• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. blocks Turkey's F-35 equipment over S-400 deal with Russia

Do you not understand how radars work?

L band is low frequency and therefore low resolution. The supposed reason you've listed that it "works" against stealth is because most stealth planes are designed to be obscured from the higher frequency X band radar systems. But your repeated insistence that L band is somehow a stealth killer is stupid.

L band radar may be able to detect it but it can't give height, and it's ability to determine direction is exceptionally limited. This has nothing to do with "post WWII upgrades" because that's the very nature of low frequency bands. More importantly L band can't target or lock on, which makes it useless for actually destroying the aircraft. You need a higher frequency radar to do that, and guess what frequencies modern stealth aircrafts are designed to beat?

It's ability to detect height is correct, however direction yes they can detect very well, this is not ww2, many nations use them for early detection systems and even in airports for aviation.

Btw s band also bypasses most stealth which was used commonly in 1950's sam systems, they simply used a single frequency of s band for distance and another radar in s band for height. Given that those systems were in the 1950's and ran on the most archaic analog computers of the day, it would be foolish to assume it has not improved since then.

But on L band it simply can not be reflected except for delta wing designs, and even then they are only partly deflected returning a weaker signal so essentially decreasing detection range. But this is not going into the numerous other bands of radars used, or the use of ir tech, or even areal distortion which the soviets discovered with the sr-71 and no one knows how far they have taken that research since the 1960's except top levels of russian intel and military.
 
Planes like the Sukhoi T-60S, Sukhoi T-4, Yak 43 and the SU35 indicate you don't know quite as much as you think they do. Russia obviously felt stealth was not a waste of time.
And no plenty of country's at trying to develop fur own stealth aircraft. China, South Korea, Great Britain Germany and of course Russia are all trying to develop thier own stealth aircraft. Proving you wrong one again. Furthermore I am not sure how you think countries wanting to buy instead of develop thier own stealth aircraft helps your claim other countries would not be trying to develop our but it if it was such a waste of time.

I think you need to read some sources other then Russian state media about that "intercept".
And just because something is the best doesn't mean it is unbeatable. There is a very real reason that when ever the F22 loses it is major news. And that's not even getting into the fact that most of those mock air battles are set to test a certain aspect and do not represent actual combat.

And finally that you are trying to use the failure of a missile as a knock against the F22 shows just how silly you are willing to get in order to try and hold on to your obvious pro Russian bias.you really should stop a you are only making yourself look all the more silly.

Of the aircraft you listed only the su-35 has any stelthish features, the rest only list drawing board designs that never went close to prototype stage. The su-35 just uses coatings to reduce signature, but never designed it as stealth since it would require a complete redesign of the flanker platform. In the end it was just reduced radar signature with a jet fully functional with no comprimises to achieve stealth. The su-57 had to comprimise to achieve stealth, for one only focusing on the front to maintain aerodynamics, as well as a reduced payload.


For the f-22 that was not just russian media, even the pentagon admitted that the f-22 was intercepted by the su-35. The only major difference in stories was over who was on what side of the euphrates. So you yourself might actually need to read on the story before you cry look at something besides russian sources, because I have and even the us govt did not deny the intercepts.


Actually my bad it was fa-18's that used the aim9x against the su-22 not an f-22. Either way though the aim9x is americas most advanced short range a2a missile and it failed badly against a ancient russian bomber. The failure was a result of only testing those missiles against american flares, which the missile is designed to bypass flares, however russians use dirty flares, meaning brightness burn time and size vary wildly between flares, which screws up their softwares ability to ignore them. This issue with the aim series had been known since the late 80's, but this raises the question if they dropped the ball that bad on the aim9x, how many other systems are doomed to fail because they were tested in ideal conditions rather than against what they know the enemy will use.
 
You'd be surprised how many would get shot down.

