Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

like this happen where info was going to be leaked in order to reverse some bad publicity of 2004.

Corrosion what info leacked ?

This private video ,which for Col Fornof's bad luck was uploaded in internet by some Deaelaian brother , is no more no less than an IMMENSE PILE OF COMICAL INVENTIONS, clear?

The poor Col. Fornof had literally overturned completely the events and the results of Red Flag 2008 only to please its auditory of ex American pilots (moreover adding a ridiculous amount of gross technical mistakes) knowing that it was a private meeting and believing that never its words would have came outside this room
What is the most ironic thing is that in the same instants Col. Fornof was literally inventing this piece of comical theatre closed among four walls in front of its Daedalian friends, the IAF pilots and officials was celebrating openly in front of all public media theirs umpteenth superior performance of theirs aircrafty and crew aganist USAF (like you can see also from the video i have posted).

Corrosion the only thing absurd here is that in 2012 .....2 0 1 2.....after that the factual reality was exposed (representing practically the exact opposite of the comical raving of our "Youtube Terry" at this meeting of the Daedalians ) someone still have the face to cite it without feel ashamed !!

There could be agreement between Russian and India, that IAF don't expose radar capabilities to western air forces. So if radars are off, then also IFF is off, so Indian flankers have had to do visual recognition against USAF.

This is not about India protecting the Russians... I doubt there are many Russian flankers with the sort of radar fitted to the Su-30MKI so I doubt it would be an issue anyway.

I rather think the Indians are afraid that their secrets might make their way to the US ally Pakistan...

Very simply these exercises are interesting and are not meaningless, but give an indication of the relative merits of the aircraft and the pilots how you separate that out is a real problem of course but I would think a combination of competent pilots and superior aircraft would explain the results.

If it came to real combat the US would do its best to hit Indian fighter planes while they were on the ground... especially in 5 years or so when they are coming up against a combination of Rafales and Flankers and with FFGAs on the way...

I would like to point out about the turn rates... they depend on airspeed and the effective angles of the control surfaces. So at x speed a particular aircraft can turn at y degrees per second max. If it tries to turn faster than that the control surface that is deflected to make it turn will stall and its turn rate will actually decrease because that control surface is not longer creating a turning force on the aircraft... it is just generating drag.

That is why the tail surfaces of the R-77 are the way they are. That lattice design is far more efficient than a triangle fin and will not stall till it has turned to a much greater angles... this means that the R-77 has very good turning ability over a wider range of speeds.

With thrust vectoring all that goes out the window because the aircraft no longer relies on control surfaces to turn and using the thrust of the engines to turn means the opposite of conventional control surfaces. With a conventional control surface it acts by deflecting the air flowing over it, so the faster the air is moving the more effect the control surface will have... so the faster you are flying the more authority the conventional surface has on the direction the aircraft flys. Obviously that doesn't mean the faster you fly the harder you can turn because there are structural limits on the aircraft, but it does mean that manouverability is reduced at lower airspeeds and if you get into a spin with the air not flowing over the control surfaces... you have lost control.

With thrust vectoring you can manouver while falling backwards and most importantly you can point the nose of the aircraft (and therefore also the weapons and sensors) at will.

Thrust vectoring is a huge advantage in a dog fight.

Private Video in a public setting?

Are you serious , say to me Victor7 what you believe it was ? Let me guess ....a debriefing of Red Flag 2008 ? Or a survey with the pilots involved ?

Sorry for you for the abrupt reawakening, but it was no more no less than a PRIVATE MEETING OF THE "DAEDALIANS" , a small BROTHERSHIP of retired American pilot
That is the motivation for all this ridiculous piece of comical theatre

Don't say to me that you have truly believed till today, in 2012 ...2 0 1 2....!!! that this was a debriefing ,of any sort, of Red Falg 2008 or ,worse, that USAF had even performed well against the IAF's SU-30MKI !!!

Outside this room of the Daedalians the USAF's F-15 was literally obliterated in the 1 vs 1 engagement by the indian SU-30MKIs with a score of score of 21:1 .... Twenty-one to One !!.. in favour of the IAF Flanker.
I repeat ,enjoy what was happening in 2008 ,outside the four walls of this Daedalian's room ,in the same instants that Fornof was reinventing completely the event of Red Flag 2008 to please its private auditory.





Yesterday you posted a false analysis of F-16 vs Mig-29 ,clearly full of laughable factual mistakes and claims out of this world, by part of a mental sick poster of F-16.net and today you have reproposed a well known infamous video representing ,by itself, one of the most dark stain to the USAFs' professionalism and completely debunked more than four years ago !!

Not preecisely a good week beginning, isn't victor7 ?

USAF professionalism..............worry more about their professionalism in the air not on the ground. I think in air they are ready to spit any adersary's bones out..........in a hurry.

I hope for them that theirs average Air Force official ,to the contrary of that in question, would be at least aware of what engines and radars are equiped in enemy aircraft, otherwise them will be condemned for ever at assault ,(moreover in big coalitions and at costs simply ridiculously high) only third world opponents completely uncapable to defend themselves.

