscript based, and the bulk of their equipment is Cold War era storage.

Yes but at that time, the thinking was that we would inflict heavy losses and there was the problem of them maintaining extended supply lines - however there was a recognition that while Russian tanks could push all the way to the Atlantic - the problem of maintaining, supplying and servicing those forces was pretty serious. I remember at the time that not much else in the Soviet armoury would have worried us.

Click to expand...

Not a bad plan, but NATO counted too much on it's ability to rapidly and reliably target and counter Soviet thrusts as they developed. The Soviets sacrificed tactical flexibility for speed and shock, and with NATO putting most of it's forces close to the border with little depth, I don't see that working out too well for NATO in most situations.

Jredbaron96 said:

~Since the fall of the Soviet Union they also no longer have the sheer weight of manufacturing to support them ~

Click to expand...

Yes, manufacturing things like the Armata and Su-35 or any of their newer planes in bulk would change things drastically.

Infinite Chaos said:

Yes, manufacturing things like the Armata and Su-35 or any of their newer planes in bulk would change things drastically.

Click to expand...

If they could afford to do so. Though it's worth noting that while certainly capable and powerful war machines, neither the Armata nor the Su-35 give Russia some kind of definite edge in the modern battlefield.