The A-10 was built with the purpose of whittling down columns of Soviet armor as it rolled across the West German border. Except the Soviets supplied numerous air defense systems to their tactical elements in the form SPAAGs or SHOARD systems. The Air Force knew this, which is why they built hundreds of A-10s, because they expected to lose hundreds. It was well established just a few years after the A-10 was introduced that Soviet air defense systems could blow them out of the sky.

The A-10 did fine in Iraq because Iraqi crews were notoriously poorly trained when it came to handling their equipment, and even then they managed to down a handful. The A-10 operates well in COIN ops where there's no real concentrated anti-air to shoot back, and it would be good to keep it around for those kinds of wars, but it's stupid to pretend there's no valid reason to retire it.

Especially do the missions it was designed to do which is tactical level interdiction. In fact it's mission profile for that sort of mission hasn't really changed because it would be going up against the same kinds of things it was designed to, which are IFV's, Anti Air units, Tanks, logistical train elements. To do that mission it does what its always had to do, fly between the trees. The A-10's can get deeper faster than the AH-64's can and bring more pain when they do get deep. The A-10 can do wild weasel missions with the best of them, as that was one of their missions. The A-10 is NOT obsolete by any means. A couple of flights of A-10's can decimate an amour battalion of tanks in seconds.
[/QUOTE]

This is incorrect, the a-10 was designed as a replacement to the underarmed and outdated a-1 skyraider which still performed quite well in veitnam despite being a modded ww2 fighter. The airforce needed cas replacements as discovered the f-4, f-5 and f-111 and f104 all performed horribly at the job and realized fighter aircraft did not meet the role and sought to develope a dedicated cas role. The a-7 was originally going to fill that role but costs doubled over original estimates and instead they sought a cheaper replacement.


The a-10 ended up being the replacement for the veteran a-1 skyraider. At the time of the a-10 developement fights across europe were not what they focused on, but rather the extreme need for cas roles in vietnam, and the a-1 being outdated for the role yet performing it as all other aircraft tried performed horrible.
 
Of the aircraft you listed only the su-35 has any stelthish features, the rest only list drawing board designs that never went close to prototype stage. The su-35 just uses coatings to reduce signature, but never designed it as stealth since it would require a complete redesign of the flanker platform. In the end it was just reduced radar signature with a jet fully functional with no comprimises to achieve stealth. The su-57 had to comprimise to achieve stealth, for one only focusing on the front to maintain aerodynamics, as well as a reduced payload.


For the f-22 that was not just russian media, even the pentagon admitted that the f-22 was intercepted by the su-35. The only major difference in stories was over who was on what side of the euphrates. So you yourself might actually need to read on the story before you cry look at something besides russian sources, because I have and even the us govt did not deny the intercepts.


Actually my bad it was fa-18's that used the aim9x against the su-22 not an f-22. Either way though the aim9x is americas most advanced short range a2a missile and it failed badly against a ancient russian bomber. The failure was a result of only testing those missiles against american flares, which the missile is designed to bypass flares, however russians use dirty flares, meaning brightness burn time and size vary wildly between flares, which screws up their softwares ability to ignore them. This issue with the aim series had been known since the late 80's, but this raises the question if they dropped the ball that bad on the aim9x, how many other systems are doomed to fail because they were tested in ideal conditions rather than against what they know the enemy will use.

The fact that most of those never made it to actual planes due to the Soviet union collapsing does not change the fact that it proves they were working on stealth planes on and off again since the 60s. They fact that the Soviets wasted time and money giving the SU35 stealth features proves your claim that they thought stealth a waste of time incorrect. You don't spend time or money on something you see as a waste of time. The fact that they didn't have the money to build a from the ground up stealth plane doesn't change that fact.


And no the US claims the F22s intentionally cut across the front of the Russians as part of a warning. Not very hard to intercept something that shows you where is at.