Those soundly blows received by IAF could be even useful for them , at least for remember to them what would happen in reality confronting an advanced opponent with trained pilots, proficient opertators and equipped with advanced weaponry.

I think Indians might be fielding a decent air force in 2-3 years.

I would suggest they already have a decent air force and it will only get better.

Even an upgraded Mig-21 can be useful if you recognise its limitations and use it the right way...

One place I read that according to general view in USAF, the Rafaels are the third best plane out there behind F22, F35.

I personally think the Typhoon will probably be better than the Rafale in air to air, though not by a large amount, but in close combat neither have thrust vectoring...

Rafael's Stealth factor? May be Indians have reserved these to deal with Pakistan, while Flankers and Fulcrums are dealing with China.

Unless those Rafales are going to be operating with their gun only the stealth factor is largely imaginary when external weapon loads are carried...

I would suggest that the Chinese S-300 SAMs would require stealth rather more than anything Pakistan operates...

The article from flight global says Mig-21s can be bought for $100K. At that price with $2M upgrades, one can have a fighter as capable as middle of the block F16s. Countries like Syria, Egypt, Iran etc. should seriously think on these lines.

Well China already offers the JF-17 which is a highly modified Mig-21 that is heavily updated which would be a useful relatively cheap aircraft, but I personally think spending a little more money to get something a little more sophisticated would be worth the extra money.

Otherwise the real best option would be to take the pilot and cockpit out of a Mig-29, take off the vertical tail and horizontal tail surfaces and increase the wing size and increase the number of weapon pylons, and fit thrust vector engines to make it flyable. Reshape the fuselage to make it much deeper so the bottom of the aircraft is flat between the engine nacelles and put the intakes together with s shaped intakes hiding the engines from the front.

You end up with perhaps a subsonic only aircraft that can carry 10 BVR AAMs and has a decent radar and IRST system that is a UCAV and as LO as any Euro canard. Because there are no humans on board it can be redesigned to pull 15gs which should allow it to out turn most other manned aircraft in the sky as well as many missile types too.

USAF might end up with at most couple dozen losses but in 2-3-4 weeks it will be total air superiority and from there on same usual stuff.

If those countries learned lessons from Serbia who lasted more than 8 weeks and had to be forced to the table politically...

BTW mildly offensive that you consider China and India to be third world countries, and second of all on their home turf I would expect the USAF would get whipped and they know it and so they would not even try a full scale invasion.

on the list including 11 Aircraft Carriers that project US power all around the world.

That is rubbish for a start... to get all 11 carrier groups within striking range of Russia would make those carrier groups VERY vulnerable to being sunk. Activating all 11 carrier groups wont happen either because of the 11 carriers only about 5-6 will be operational at any one time... the rest will be in training or in overhaul.

Q: Which is the Second Largest and Powerful Air Force in the World after USAF?
A: It is the US Navy

What is the only Air Force that can be sunk? The US Navy Air Force.

Hope you get the idea now!

Air power is over rated by the US.

The strategic bombing campaign by the west during WWII killed more Germans than the Soviets killed, but the Soviets were killing the German soldiers... their bestest and their brightest, while western strategic bombing was killing women and children and old people...

What use are F-35s and F-22s in Afghanistan? Or indeed in Iraq?

Might be wrong but RCS of Rafeal is .01 and Typhoon is .001.

A clean Rafale or Typhoon might get down to 1m if it is very lucky. Put external weapons and external fuel tanks and its RCS will go to 2-5m depending on the load.

Less than 1m RCS requires internal weapons and a from scratch stealth design... the PAK FA and F-22 and F-35 will be in the 0.5-0.1m RCS range if we are talking average and not peak... and peak is meaningless.

Am really SICK of China stealing and copying technologies all around. Vrs Russia, they do it openly.

If you are behind you can take a leap forward by copying, but you need to develop a culture that just uses copying as a means to learn the fundamentals so you can grow and design your own based on your own talent.

Everyone copies, but most are copying themselves... ie building on the achievements of their predecessors.

if Russia gets into war with US, all AC's of USN will have to be sunk.

US carrier goups in the south atlantic are no threat to Russia and don't need to be sunk...

Right now US is playing nice guys pretty much.

Against countries like Afghanistan and Iraq their uber expensive F-35s and F-22s would offer no performance advantage over the legasy aircraft they actually used that cost a fraction of the new more expensive aircraft.

In fact the legasy aircraft could probably carry much heavier payloads over greater distances.

Of course a US attack on Iran could easily result in Iran giving away MANPADS and ATGMs over its borders with Afghanistan and Iraq and the result will be suddenly very painful for US forces in both countries as helicopter transport is preferred in both countries to evade IEDs. Hundreds or thousands of MANPADS cannot be stopped by air power, and will make helicopter transport impossible so the two alternatives is trucks... which would be vulnerable to IED attack and ATGM attack, and the other option... to leave.

