4c Hajduk Veljko

You are drawing wrong conclusions from the NATO use of military over Yugoslavia. Yugoslavian air defense system was numerically overwhelmed. There was economical sanctions on Yugoslavia for years before NATO use of military force, thus, maintenance and upgrade of military hardware, radars, airplanes, simply did not happen. And there was 25 (or more) countries against one. Typical street gang fight, where ten bullies get together and jump on one guy to beat him to death. This thread is not about the most powerful military alliance bombing one of the smallest nations in the world. This thread is about two sides of equal or similarly equal strength, F-22 against Su-35.

I agree 100%.

Who is saying the stealth is poor?

WOW! Yes, we need a reason ... I recommend reading "First do no harm" by associate professor of history David Gibbs. I also recommend very recently published, on MSNBC "Why we did it" by Rachel Maddow. Video is available all over the Youtube. And yes, those are the "reasons" .... Wow, again! Just one question for you about Ukraine? Do you know what the word Ukraine means in Russian and Ukrainian language? By the way, those two languages, is actual one language with two different names.

I don't see anybody sane on this forum saying that Raptor is crap. On the other side of the argument, Raptor, just like anything else must be open for criticism. And obvious lies must be exposed and open for even a ridicule. That's why more and more people watch John Stewart's Daily Show for news and Bill O`Reilly's "No spin zone" for comedy.

I remember this episode, it just happened, that I watched it live when it aired. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC is not an aviation expert, however, most of what she said in this report is factually correct.

Very interesting. I did not even know any of that. That's why I used a word "may" when I said that F-22 "may" have a better radar.

Without quoting the rest of your post, let me just say that F-22 was built as a very powerful OFFENSIVE weapon system. While for decades, Soviet Union and Russia was on DEFENSE and almost everything they built was a defensive in nature. Thus, Su-35 is built to work with powerful GCI and ground based radar jammers. therefore, I don't know how effective, relatively weak, airborne radars can be when entering a theater where opponent is using GCI an ground based jammers. And I am sure that F-22 and Su-35 will do their best to fight on its own terms. One will try to go BVR and the other one will work hard to get into EOS range. And Stalth is visible from hundreds of kilometers away by ground based radars, rihgt? Thus, defensive system with GCI, and jammers would be a real challenge to any aggressor, including F-22. Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! note: see GG's signature.

Kulbit. :)

That's all right. :) However, just take a look and you will notice that I include "Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!" only when i respond to GGTharos posts. I don't recall ever saying that, but it looks like you follow my posts very closely. Thus you are welcome to post a link so that we can all see, if I said something like that. Although I disagree with that, it is your opinion and I respect it.

No Su-35 will not turn the radar on, it will use EOS. F-22 has very advanced and powerful radar, however, when it turns it on, it says "I am here". Thus F-22 will do all it can NOT to turn its radar on, instead it relies on off/board sensors for targeting and i think, even guidance of missiles. Su-35 has 3D vectoring engines option. And I did say that F-22 has some technological edge, for sure. Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! note: see GG's signature.

You are way off the charts here. The"reminder: SAM = stealth STOP" is just a response to GG Tharos signature that goes "SAM = Speed bump". When put into a proper context, GGTharos as well as my statement about SAM's are correct. One SAM system against 10 airplanes clearly does not stand a chance, so in that case SAM is just a speed bump. Same as, with one airplane against 10 SAM systems (50 or so SAM missiles), the airplane does not stand a chance, therefore SAM = airplane STOP.

F-22 may have a better radar, but it can not turn it on against Su-35. Let us look at the engines for example, Su-35 has more advanced engines. F-22 is stealth (by shape) and Su-35 is super-maneuverable. Su-35 has more fuel capacity, thus longer range. And we can go on and on. So, contemporary or similar, it is a choice of words to describe slight differences and many similarities of these two weapon systems. F-22 has technological edge in some ares for sure. Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! note: see GG's signature.

You are right. Same as in Iraq, the ratio was at least 5 to 1 in aircraft numbers alone. Not to mention technological and pilot training gap. There was no need to get CAC because if one missile miss, somebody else will shoot another one. Eventually, with numerical and technological superiority, tactical situation becomes very favorable and, a missile will eventually hit. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the missiles are totally bad. But, if every missile would hit, they would be called hit-siles, not miss-iles. Also, here, we are talking aircraft of a similar generation and technology. One on one. Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! Note: see GG's signature.

Nice find. Interesting ...

My authority comes from the fact, that just like some other members on this forum, I know everything about military aviation. Just ask question, and you shell receive the answer! :smartass:

In the theater where there NATO had 10 times more airplanes then Yugoslavia. For every 1 Yugoslavian airplanes, there was 10 of NATO. Of course that the gun will not be used. Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! Note: see GG's signature.

F-35 does not use radar for gun solution computation. Other things you said is just plain silly.

Incredible helicopter, incredible engineering ....

Gun or cannon projectile is the only AA weapon that can not be defeated by ECM's or decoy's (chaffs or flares). There is a very good reason, right reason that F-22 has a gun. While our doctrine is for sure killing opponent at a large distance, even in 1999, F-15's launched multiple AMRAAM's per target, out of which several missed. And that was in the environment where NATO had 10 aircraft for every one Yugoslavia had. There were two AWACS flying in the theater as well, and some Yugoslavian MiG-29's flew with broken Bereyoza's and no GCI. And in the air, the ratio of aircraft in battle was even higher. Thus AMRAAM's were launched in near ideal condition, but several missed the targets, for various reasons. Thus, dogfight or close air combat is very likely scenario in the case of opponents being of near equal strength.

Neither F-35 nor F-22 will turn their radars on if they face each other. However, F-35 has EOS, therefore, it will be able to find F-22 even in environment of heavy airborne and ground based ECM's. I can not believe that F-22 does not have EOS.

Salute to all fallen in a great patriotic war against Nazi's. Happy victory day!

:) However, you might be right. Shark's cannon is used for destroying targets, everything from soft targets to armored vehicles. What is Apaches gun (what's the caliber of it) for? Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! (see GG's signature)

Interesting choice. So you would take Apache's autorotation over Black Shark six blades? Wow, I never though about that. Can you please elaborate, what kind of feature is autorotaion? I wonder if this is unique feature of Apache.

Sure. Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! (see GG's signature)