But look we get it. You think Russia is the greatest and everything they say and do is awesome. To include everything they build. And the leaders of the US military are all delusional. And yes we know you think Russia has never built a system that work less then perfectly

The real world disagrees with you
 
The fact that most of those never made it to actual planes due to the Soviet union collapsing does not change the fact that it proves they were working on stealth planes on and off again since the 60s. They fact that the Soviets wasted time and money giving the SU35 stealth features proves your claim that they thought stealth a waste of time incorrect. You don't spend time or money on something you see as a waste of time. The fact that they didn't have the money to build a from the ground up stealth plane doesn't change that fact.


And no the US claims the F22s intentionally cut across the front of the Russians as part of a warning. Not very hard to intercept something that shows you where is at.

But look we get it. You think Russia is the greatest and everything they say and do is awesome. To include everything they build. And the leaders of the US military are all delusional. And yes we know you think Russia has never built a system that work less then perfectly

The real world disagrees with you

All of them you listed were 1970's designs orr the su35 which was post soviet collapse, nice try.


The us claims they cut across a pair of su-25 frogfoots, not across an su-35, the su-35 came in from behind with one f-22 and one su-35 being unknown in location since both jets operate in pairs at smallest, and neither side could locate the other jet.


I never said russia builds the greatest anything, you must be in the mindset of someone else here who thinks anything but praising us gear as indestructable means praising soviet gear as the best. It is true the us air force command is delusional, they keep repeating the same mistakes they have made since vietnam expecting different results.

Oh you want to also know a russian system that works less tha nperfectly? The t-80 can be taken out by a single rpg due to storage location for ammo, tu-144 complete garbage when they used a bomber engineer to build a passenger jet, t-14 has some very impressive features however money is not their issue it is the fact they break down, unfortunately russia does not have the army of aamco or cottman to follow t-14 formations when their transmissions fail so they get pushed to the backburner since they can not cross a parade field without losing a transmission.

There is also the mig-23 which followed the mig 21 with the mig-21 being one of their most successful jets ever, and the mig-23 being one of their worst ever, so bad it pissed off middle eastern countries because soviet bloc nations themselves refused to use them yet they were pushing them on the middle east. There was also the mig 25 which could match the sr-71 speed but only for an extremely short distance before blowing the engines or running out of fuel, they were sometimes so bad they would go full afterburner and fall out of the sky chasing sr-71 engines because they ran out of fuel. The mig-31 is actually a good jet but they took the mig25 and unscrewed it.


What I see here is your own failure to research or understand capabilities, and anger when anyone points out flaws or deficiencies in american systems, not only do they exist they exist frequently, heck the fricken patriot system did piss poor against scud missiles, the aim9x had a hard time against ancient aircraft, the f-35 internal cannon can not hit the broadside of a barn while their external cannon can hit dead on, which means the engineers most likely did no testing of the internal cannon before release or rigged the tests, and they are now trying software to fix what was an epic engineering goof up since the same gun mounted on the wing has no issues like the internal one.
 
All of them you listed were 1970's designs orr the su35 which was post soviet collapse, nice try.


The us claims they cut across a pair of su-25 frogfoots, not across an su-35, the su-35 came in from behind with one f-22 and one su-35 being unknown in location since both jets operate in pairs at smallest, and neither side could locate the other jet.


I never said russia builds the greatest anything, you must be in the mindset of someone else here who thinks anything but praising us gear as indestructable means praising soviet gear as the best. It is true the us air force command is delusional, they keep repeating the same mistakes they have made since vietnam expecting different results.

Oh you want to also know a russian system that works less tha nperfectly? The t-80 can be taken out by a single rpg due to storage location for ammo, tu-144 complete garbage when they used a bomber engineer to build a passenger jet, t-14 has some very impressive features however money is not their issue it is the fact they break down, unfortunately russia does not have the army of aamco or cottman to follow t-14 formations when their transmissions fail so they get pushed to the backburner since they can not cross a parade field without losing a transmission.