So a small chance to slightly damage Iran will result in total loss in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus most likely the Iranian government will realise there is no chance the IAEA will let it continue with nuclear civilian power development so it will need to go it alone... and if it is going it alone it might as well start developing nuclear weapons so it can defend itself... In other words it will make things much worse for the US.

If the US had supported the Vietnamese against the French colonial rule then the North would likely never have had to turn to the Soviet Union for help. If the US had supported Castro throwing out the American Mob and the white european land owners that owned all the sugar cane fields and kept the local cubans as plantation workers and butlers/slaves, then he would not have needed to turn to the Soviet Union for help. Castro was a Nationalist who wanted to move the cuban people away from slavery to their colonial masters and into positions of power.

If the US had helped him there would never have been a communist cuba.

There are plenty of countries in central and south and even north america where the natives are called indians who are generally poor and looked down upon by the generally white colonial powers generally from Europe... spanish, portugues, and even french and british.

Hugo Chavez is not a communist, but his nationalist ideas that native Venezuelans should get more benefit from the oil under the ground there, so that the majority of poor natives can get the benefits that would otherwise go to the already rich landowners who already have power and money. Th CIA didn't try to overthrow Chavez because he is a communist, they tried to overthrow him because their best friends are the white rich people of european descent that colonised the region and are busy pinching all its resources.

Regarding the bombings during WWII the reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets for the nukes was because they had no military value and had been left largely untouched by bombers. They selected them because there was a maximum number of innocent civilians to kill, rather than any military purpose.

It should be kept in mind that unlike Dresden, in both Japanese cities there was little understanding about radiation and as soon as the war ended the US military swooped in and investigated the effects of their handiwork because a good understanding of what happens in a nuclear attack on a populated area and the subsequent deaths is useful for their future planning for future nuclear wars. After the attacks about three times the number killed in the initial blasts died from exposure to radiation in each case, so in both cases we are talking about more Japanese civilians being killed than American forces killed in the whole war.

Typhoon doesn't have an RCS anywhere near .001, clean or loaded. Neither does Rafale.

Those are fantasies based on marketing and propoganda. I doubt they are even true from a very limited angle and radar spectrum.

If either aircraft managed that level of stealth with minor changes at the design stage then there would be little point in building dedicated stealth aircraft that cost 2-3 times more.

Lets say if USAF attacks India (Indian airspace). I would assume IAF can throw about 400 air defence fighters at USAF. Can USAF throw 1600(5x) fighters at IAF in Indian airspace. First question is where those 1600 fighters come from. You wont be sending almost entire USAF to fight on other side of globe. So it is much complex, nor do I think there will be a fire fight between USA and India anytime soon.

And this is critical because if the US can't get land bases for the attack (I doubt Pakistan would offer up bases because that would drag them directly into the conflict and could lead to Indian preemptive strikes on their airfields) then you can remove the F-22 and the F-35 from the equation and the combat will be between Indian Rafales and Su-30MKIs and upgraded Mig-29s and M2Ks which are all very capable and potent aircraft against F-18s... now the F-18 is a good aircraft but it doesn't outrange the Su-30MKI so the US carriers would need to be close enough to their targets for their Hornets to reach them and that will put those ship within Brahmos range.... Losing a few planes is one thing but imagine a dedicated air, surface and subsurface attack on a US carrier group that leads to ships sunk? That is a bit different from losing a few planes don't you agree?

The difference is vrs zombi Third World nations under sanctions, USAF usually comes out with nearly negligible losses. Vrs other Third World nations like India, China, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan etc. etc. USAF might end up with at most couple dozen losses but in 2-3-4 weeks it will be total air superiority and from there on same usual stuff.

You live completely disconneted from reality ,do you know that ?
Third World opponents : China or India ?


...might end up with at most couple dozen losses ?

Against Iraq (clear ?... I r a q ...) NATO coalition aircraft losses was of almost 40 aircraft (38 for precision), and here we talk of a nation with an antediluvian IAD -Kari- (moreover designed for repel attack by at maximum 60-70 aircraft contemporaneously from East and West of Iraq atacked by the NATO from the South thanks to the airbases offered by Saudi Arabia) composed entirely of SAM system from 15 to 30 years old moreover of downgraded export models.
Do you want to talk of Saddam's Air Forces with its.....8 long range bombers ( export Tu-16s and H-6s moreover uncapable to employ any type of long range stand off missiles ) or its ....29 MiG-29 ,always of the older "monkey model" type of which omly 18 operable . Must continue ?

The sad reality is that if Iraq would have been not a strong opponent ,but even only a middly powerful opponent ,an Air Campaign would have been impossible even only to prepare.
NATO Coalition for mount its attack against...Iraq....was forced to ask to Saudi Arabia the permission to employ its seaport and airfields for transfer all the Ground Forces and Air Forces equipment and from there launch its attack (a logistical operation more than 6 months long !!). [b]All this equipment would have been totally lost, even before the basic readiness and operability would have been established ,in a matter of hours ,if Iraq would be equipped with any type of advanced weaponry ground or air based ,which obviously, to the exact contrary of NATO Forces, would have been already present and ready in the theatre of operation.