F-22 and US-101 Cancelled

[echo1 0]

Nobody shoud spare on defence expenses.

Damn right! Who needs healthcare and education when we can have hundreds of fighter jets to fight an enemy that lives in the caves?

[Saint Warrior 10]

to fight an enemy that lives in the caves?

Are you sure that your enemy lives in caves?

Look what is going on in Russia - a some kind of imperialistic hysteria, escalated by ex-KGB officer Prime minister Vladimir Putin and his collegue President Dmitry Medvedev. They use their nuclear weapons as the only argument in international policy. They look like Hitler and his nazi-socialists before WW2, and events of August 2008 in Georgia were just the beginning.

U.S. must continue F-22 Raptor program and build up missile defence shileds in Eastern Europe.That is my point of view.

[Spetz 0]

Are you sure that your enemy lives in caves?

Look what is going on in Russia - a some kind of imperialistic hysteria, escalated by ex-KGB officer Prime minister Vladimir Putin and his collegue President Dmitry Medvedev. They use their nuclear weapons as the only argument in international policy. They look like Hitler and his nazi-socialists before WW2, and events of August 2008 in Georgia were just the beginning.

U.S. must continue F-22 Raptor program and build up missile defence shileds in Eastern Europe.That is my point of view.

"Oh no the Russians are Comming, the Russians are comming" You sound like a man name Joseph McCarthy, If the Russians wanted to hit us they would have done so when they were at their peak during the 1970s with Khrushchev in power or even during Brezhnev administration

The USAF have force multipliers like AWACS, that even if the Russian AESA radars are better then Raytheon made (chances of it occurring is 1%), a F-16 backed by AWACS is enough to take it down. If the airframes are old they should reopen their assembly line and start making them

[JdB 151]

Are you sure that your enemy lives in caves?

Look what is going on in Russia - a some kind of imperialistic hysteria, escalated by ex-KGB officer Prime minister Vladimir Putin and his collegue President Dmitry Medvedev. They use their nuclear weapons as the only argument in international policy. They look like Hitler and his nazi-socialists before WW2, and events of August 2008 in Georgia were just the beginning.

U.S. must continue F-22 Raptor program and build up missile defence shileds in Eastern Europe.That is my point of view.

Georgia is a bad example. It attacked first (even though it technically still was their own territory), is a tiny country (the US alone has more than double the population of Russia, and add the rest of NATO to that) and it is not a member of NATO (nor should it be as long as their current government is in charge). No matter how megalomaniac (a term more befitting Saakashvili) Putin gets, attacking NATO would mean catastrophe, regardless of what generation fighters they are facing. There is one very simple reason why the Russians wouldn't attack NATO. The answer is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). If Georgia had had nukes, Russia would have thought twice about standing up for the "Russians" on Georgia's soil in the first place (the same reason as why in the last 20 years no country has seriously attacked Israel anymore i.e.).

There is a reason why they would be using their Cold War legacy of the ICBMs, it's the only technology they have available in the foreseeable future that can slow down NATO expansion without NATO having a counter measure.

That missile shield will not stop a full Russian nuclear attack, only the odd rogue missile from a terrorist (if I were a terrorist, I would just bypass that fancy missile defense shield by taking some custom's official's family hostage, and smuggling the device in packed in a suitcase, but that's just me).

As for (the threat of) violence being the only kind of diplomatic option a country uses, the US would be one of the best examples imaginable. Every superpower will use it's muscle to get things done, that's why they are called superpowers.

[Hell_Toupee 0]

The Doppler radar in the F-15 is unlike any other I have seen - it truly excels at BVR engagements, and is generally able to provide superior information (when compared to N001). I would certainly think that the AIM-120 is a more reliable missile than the R-27.

Well i would hope so considering the r-27 is from the 80s, compare to r-77 which the 4.5gen russian planes mount.

[Saint Warrior 10]

Georgia is a bad example. It attacked first

First, Georgia did not attack first. You shoud not trust any word of Russian official statements.

That was an invasion, well planned during several months, not hours as Kremlin miitary authorities say. Initially, Georgia pushed in South Ossetia after units of Russian army had moved in that territory, aiming for protection of it's sovereignity only.

Russia meanly missaplies internationally recognized principes of multi-citizenship, they divide Russian passports to people and claim such territories as zones "of Russian strategic interest", that was the initial reason of August 2008 war.

[An-225 0]

As much as I love discussions regarding politics...lets not open the "2008 War in Georgia" can of worms...

...lets stick to the original topic of the F-22 (which is already a risque topic).

187 Raptors may just be enough to deal with the concept of the Russians invading continental USA.

I would think, that if some Raptors were distributed to Elmendorf and some to USAFE bases like Ramstein, they would be able to deal with any kind of strategic move the Russians might make in an effort to conquer the West.

Falcons and Eagles can already hold their own in the Middle East, fighting enemies hiding in caves...

[Saint Warrior 10]

187 Raptors may just be enough to deal with the concept of the Russians invading continental USA.

I would think, that if some Raptors were distributed to Elmendorf and some to USAFE bases like Ramstein, they would be able to deal with any kind of strategic move the Russians might make in an effort to conquer the West.