There is also the mig-23 which followed the mig 21 with the mig-21 being one of their most successful jets ever, and the mig-23 being one of their worst ever, so bad it pissed off middle eastern countries because soviet bloc nations themselves refused to use them yet they were pushing them on the middle east. There was also the mig 25 which could match the sr-71 speed but only for an extremely short distance before blowing the engines or running out of fuel, they were sometimes so bad they would go full afterburner and fall out of the sky chasing sr-71 engines because they ran out of fuel. The mig-31 is actually a good jet but they took the mig25 and unscrewed it.


What I see here is your own failure to research or understand capabilities, and anger when anyone points out flaws or deficiencies in american systems, not only do they exist they exist frequently, heck the fricken patriot system did piss poor against scud missiles, the aim9x had a hard time against ancient aircraft, the f-35 internal cannon can not hit the broadside of a barn while their external cannon can hit dead on, which means the engineers most likely did no testing of the internal cannon before release or rigged the tests, and they are now trying software to fix what was an epic engineering goof up since the same gun mounted on the wing has no issues like the internal one.

And the B90 was a 90s era, so they worked on a couple in the 70s took a break in the 80s while the Soviet union collapsed and then started up again in the 90s and you think they didn't work on stealth on and off again since the 60s. Please


No the US claims the second F22 was in trail of the SU35. But in the end it makes little difference what each side claims add with actually knowing the full details it doesn't really mean much.

You may have never straight up assist that everything Russia is the greatest but your posting history makes your love affair with them quite obvious. And of you were right about the USAF being delusional then it's not just the US it's pretty much every other major military to include Russia which has already been pointed out to you. And I think most people would agree that the person who thinks they know more then the majority of the world's experts despite having no education or background in the topic is probably the delusional one.

It's funny you claiming others are the ones not doing research but yet you have been proven wrong over and over again in this thread. Like your claim that other countries are not developing stealth only buying it or you claim that Russia hasn't been developing stealth on and of again since the 60s. All demonstrably true.

So perhaps you must want to do a bit more research and branch out from Russian propaganda sites.
 
U.S. blocks Turkey's F-35 equipment over S-400 deal with Russia

Vice President Mike Pence recently warned that the U.S. "will not stand idly by while NATO allies purchase weapons from our adversaries."



I rarely agree with the Trump administration on anything, but I do agree here, albeit for probably differing reasons. I believe that transferring sophisticated US military technology to a nation openly embracing Moscow and Iran is just asking for trouble. I tend to believe the Trump administration here is acting principally for MIC reasons. They would much rather the Turks purchase the US Patriot anti-air system rather than Russia's S-400 system.

IMO, Turkey stopped being a bona-fide trustworthy NATO nation after Erdogan's Gülen-Putsch of 2016. More journalists are imprisoned in Turkey than anywhere else on the planet. I also haven't forgotten that Erdogan's security goons attacked protesters in the US during a May 2017 visit by Erdogan to Washington. The assault charges were quietly dropped by US prosecutors in March of 2018.

I have to agree with this, although I would argue that Turkey stopped being a reliable ally long before the failed putsch.
 
Btw s band also bypasses most stealth which was used commonly in 1950's sam systems, they simply used a single frequency of s band for distance and another radar in s band for height. Given that those systems were in the 1950's and ran on the most archaic analog computers of the day, it would be foolish to assume it has not improved since then.

No, it doesn't.

Stealth is not some magical on or off status that either works or doesn't work. Your assumption that since S band worked in the 1950s when the concept of stealth aircraft came down to flying low or flying at night, that it'll therefore work wonders against modern stealth aircraft is asinine. S band isn't good enough for a solid weapons lock.
 

This is incorrect, the a-10 was designed as a replacement to the underarmed and outdated a-1 skyraider which still performed quite well in veitnam despite being a modded ww2 fighter. The airforce needed cas replacements as discovered the f-4, f-5 and f-111 and f104 all performed horribly at the job and realized fighter aircraft did not meet the role and sought to develope a dedicated cas role. The a-7 was originally going to fill that role but costs doubled over original estimates and instead they sought a cheaper replacement.


