U.S.A. Foreign Policy & Defense

[mistyronin 1181]

well it's not even from russian forum it's from Australian web site but ok tell me what is your opinion or source about this aircrafts f-35 or F-22 their radar ranges missiles capabilities ?

The funny fact is that the real capabilities of the F-35 and F-22, in addition to their weapons are mainly classified (heck the F-35 hasn't even finished its development stage). But I guess you had access to classified info?

[srbknight 925]

The funny fact is that the real capabilities of the F-35 and F-22, in addition to their weapons are mainly classified (heck the F-35 hasn't even finished its development stage). But I guess you had access to classified info?

yes it's in development but Su-55 is also in develop and most of their secrets and capabilities are know we still didn't see f-35 in some action !

[Sooke 13]

well it's not even from russian forum it's from Australian web site but ok tell me what is your opinion or source about this aircrafts f-35 or F-22 their radar ranges missiles capabilities ?

I didn't say it was coming from a russian forum, I said this would most likely be popular on a russian forum.

I know nothing about F-22 or F-35 radar ranges but I know for sure the F-18E is an entirely different beast than the F-18C, just like the A-10C is a totatlly different beast than the A-10A eventhough they look exactly the same.

[mistyronin 1181]

yes it's in development but Su-55 is also in develop and most of their secrets and capabilities are know we still didn't see f-35 in some action !

So how on Earth can you compare two elements that you don't really know much about them?

[srbknight 925]

So how on Earth can you compare two elements that you don't really know much about them?

so you can explain to me for sure ?

[Degman 73]

Long-range missiles are known to be unprecise and any long-range forcing is pointless. That's why the West is using AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air) missiles which have a good chance of hitting their targets. Russian extreme-range missiles perhaps are great for C-130, galaxy and other huge planes hunting, but I doubt that modern fighters couldn't out-maneuver them. For close combat there are short-range missiles such as AIM-9 series that are capable of tracking fast fighters in maneuvers.

[srbknight 925]

I think India will not agree the have used Russian long range missiles against Pakistan F-16's during Indo-Pakistani War of 1999 also to prevent and increase more possible chances for shooting aircrafts down with GLONASS which is actually tracking aircraft missile and aircrafts from the orbit !

[Degman 73]

I think India will not agree the have used Russian long range missiles against Pakistan F-16's during Indo-Pakistani War of 1999 also to prevent and increase more possible chances for shooting aircrafts down with GLONASS which is actually tracking aircraft missile and aircrafts from the orbit !

You are talking about F-16A/B fighters, no ?

Well, GLONASS is pointless because sattelites are first to be targeted and destroyed by various anti-sattelite weapons. What you need is a good radar and precise missiles.

[srbknight 925]

You are talking about F-16A/B fighters, no ?

Well, GLONASS is pointless because sattelites are first to be targeted and destroyed by various anti-sattelite weapons. What you need is a good radar and precise missiles.

F-16A blk 25 Pak-af 19 march 1999 Kasmir province

at this moment nobody has developing anti-sattelite missiles only Russia i guess Russian rockets and engines are most advanced in the world it's the fact !

[Degman 73]

at this moment nobody has developing anti-sattelite missiles only Russia i guess Russian rockets and engines are most advanced in the world it's the fact !

You are delusional. FPDR

[srbknight 925]

You are delusional. FPDR

thank you :619::619::619:

[drebin052 323]

One thing that the War Is Boring author David Axe conveniently left out from his "report" was that the F-35 that was tested in January (AF-2) was actually still under a lot of flight restrictions at the time:

As a result of the engine failure that occurred in an F-35A in

late June, the program imposed aircraft operating limitations

(AOL) on all variants of F-35 aircraft at the flight test centers

and operational/training bases. These AOLs were:

- Maximum speed of 1.6 Mach (0.9 Mach for production

aircraft at operational/training bases),

- Maximum g-load of 3.2 g for test aircraft and 3.0 for

production aircraft,

- Maneuvers limited to half-stick roll rate and 18 degrees

angle of attack

- No rudder input, unless required for safe flight (production

aircraft restriction only)

- Note: In some circumstances during flight test (but not in

operational/training aircraft), exceedances were permitted

and testing continued, controlled by the flight test team

monitoring the aircraft, on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis

(i.e., individual aircraft are cleared for specific test points).