Falcons and Eagles can already hold their own in the Middle East, fighting enemies hiding in caves...

In case USAF has only 187 Raptors, I think it would cause some limitations on tactical deployments to areas of possible conflicts. That means, only about 20 F-22's (10 percent of the total figure) may be deployed. Nobody in strategic air command in Pentagon would risk the half of the entire fleet of these fighters.

Falcons and Eagles are good enough for dealing with enemies, that live in caves, but in serious conflict, where all kinds of military will be involved, those strikers will need real assistance delivering their packages on targets, assistance that Raptors can provide best.

[Spetz 0]

In case USAF has only 187 Raptors, I think it would cause some limitations on tactical deployments to areas of possible conflicts. That means, only about 20 F-22's (10 percent of the total figure) may be deployed. Nobody in strategic air command in Pentagon would risk the half of the entire fleet of these fighters.

Falcons and Eagles are good enough for dealing with enemies, that live in caves, but in serious conflict, where all kinds of military will be involved, those strikers will need real assistance delivering their packages on targets, assistance that Raptors can provide best.

Do you remember the first gulf war? USAF acheived total air superiority over Kuwait and was able to destroy like 1000 tanks, most of the current strength of the Russian Airforce is on par with the Iraqi force of that time, exept for su-27s, they shared pretty much the same inventory in air to air capable planes,

Anyways the chances of Russians invading US and Canada are slim to none. They don't have the Naval capabilities, they never did. When Barrack Obama came to Canada, a Tu-95 was flying near the arctic circle, the conservative Canadian PM almost shit his pants thinking the Russian were gonna nuke the US president along with him. He caused an uproar about the issue and it turns out it was a scheduled training flight in a unarmed plane. NORAD had already intercepted it before it even got to Canadian airspace. It was just a political gimmick to scare the public.

Also MAD still brings peace today as it did before,

Also for your information the US government spends 26% of its GDP and taxes 20% of its GDP there is a gap of like 6% of the GDP meaning its borrowing money from China and Russia. Currently US GDP is 13.84 Trillion, While its debt is 11trillion, so its going to grow by 6% every year,

it might have changed now look at the clock right now, its 3.87 billion a day in debt.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Edited April 13, 2009 by Spetz

[Saint Warrior 10]

Do you remember the first gulf war?

Yes, I do. But you should not expect the same one-sided game once more. Russia exports better equipment for it's potential allies like Iran or Syria, than has itself in it's military.

For example, Russian Air Force has got Su-30's. But these are completely other Su-30's than these, that are used with air forces of India or Venezuela. Export versions have Thales MFD's in cockpits, Lantirn-like targeting pods and compatible with western air-to-air equipment. Same goes with Su-35BM and Mig-35 aircraft.

One of the reasons for Israeli Air Force to purchase sophisticated F-15I Raam fighters were extensive upgrades done to Syrian military forces. Will such fighters cope with newest SU-35BM or Mig-35 fighters in case of theoretic Israeli-Iranian war? Yes they will, but this will be damn difficult.

Russia may escalate potential conflicts in it's "zones of strategic interest" by equiping forces hostile to U.S. and NATO with it's newest equipment, without spending a cent from domestic budget.

F-22's can decide the outcome of such conflicts (like F-15's in Bekaa valley in 1982) or even prevent them from occuring.

[Spetz 0]

The F-35 will be enough to deal with these threats, remember the CIA is always a head of the curve, they most likely already seen the designs and capabilities of the Jets,

The most advanced version of the SU-30, SU-30MKI was at the red flag in 08 or 07, they got access to those planes,

Also Currently there is a Military competition going on between F-16 Block 70, F/A-18 Superhornet with APG-79, Mig-35, Rafeal, Eurofighter, and Gripen for a contract for 126 airplanes in India, They are supposed to test out all planes and pick the best one, if the Mig-35 wins, then I will say that the Mig is a potential threat, currently its just a 4th generation plane with some upgrades.

[echo1 0]

You do realize that there can be an awful lot of factors that decide those contracts other than the performance of the plane?

[An-225 0]

Also MAD still brings peace today as it did beforehttp://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Does MAD even work on Victor IIIs and Akulas? They seem to be pretty stealthy out there..

[Mudkip 0]

They seem to be pretty stealthy out there..

Ummm... What's that supposed to mean? During the Cold War both sides would of had aircraft and submarines armed with nuclear weapons patrolling at any given moment. Are you saying these "Victor IIIs" and "Akulas" can somehow destroy every single US ICBM launch facility, aircraft and submarine or anything else capable of delivering a nuclear warhead at the same time without alerting the US?

[Saint Warrior 10]

I will say that the Mig is a potential threat, currently its just a 4th generation plane with some upgrades.

Selling such planes in significant numbers to hostile countries like Iran would be a real threat. Israelis will definately need F-22's then, in order to ensure their safety.