The a-10 ended up being the replacement for the veteran a-1 skyraider. At the time of the a-10 developement fights across europe were not what they focused on, but rather the extreme need for cas roles in vietnam, and the a-1 being outdated for the role yet performing it as all other aircraft tried performed horrible.[/QUOTE]

You literally just ignored the entire point of my post to argue a completely different one.
 
But the argument was more advanced, in which germany quite well was, the us built more practical, as 100 jetfighters did no good against countless thousands of conventional prop powered aircraft, and their advances ate up too much of their recources to be an advantage.

Germany was not more advanced. German weapons design was inconsistent and often times very poor. It's surface warships were based on outdated concepts, most the Wehrmacht relied on horses for transportation. The whole idea of the German Army being a radically high tech force that just got crushed by overwhelming numbers is a stupid meme.
 
Germany was not more advanced. German weapons design was inconsistent and often times very poor. It's surface warships were based on outdated concepts, most the Wehrmacht relied on horses for transportation. The whole idea of the German Army being a radically high tech force that just got crushed by overwhelming numbers is a stupid meme.

Germany designed what was used as the base design for the mig 15, the f-86 sabre, and both nations space programs, as well as used portable nightvision before anyone else, yes they were advanced, to deny that would require being ignorant of history, their fault was formaliing their tech into a winning strategy which they did not do, much of their advanced tech came in too late and in too small a numbers to compete with practical mass produced designs.
 
This is incorrect, the a-10 was designed as a replacement to the underarmed and outdated a-1 skyraider which still performed quite well in veitnam despite being a modded ww2 fighter. The airforce needed cas replacements as discovered the f-4, f-5 and f-111 and f104 all performed horribly at the job and realized fighter aircraft did not meet the role and sought to develope a dedicated cas role. The a-7 was originally going to fill that role but costs doubled over original estimates and instead they sought a cheaper replacement.


The a-10 ended up being the replacement for the veteran a-1 skyraider. At the time of the a-10 developement fights across europe were not what they focused on, but rather the extreme need for cas roles in vietnam, and the a-1 being outdated for the role yet performing it as all other aircraft tried performed horrible.

You literally just ignored the entire point of my post to argue a completely different one.[/QUOTE]

You argued it was designed to wipe out soviet armored columns, however nothing in it;s design seems to mention such, and rather it is simply good at that, the a-10 was designed for cas which has existed in wide use since ww2 and the a-10 was built to replace the a-1 which was the primary cas in vietnam with every jet fighter tried failing badly, the military went with a ground up design to make a cheap cas jet capable of high loiter times slow and low flight and a heavy payload. The a-10 was never designed to compete with russian tank columns as cas predates that threat and the a-10 was designed to replace older cas, which is a role even to this day that is used.
 
No, it doesn't.

Stealth is not some magical on or off status that either works or doesn't work. Your assumption that since S band worked in the 1950s when the concept of stealth aircraft came down to flying low or flying at night, that it'll therefore work wonders against modern stealth aircraft is asinine. S band isn't good enough for a solid weapons lock.

To make this statement you literally must have made zero effort to research stealth, stealth in modern aircraft like the f-22 f-35 and su-57 focus on x band and the very upper spectrum of s band, anything below the very upper spectum of s band is usable to detect track and target modern stealth jets.

Older jets were far less vulnerable but used a delta wing design to do so, and their stealth made the jets so unmaneuverable they needed computers to control the aircraft due to the fact aerodynamic and stealth literally are not compatible.


Do you actually research anything you say or do you simply spout out things without thinking?
 
And the B90 was a 90s era, so they worked on a couple in the 70s took a break in the 80s while the Soviet union collapsed and then started up again in the 90s and you think they didn't work on stealth on and off again since the 60s. Please


No the US claims the second F22 was in trail of the SU35. But in the end it makes little difference what each side claims add with actually knowing the full details it doesn't really mean much.

You may have never straight up assist that everything Russia is the greatest but your posting history makes your love affair with them quite obvious. And of you were right about the USAF being delusional then it's not just the US it's pretty much every other major military to include Russia which has already been pointed out to you. And I think most people would agree that the person who thinks they know more then the majority of the world's experts despite having no education or background in the topic is probably the delusional one.