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/other/2014DOTEAnnualReport.pdf

The test was not an all or nothing fight but a test to see the F-35's handling qualities at certain AOA and its large control deflections. So essentially saying that the test "proved" that the F-35 can't dogfight is...absurd.

What is a chance of a missile hitting plane at ranges of 100km?

With modern/near future (russian/chinese) planes having some sorts of stealth technology and therefore reduced payload most encounters will most likely work like "get in missile range, shoot at that point on the radar, turn around to outrun/outrange the enemy missiles, repeat until bingo fuel/out of missiles".

The response form the Norwegian F-35 Project Office should suffice. Scroll down to the bottom for the english translated version and have a look from the fourth paragraph onwards:

http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/06/30/dogfight-og-f-35/

So one day they will have to engage each other in dogfight range to actually get some shit done.

Really people believed that planes will not get into dogfights in Vietnam war, which led to early versions of Phantoms lacking cannons which was a big mistake.

Different era and different tech, not to mention different doctrine of the day being involved.

Phantoms used early versions of the Sparrow which were pretty piss-poor performance wise and BVR tech was not fully fleshed out until the early '90s, and even then things like RoE prevented F-14s from using the full range of their Phoenixes for example. Besides which, the most commonly used variant will be the F-35A which will still have an internal cannon, and the B and C will accept gunpods if they need to (but its an unlikely scenario seeing as how their main mission will be air interdiction and not air superiority).

[negah 26]

That Dogfighting and F-35 article is very interesting.

It also says that digfighting still has to be taken into consideration.

Yet it compares planes from different generations, where an F-35 clearly has the advantage over F-16 in stealth technology and better sensors.

I was talking about theretical engagements between plane of similar capabilties, i.e. F-35, PAK-FA, J-20, which wouldn't have such clear advantages over each other.

As the article mentions the experience and the initial positions of planes in the combat would be the most iportant factors.

Of course an F-35 would have huge advantages over a Su-27 or Mig-29 in combat.

[srbknight 925]

That Dogfighting and F-35 article is very interesting.

It also says that digfighting still has to be taken into consideration.

Yet it compares planes from different generations, where an F-35 clearly has the advantage over F-16 in stealth technology and better sensors.

I was talking about theretical engagements between plane of similar capabilties, i.e. F-35, PAK-FA, J-20, which wouldn't have such clear advantages over each other.

As the article mentions the experience and the initial positions of planes in the combat would be the most iportant factors.

Of course an F-35 would have huge advantages over a Su-27 or Mig-29 in combat.

Russians and Chinese are focused now on sixth generation aircraft us still finishing it's expensive joint money striker !

[batto 17]

Long-range missiles are known to be unprecise and any long-range forcing is pointless. That's why the West is using AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air) missiles which have a good chance of hitting their targets. Russian extreme-range missiles perhaps are great for C-130, galaxy and other huge planes hunting, but I doubt that modern fighters couldn't out-maneuver them. For close combat there are short-range missiles such as AIM-9 series that are capable of tracking fast fighters in maneuvers.

I don't see much into technology of long-range AA missiles but why can't such missile have two stages where one is activated on close range that is capable of same maneuvers as Sidewinder or AMRAAM? What you say sounds so last century. I predict long-range carriers for multiple (3-5) short range missiles. And lasers!

[Degman 73]

Russians and Chinese are focused now on sixth generation aircraft us still finishing it's expensive joint money striker !

They haven't even finished 5th generation fighter and you claim them to have 6th generation soon ? You are super duper delusional. FPDR

What you saw was experimental aircraft that has to wait a looong time until it is combat ready. Such as sofisticated technology requires alot of time and what Russia has less and less of it - the money.

Russian military budget: around 60 billion of dollars (to be 10-20% lower in following years and on)

US military budget: around 660 billion of dollars (to be more than 700 billions in following years)

+ Other NATO countries (Germany, France, United Kingdom, etc.)