However, all russian military equipment always suffered from extremely low electronic warfare capabilities their radars and other high-tech equimpment can be quite easily jammed.

That was one of the reasons of such great U.S. and NATO victories like in both Iraq wars or Yugoslavia campaign.

[An-225 0]

No Mudkip, but they are quiet subs...with a careful captain, they could probably get very close to the USA.

Of course MAD WOULD be able to pick up these designs. But to know where to probe with MAD, you would need some kind of recognisable sonar contact?

[Mudkip 0]

You don't know what MAD is do you... I learned about it in history class like a week ago, it means Mutually Assured Destruction, basically it's when both sides are deterred from full scale nuclear warfare because it is too risky and both sides would be destroyed in the process. For example if the USSR were to launch ICBMs at the US then it would be detected and the US would retaliate and both sides would be destroyed. That is also why both sides had aircraft and submarines patrolling all the time in case one side launched an attack on all the other side's land based ICBM launch facilities, the aircraft and submarines which were armed with nuclear weapons could retaliate.

So instead of the US and the USSR having a full-scale war, they had small proxy wars in places like Korea, Malaya (now Malaysia), Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan, Latin America and elsewhere.

I think that is also why the US were so interested in developing stealth aircraft like F-117, F-22 and B-2 so they could stealthily attack the USSR?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

MAD also means Magnetic Anomaly Detection. Its commonly used by ASW Helicopters, Maritime Patrol Aircraft and "passive combined sea bed sensors" like part of the SOSUS networks.

[dm 9]

You don't know what MAD is do you... I learned about it in history class like a week ago, it means Mutually Assured Destruction, basically it's when both sides are deterred from full scale nuclear warfare because it is too risky and both sides would be destroyed in the process.

You also dont know what MAD CAN mean. ;)

MAD

[Edit] Bah, Rock beat me to it... [/Edit]

[Mudkip 0]

lol, I never knew that!

My apologies go to "CH-46" if you felt I insinuated that you were stupid.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Mudkip

[An-225 0]

I never felt that way - I thought you were questioning how stealthy a 30 year old Russian submarine can be to be honest. No harm done. ;)

I never looked at Mutually Assured Destruction as an acronym, but on closer inspection, it seems Spetz was referring to both sides launching ICBMs rather than peace being brought to the public by having Orions sweep the sea.

Edited April 14, 2009 by CH-46

[Baff1 0]

.

So instead of the US and the USSR having a full-scale war, they had small proxy wars in places like Korea, Malaya (now Malaysia), Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan, Latin America and elsewhere.

Small note on history....

The U.S. had no involvement (or intrest) in Malaya.

[Spetz 0]

Selling such planes in significant numbers to hostile countries like Iran would be a real threat. Israelis will definately need F-22's then, in order to ensure their safety.

However, all russian military equipment always suffered from extremely low electronic warfare capabilities their radars and other high-tech equimpment can be quite easily jammed.

That was one of the reasons of such great U.S. and NATO victories like in both Iraq wars or Yugoslavia campaign.

Yea thats why the SU-30MKI uses Isreali equipment on board, So the isreali have access to the Plane, see its designs and radar signitures etc.

Isreal is more likely to get F-35 then F-22, F-22 is worth the money, i admit it. But it costs too much and is risky, the entire project can become worthless if the Chinese or the Russians get a hold of the design or equipment from it. Remember the Chinese are close to Israel too, the Israelis were gonna sell a Phalcon AWACS system to the Chinese, good thing US blocked it, the Chinese are master reverse-engineers

and speaking of the Akula submarine, that would be an example of my point:

The designs for the Los Angels class submarine were taken from Drunk US admiral by a blonde KGB agent, The Russians used the designs to build the Akula class submarine, The Americans go ballistic and design the F-22 of Submarines the Sea Wolf Class submarine (specially designed to hunt and kill submarines), but the project is canceled once the USSR collapse, and the USN decide to use the F-35 of submarines the Virginia class submarine, which is a more multi-role submarine.

[NoRailgunner 0]

There is no big WWI one-on-one combat with such planes, you have to look at the whole theater of warfare. Mostly all modern equipped forces use SAM and radar/satellites surveillance. Its a bit more than (little boys) F22/F35 vs Su30MK/MiG35 comparison. ;)

[walker 0]

Hi all

In the current asymmetric warfare environment supper expensive stealth planes just do not cut it.

What does cut it are:

Well trained professional troops with adequate down time.

Intelligence and police systems. From old fashioned bobbies on the beat to NOC agents, listening devices and Spy-Sats.

Trained snipers, 3 pirates anyone?

Attack Helicopters

CAS subsonic in attack

Light 105mm and Mortars

UAVs in roles from Remote Sensing to Precision Strike

AC130 gunships

Enough trained troops to hold the ground you have won something I and others pointed out when the Iraq war began.

V-bottom armored vehicles to deflect the blast of IEDs

And most importantly of all A STRATEGY and an EXIT PLAN something Dumsfeld never had.

A realisation that soldiers win battles and politicians win wars.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 14, 2009 by walker