It's funny you claiming others are the ones not doing research but yet you have been proven wrong over and over again in this thread. Like your claim that other countries are not developing stealth only buying it or you claim that Russia hasn't been developing stealth on and of again since the 60s. All demonstrably true.

So perhaps you must want to do a bit more research and branch out from Russian propaganda sites.

The us may claim but likely that is a lie, unless they were already in the vicinity. Aircraft lack rear facing radar except a tiny few early model su-27 and su-34 in which russian stripped those out because they were too underpowered to be any use. The most likely scenario is neither of the assisting aircraft saw eachother, as aircraft are limited on radar, especially rear facing radar and still vulnerable to side facing radar.


Other countries have not unless you count china russia the us and iran, and russia built them with export in mind. Russia literally considered stealth to be garbage in the 1960's, even the us govt had access to their papers but never aquired them until the 1980's. Did you even not realize the father of stealth was russian from the soviet union, and that america used his open research for their stealth projects? I have researched plenty, it seems you and jed ran full retard into the thread not researching much of anything, even the simplest of research says counter to both of your claims, if you can not even bother to research basics of what you are arguing, you are not worth my time, come back when you can actually take the time to research stealth principles before opening your mouth.
 
To make this statement you literally must have made zero effort to research stealth, stealth in modern aircraft like the f-22 f-35 and su-57 focus on x band and the very upper spectrum of s band, anything below the very upper spectum of s band is usable to detect track and target modern stealth jets.

You realize the lower band you go, the less resolution, right? That's why L band is useless for targeting.
 
You argued it was designed to wipe out soviet armored columns, however nothing in it;s design seems to mention such, and rather it is simply good at that, the a-10 was designed for cas which has existed in wide use since ww2 and the a-10 was built to replace the a-1 which was the primary cas in vietnam with every jet fighter tried failing badly, the military went with a ground up design to make a cheap cas jet capable of high loiter times slow and low flight and a heavy payload. The a-10 was never designed to compete with russian tank columns as cas predates that threat and the a-10 was designed to replace older cas, which is a role even to this day that is used.

The point of that whole post was why people want to retire the A-10, not the origin of it. Pay attention next time.
 
Germany designed what was used as the base design for the mig 15, the f-86 sabre, and both nations space programs, as well as used portable nightvision before anyone else, yes they were advanced, to deny that would require being ignorant of history, their fault was formaliing their tech into a winning strategy which they did not do, much of their advanced tech came in too late and in too small a numbers to compete with practical mass produced designs.

Who built the atom bomb? What about proximity fuses? Or radar? Or SONAR? Give me a break.
 
The us may claim but likely that is a lie, unless they were already in the vicinity. Aircraft lack rear facing radar except a tiny few early model su-27 and su-34 in which russian stripped those out because they were too underpowered to be any use. The most likely scenario is neither of the assisting aircraft saw eachother, as aircraft are limited on radar, especially rear facing radar and still vulnerable to side facing radar.


Other countries have not unless you count china russia the us and iran, and russia built them with export in mind. Russia literally considered stealth to be garbage in the 1960's, even the us govt had access to their papers but never aquired them until the 1980's. Did you even not realize the father of stealth was russian from the soviet union, and that america used his open research for their stealth projects? I have researched plenty, it seems you and jed ran full retard into the thread not researching much of anything, even the simplest of research says counter to both of your claims, if you can not even bother to research basics of what you are arguing, you are not worth my time, come back when you can actually take the time to research stealth principles before opening your mouth.

Of course you would think the US is the one lying and believe Russia. How unsurprising.
You do realize that modern fighters don't just rely on their own radars. There is thing called AWACS.

You really should do some research. There are quite a few contrite working on stealth Aircraft. That you would continue to deny this removes any credibility you may have had. Sweden, South Korea, Great Britain, Germany, France, as well as Russia China and India all have ongoing stealth aircraft programs. You really should do a little more research.