US military has like unlimited amount of money in compare to Russia and it is using it. What US military will have until 2030s will be a science fiction to Russian military. Just look at DARPA, Boston Dynamics, F-35 program, new generation missiles, early warning systems, combat awareness and observation, etc.

You are far from being in right by saying that Russia is technologicaly more advanced than the US and 'evil West'. Not even in theory. Idk how your biological impulses are hittin' you right now, but I sure as hell know that you have no idea what are you talking about.

[srbknight 925]

They haven't even finished 5th generation fighter and you claim them to have 6th generation soon ? You are super duper delusional. FPDR

What you saw was experimental aircraft that has to wait a looong time until it is combat ready. Such as sofisticated technology requires alot of time and what Russia has less and less of it - the money.

Russian military budget: around 60 billion of dollars (to be 10-20% lower in following years and on)

US military budget: around 660 billion of dollars (to be more than 700 billions in following years)

+ Other NATO countries (Germany, France, United Kingdom, etc.)

US military has like unlimited amount of money in compare to Russia and it is using it. What US military will have until 2030s will be a science fiction to Russian military. Just look at DARPA, Boston Dynamics, F-35 program, new generation missiles, early warning systems, combat awareness and observation, etc.

You are far from being in right by saying that Russia is technologicaly more advanced than the US and 'evil West'. Not even in theory. Idk how your biological impulses are hittin' you right now, but I sure as hell know that you have no idea what are you talking about.

yes i can see nonsense with this text for sure !

[Degman 73]

yes i can see nonsense with this text for sure !

Please, be specific.

[srbknight 925]

Please, be specific.

can't it's so hard to speak with someone that is strongly WITH his arguments even when they are lie !

[Degman 73]

can't it's so hard to speak with someone that is strongly WITH his arguments even when they are lie !

Well, this proves that you are a hypocrite.

[oxmox 73]

Guys if you want you can open a thread about military gear, this thread should be about foreign + defense politics. :)

[srbknight 925]

Well, this proves that you are a hypocrite.

hypocrite i will remember that !

[mistyronin 1181]

(BBC) US Army 'to cut 40,000 troops by the end of 2017'

The US Army is to reduce the size of its force by 40,000 soldiers over the next two years, according to US media.

The cost-cutting exercise will also see an additional 17,000 civilian employees cut from the army.

The plan, which could be officially announced later this week, would see the US troop level drop to about 450,000 soldiers by the end of 2017.

Nearly 10,000 US troops still remain in Afghanistan after plans for a gradual withdrawal were delayed until 2016.

In Iraq, there are about 3,500 military personnel helping Iraqi forces take on the Islamic State (IS) group.

There are also US troops being used to train Syrian rebels against IS, but it was revealed on Tuesday that only 60 Syrians are in training.

[oxmox 73]

Russia and China pose largest security threats, says US military report

America’s new military strategy singles out states like China and Russia as aggressive and threatening to US security interests,

while warning of growing technological challenges and worsening global stability.

‘Low but growing’ chance of war with major power, report says

Iran and North Korea also pose ‘serious security concerns’

A somber report released Wednesday by General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, warns of a “low but growing†probability of the US fighting a war with a major power, with “immense†consequences.

Russia has “repeatedly demonstrated that it does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and it is willing to use force to achieve its goalsâ€, the 2015 National Military Strategy says.

“Russia’s military actions are undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces.†The 2011 report spoke little of Russia.

And the report expresses concern about states developing advanced technological capabilities that are causing the US military to lose its edge in that field.

In addition to China and Russia, the paper also includes Iran and North Korea – highlighting their nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities – in a list of countries that pose “serious security concerns†to America and its allies.

“China’s actions are adding tension to the Asia-Pacific region,†the document states, in reference to China’s land reclamation efforts to build islands in the contested South China sea to boost its military and civilian presence.

America’s enormous military has an annual budget of about $600bn, dwarfing that of any other country.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/russia-china-us-mlitary-national-security

Others have interests aswell and maybe more decent diplomacy is needed instead of turning often parts of the world into chaos by themselve......:rolleyes:

Edited July 8, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

Well until last year the focus was on the Pacific Pivot, but after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and their aggressive movements in Eastern Europe, the US had to also increase a bit their troops in Europe, in order to show support for their allies.