Yeah the Russians thought stealth was so much garbage that they worked on stealth A/C in the 60s, 70s, 90s, the 2000s and several in the works as we speak.
And no the only ones being shown to not know what they are talking about is you.

Maybe you should stop getting all your information from Russian state propaganda sites.

Countries don't spend billions of dollars designing something they think is garbage.
 
Of course you would think the US is the one lying and believe Russia. How unsurprising.
You do realize that modern fighters don't just rely on their own radars. There is thing called AWACS.

You really should do some research. There are quite a few contrite working on stealth Aircraft. That you would continue to deny this removes any credibility you may have had. Sweden, South Korea, Great Britain, Germany, France, as well as Russia China and India all have ongoing stealth aircraft programs. You really should do a little more research.

Yeah the Russians thought stealth was so much garbage that they worked on stealth A/C in the 60s, 70s, 90s, the 2000s and several in the works as we speak.
And no the only ones being shown to not know what they are talking about is you.

Maybe you should stop getting all your information from Russian state propaganda sites.

Countries don't spend billions of dollars designing something they think is garbage.

So here is the big question, if they relied on awacs there where were they, and how do stealth systems function when relying on awacs unless they too are stealth, since an awac does not have infinite range it's immediate presence being easily detected would alert any enemy unless their radar and comms were destroyed or blocked beforehand. Also the f-35 system unlike the f-22 tries to perform the function of awacs as well, awacs give away general position but recieving aircraft are near impossible to track in terms of analog and digital signals but very easy to track from the originating aircraft. This makes me scratch my head at the f-35 mimicking awacs, as with the f-22 and an awac the general position is disclosed, making it vulnerable to air interception and telling air defenses the general direction to look, with the f-35 data sharing and collection idea, mere data sharing could easily allow them to be tracked to a precise location. There is a reason previous stealth aircraft used sensors and only recieved data and never sent any.

If I recall correctly china india america russia iran were the big ones, with russia pushing the design due to india. The other nations you mentioned have no real stealth models available and have bought into the f-35 program which is a far cry from spending billions on their own research, rather spending money on aquiring an already designed system. Fyi sweden favors the gripen while britain germany have favored the eurofighter and france has favored their rafale fighter. South korea is actually considering the su-57 for stealth among others like the f-35. Japan really had the f-35 pushed on them as they wanted the f-22 and the us blocked any export of the f-22 and it's tech.

The russians worked on it heavily in the 50's through mid 60's, outside of rcs reductions of the mig35 which is nothing different from what america did with the silent eagle f-15, all the designs you brought up never made it past the drawing board.


Well the information is abvailable all over the web through numerous souces, the mere fact you make the claim I get everything from russian state propoganda sources tells me you are already losing the argument when you use that as a rebuttal instead of actually refuting the facts presented.
 
Who built the atom bomb? What about proximity fuses? Or radar? Or SONAR? Give me a break.

The atom bomb was late war, and on the atom bomb both britain and germany were initially ahead, america outpaced britain and germanies industrial sector collapseed.

To say they were not more advanced again is a denial of history, like I said they were far ahead on much of their tech, but most of it came too little too late to turn any tide.
 
The point of that whole post was why people want to retire the A-10, not the origin of it. Pay attention next time.

I know they wish to retire it however most excuses to retire it are bs especially since the branch that wants to retire it wanted to retire it since the beginning, as well as it's predecessor the a-1. The big wigs in the airforce have no real desire to keep cas how it is, but the army wants cas to remain as it is.

One other thing to look at is the severe shortage of pilots needed not only for the us airforce but nearly every airforce worldwide, and a-10 pilots take up a number of the airforces manpower, it would not be too much a stretch to assume they want to retrain fit pilots for other areas like the f-35 instead of having to maintain pilots dedicated to cas.
 
You realize the lower band you go, the less resolution, right? That's why L band is useless for targeting.

You do know L band is below s band right? L band can guide to a direction so long as the missile has an internal guidance that can take over when close enough, but you would be correct it could not guide it directly to the target itself, atleast not without massive error. S band is the old nato designation between l band and x band, s band itself has been used in targetting systems in the past and is far more accurate the L band and can tell elevation as well as distance and direction. S band detects stealth just fine except the very upper limit which overlaps with x band, however s band has a lower range than L band.

The issue with L band is that it can be detected easily by enemy aircraft, meaning when an early detection radar is used like L band, if the opposing side is setup they can tell that band is in use long before it detects the aircraft.
 
So here is the big question, if they relied on awacs there where were they, and how do stealth systems function when relying on awacs unless they too are stealth, since an awac does not have infinite range it's immediate presence being easily detected would alert any enemy unless their radar and comms were destroyed or blocked beforehand. Also the f-35 system unlike the f-22 tries to perform the function of awacs as well, awacs give away general position but recieving aircraft are near impossible to track in terms of analog and digital signals but very easy to track from the originating aircraft. This makes me scratch my head at the f-35 mimicking awacs, as with the f-22 and an awac the general position is disclosed, making it vulnerable to air interception and telling air defenses the general direction to look, with the f-35 data sharing and collection idea, mere data sharing could easily allow them to be tracked to a precise location. There is a reason previous stealth aircraft used sensors and only recieved data and never sent any.

If I recall correctly china india america russia iran were the big ones, with russia pushing the design due to india. The other nations you mentioned have no real stealth models available and have bought into the f-35 program which is a far cry from spending billions on their own research, rather spending money on aquiring an already designed system. Fyi sweden favors the gripen while britain germany have favored the eurofighter and france has favored their rafale fighter. South korea is actually considering the su-57 for stealth among others like the f-35. Japan really had the f-35 pushed on them as they wanted the f-22 and the us blocked any export of the f-22 and it's tech.

The russians worked on it heavily in the 50's through mid 60's, outside of rcs reductions of the mig35 which is nothing different from what america did with the silent eagle f-15, all the designs you brought up never made it past the drawing board.


Well the information is abvailable all over the web through numerous souces, the mere fact you make the claim I get everything from russian state propoganda sources tells me you are already losing the argument when you use that as a rebuttal instead of actually refuting the facts presented.

The fact that you think the F22s would be working in an environment like that with out AWACS is more indications that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. They were not doing any sort of deep strike mission that would preclude the use of it and it it would not make sense to not have them up in the air. Telling the enemy that you have fighters in a couple hundred square mile ( which the AWACS has at least 400 miles) territory doing a CAP mission is not some big deal. As to the F35 working as an AWACS the intent is to have one acting as a relay to others flying silent and unnoticed. It makes perfect sense to those who actually know what they are talking about.

The problem is you don't remember correctly. Every single one of those nations is working on some type of stealth aircraft. And that is not even getting into the countries that have our are working on stealth drone programs. Including Russia. And again you pretending that somehow other countries wanting to buy stealth rather then develop it own thier own means they don't see the value in stealth is just ridiculous. If they thought stealth was a waste of time there are other options. Just like you joke argument that Japan isn't interested in stealth because they wanted the F22 over the F35. You do realize the F22 is a more stealth aircraft then the F35. Your own arguments prove you wrong. I have no idea how you don't see that.

Just like with Russia. Why did they waste money reducing the RCS of the mug 35 if they thought that stealth was a waste of time. You do understand what stealth does right. So why do you thing they are money and time working on projects like the Mikoyan Skat or the Sukhoi Okhotnik.

Again you own arguments prove you wrong and at this point it's rather obvious that you will just make ridiculous claims rather then admit that you are wrong and that the Russian military isn't the greatest at everything. It's pathetic.
 
I know they wish to retire it however most excuses to retire it are bs

No, they're not. The Air Force is completely correct in saying that they want to get rid of an old, slow aircraft that would be shredded if it went up against modern air defense systems.
 
Back
Top Bottom